Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Smitty-48]

The main reason the Russians would not attack Finland, is that there's nothing in Finland worth attacking. It's not a threat to them, and it's a frozen wasteland full of trees and not much else, which the Russians already have more than enough of. The cost of Russia attacking an EU member state would be enormous, just in political, economic and financial terms, and there's simply nothing in Finland worth paying that cost to the Russians.

[Smitty-48]

If the Russians are going to war, there's nothing in mainland Scandinavia worth their time and effort, they're all about the Near Abroad, and the critical fronts are the Black Sea and Caspian, the Baltic is a concern, but only if NATO threatens Kaliningrad, and if that happens, Finland would be the least of their worries, in the event of a confrontation with NATO, keeping Finland and Sweden in the neutral camp would be paramount, so attacking there wouldn't be in their interests.

[Smitty-48]

And if Finland and Sweden were to join with NATO and allow some sort of military build up there?

The Russians would be drawing down with the nukes if it came to that, so how many tanks were in Finland would be moot.

NATO/NNMA direct war with the Russians can only really happen at the very low end of the spectrum, or the very high end of the spectrum.

It's either down at the silk glove/covert/deniable/special warfare level, or it escalates all the way to the brink of a nuclear exchange, there's not going to be any major tank battles in between, World War Two ain't happening again, in the age of the hydrogen bomb.

The threat of the Anglo-American nuclear deterrent is de facto, it doesn't matter what Anglo-America says that its policy is, if the Russians are going to a shooting war beyond the Near Abroad, they must assume that the Anglo-American nuclear deterrent could come in at any time.

Thus, as soon as they are at the threshold of said war, they must confront the Anglo-American nuclear deterrent, and they can only do so at sea, which means as soon as it escalated beyond the very low end of the spectrum, it cuts straight to global strategic confrontation on the high seas backed by hydrogen bombs, any way you slice it.

Any war in the face of the Anglo-American nuclear deterrent, is strategic by default, the Russian strategic arm of decision is the nuclear submarine, so if they're coming across the trace, that's how they'll be coming.

[Hastur]

During the cold war, there was always a discussion what would happen if the Soviets tried to invade Sweden through Finland. The Finns would jokingly tell us the Red Army would get through them but when they came to Sweden they wouldn't be mechanized anymore. I don't know.

The current Russian army is a different beast altogether. Their biggest asset seems to be being totally unrestricted. Think what the US armed forces could do if their political leadership, media, and public opinion just shrugged and said do whatever it takes like the Russians.

[Smitty-48]

The current Russian army is a different beast altogether. Their biggest asset seems to be being totally unrestricted. Think what the US armed forces could do if their political leadership, media, and public opinion just shrugged and said do whatever it takes like the Russians.

Dropped more tonnage of bombs on North Vietnam than in all of World War Two combined, used chemical weapons which even ended up killing their own troops, scattered millions of anti personnel mines, and even resorted to outright liquidation of whole communities, men women and children, killed three million Vietnamese, fought the war for ten thousand days.

Sent packing with their tails between their legs.

Unrestrained firepower is so overrated, war is a contest of human will, not explosives.

[Smitty-48]

Frankly, "do whatever it takes" is the tell tale sign of a force which is strategically bankrupt, the military holy grail is a coup de main, just going apeshit and wasting people for its own sake, is not only strategically counterproductive, it generally just causes more friction and turns into a quagmire with no exit strategy.

The whole point of warfare is to achieve a decisive strategic resolution on favourable terms, nothing has so undermined that in military history, than the strategic bankruptcy of just pounding away with hammer and tong totally unrestrained.

To wit, "do whatever it takes" is just another way of saying "we don't have a fucking clue what to do here"

[Hastur]

Frankly, "do whatever it takes" is the tell tale sign of a force which is strategically bankrupt, the military holy grail is a coup de main, just going apeshit and wasting people for its own sake, is not only strategically counterproductive, it generally just causes more friction and turns into a quagmire with no exit strategy.

The whole point of warfare is to achieve and decisive strategic resolution on favourable terms, nothing has so undermined that in military history, than the strategic bankruptcy of just pounding away with hammer and tong totally unrestrained.

To wit, "do whatever it takes" is just another way of saying "we don't have a fucking clue what to do here".

Well, I didn't mean they can just go overboard with violence. They know how to fight wars. I just meant they have free hands.

[Smitty-48]

Frankly, "do whatever it takes" is the tell tale sign of a force which is strategically bankrupt, the military holy grail is a coup de main, just going apeshit and wasting people for its own sake, is not only strategically counterproductive, it generally just causes more friction and turns into a quagmire with no exit strategy.

The whole point of warfare is to achieve and decisive strategic resolution on favourable terms, nothing has so undermined that in military history, than the strategic bankruptcy of just pounding away with hammer and tong totally unrestrained.

To wit, "do whatever it takes" is just another way of saying "we don't have a fucking clue what to do here".

Well, I didn't mean they can just go overboard with violence. They know how to fight wars. I just meant they have free hands.

They had a free hand in the Cold War, pretty sure they lost, how'd the restrained Americans do?

Who won the Second World War? The Russians, or the Americans?

How'd the Russians do in the First World War? Whoops, that didn't go so well.

What are these wars the Russians were supposedly so great at fighting? Name one where they came out on top strategically.

Near as I can tell, the great Russians "victory", was getting surprise attacked when they should have seen it coming, and after suffering twenty million dead and the country reduced to rubble, they picked up Poland and East Germany, while Americans took the rest of the world, and the Russians were still stuck in the impoverished Soviet Union with Joey Stalin. Not much of a win really.

[Hastur]

Frankly, "do whatever it takes" is the tell tale sign of a force which is strategically bankrupt, the military holy grail is a coup de main, just going apeshit and wasting people for its own sake, is not only strategically counterproductive, it generally just causes more friction and turns into a quagmire with no exit strategy.

The whole point of warfare is to achieve and decisive strategic resolution on favourable terms, nothing has so undermined that in military history, than the strategic bankruptcy of just pounding away with hammer and tong totally unrestrained.

To wit, "do whatever it takes" is just another way of saying "we don't have a fucking clue what to do here".

Well, I didn't mean they can just go overboard with violence. They know how to fight wars. I just meant they have free hands.

They had a free hand in the Cold War, pretty sure they lost, how'd the restrained Americans do?

Who won the Second World War? The Russians, or the Americans?

How'd the Russians do in the First World War? Whoops, that didn't go so well.

What are these wars the Russians were supposedly so great at fighting? Name one where they came out on top strategically?

I'm talking about the current Russians. Thinking of actions like Chechnia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea. It's perhaps small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Personally, I prefer when the Russians are busy on their southern border. I just don't want them to win too much. Not even to be able to pretend they are winning even if they are in reality just picking up more problems with their petty imperialistic pretentions. Bullies who think they have something to prove are dangerous. I hope they can feel content for a while after mopping up the last rebels in Syria.

[Smitty-48]

Well, I didn't mean they can just go overboard with violence. They know how to fight wars. I just meant they have free hands.

They had a free hand in the Cold War, pretty sure they lost, how'd the restrained Americans do?

Who won the Second World War? The Russians, or the Americans?

How'd the Russians do in the First World War? Whoops, that didn't go so well.

What are these wars the Russians were supposedly so great at fighting? Name one where they came out on top strategically?

I'm talking about the current Russians. Thinking of actions like Chechnia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea.

Chechnya they got their asses totally handed to them, and then they basically bribed some Chechens to run the place for them, I don't actually buy that the Russians are in charge there frankly, Abkhazia and South Ossetia was actually kind of a fiasco, and in Crimea they faced no resistance, so not exactly Bonaparte n' shit up in here.