Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict thread

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I was talking about WWII, we had to fight across most of that continent by the time we actually got involved.

And are you saying that Russia doesn’t have the logistics to expand into more countries right now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. The USA fought from Normandy and Southern France into Germany. That is not across most of Europe. If anything, the Russians fought the greatest land distances in the war. You said we fought almost all of Europe, that's a subtle distinction.

2. Appeasement happened in the Spanish Civil War, Seizure of Austria and destruction of Czechoslovakia. France and the UK did nothing in those crisis to deter Hitler. The USA had no troops in Europe, nor the available troops in Europe, nor the ability to move such troops which we didn't have anyway at that time, nor any request from the Europeans for a massive army to fight Hitler. Thus, our consenting to appeasement was unavoidable. We did see the threat and start a massive build up to defend ourselves. The suggestion that we should have started that earlier to invade Europe or land troops there proactively was never going to happen.

3. Russia could probably act against the Baltic Countries or places like Georgia and they have against parts of the Ukraine. They do not have the forces or structures or economic resources to do a 1980's style invasion of Europe proper. To cross into the Nato countries or major neutrals like Finland or Sweden and then further in the older Nato countries like Germany or France is far beyond them.

Such a great war would be a large economic strain and has to be backed by the people. I doubt that support exists in Russia.

[blues]

Don't forget Italy, Glenn, among other locations our military fought in Europe.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I knew that and was going to say that. DUH! It was in my mind. Thanks for the correction. We did get stuck about half way up the boot. It diverted German forces but wasn't the main blow that took them out. Churchill wanted that soft underbelly strategy but we wanted to go to the throat through France. That was it and along with the Russians.

There is a great debate in military history that idiot leaders think they can win by shock and awe, decisive battles, etc. and forget the long term horror of attrition when you fight another set of great powers or even a determined small power. The Germans blew that in both WWI and WWII. To the point, a modern conquest of Europe by the existing Russian state would be a total flop and lead to the fourth Russian Revolution - 1905, WWI, Fall of the USSR in the late 80's, 90's, being the first three.

[TiroFijo]

Russia cannot conquer western Europe... at least not without destroying themselves.

But they eagerly want some of the USSR empire back, and given their complex semi-landlocked geography, lack of all year ports, pipelines on friendly ground, etc. some of these "border skirmishes" are indeed vital for their long term survival and prosperity.

They see a perpetual worldwide plot led by USA and UK to keep them down.

[Wake27]

1. The USA fought from Normandy and Southern France into Germany. That is not across most of Europe. If anything, the Russians fought the greatest land distances in the war. You said we fought almost all of Europe, that's a subtle distinction.

2. Appeasement happened in the Spanish Civil War, Seizure of Austria and destruction of Czechoslovakia. France and the UK did nothing in those crisis to deter Hitler. The USA had no troops in Europe, nor the available troops in Europe, nor the ability to move such troops which we didn't have anyway at that time, nor any request from the Europeans for a massive army to fight Hitler. Thus, our consenting to appeasement was unavoidable. We did see the threat and start a massive build up to defend ourselves. The suggestion that we should have started that earlier to invade Europe or land troops there proactively was never going to happen.

3. Russia could probably act against the Baltic Countries or places like Georgia and they have against parts of the Ukraine. They do not have the forces or structures or economic resources to do a 1980's style invasion of Europe proper. To cross into the Nato countries or major neutrals like Finland or Sweden and then further in the older Nato countries like Germany or France is far beyond them.

Such a great war would be a large economic strain and has to be backed by the people. I doubt that support exists in Russia.

Along with Italy, my use of we was in the collective sense - the allies. Probably could’ve clarified that but still, the point is that by the time the US really got rolling, Europe was known as fortress eruopa for a reason. The most basic reason for having military installations all over the world now is to prevent that. The last several decades of that precedent and all of the training scenarios, diplomacy, and everything else that has gone into that has been to counter Russia’s expansion. I’m not sure where your certainty of their military ability comes from but they are part of the Great Power Competition for a reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dog Guy]

See https://blog.usni.org/posts/2020/09/...h-turkeys-itch for a good discussion of what Turkey is up to and why, and some background on the current conflict. Lots to wade through and numerous links to chase.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The current force levels of Russia are pretty well known as are the basic principles of launching a major attack and holding the territory. They are not the USSR of the 80's.

[Wake27]

The current force levels of Russia are pretty well known as are the basic principles of launching a major attack and holding the territory. They are not the USSR of the 80's.

Oh ok well then I’ll let my intel guys know they’re wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ed L]

The current force levels of Russia are pretty well known as are the basic principles of launching a major attack and holding the territory. They are not the USSR of the 80's.

True, but we are not the NATO of the 1980s. Forces of NATO countries have dropped drastically.

[VT1032]

True, but we are not the NATO of the 1980s. Forces of NATO countries have dropped drastically.

Facts. The largest economy in europe currently fields a ground army of around 60,000, and they aren't unusual in that regard. The euros stopped seriously funding defense a long time ago and it would seem ukraine was a rude awakening for many of them. Taken as a whole though, the combined EU militaries would pretty clearly outmatch the Russians. The question is whether the euros could play nice, unify leadership and integrate enough to fight as a cohesive force.

That said, I don't seriously think the Russians are currently in a spot to make a run on the fulda gap. They'd get about as far as Poland before they got their peepee slapped good, but I don't think they're dumb enough to try that. They've developed some really nice toys lately but they don't have the money to field them in any large scale numbers currently. There are some areas they could give us real trouble (ie. artillery, the vast majority of their tube and mlrs systems outrange ours) but overall I think currently the most they would try to bite off is limited interventions like in syria or meddling in neighboring countries a la ukraine. One thing I'll give them credit for is they seem to be using their recent combat experience very well to fine tune their military for a real fight and work the bugs out.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk