NATO's 2% goal

[Fife]

Indeed, comrade Citizen, taxes are voluntary -- the meager price we pay to live in a civilized and manageable economy.

[heydaralon]

A citizen is a citizen.

A citizen is a citizen. Then why are you importing in an actual army of jihadi rapists who sexually assault and maim, and murder your citizens on a daily basis, to say nothing of economic hardships they put your citizens through? I have read dozens of reliable sources that say that jihadi refugee army is more competently organized and armed than the Danish armed forces. You guys are toast. Its gonna be like the 40's all over again. Enjoy your new masters. Do you think the ISIS soldiers in Denmark have union reps?

[Smitty-48]

I think the Russians are appropriately risk averse, but push has simply not come to shove, declining to launch an all out war against Ukraine because it is not necessary, and incapable of launching because they are a paper tiger, is not the same thing.

The Russians could drive the Ukrainians back to the Dnepr at least, just with airpower alone, could take Moldova and Odessa too, and the Baltics, and the South Caucuses, it's simply not worth the cost at this juncture, because the Siloviki in the Kremlim are not threatened, as nobody is trying to overthrow them.

They've fixed a lot since Georgia, and contrary to "shit shoved in", even with all the problems they had in Georgia, they still rolled over Georgia like it was a speed bump, which is why Powell told the Georgians to sue for peace before the Russian tanks rolled into Tblisi

And the nuclear weapons are an exponential force multiplier to the conventional, because it very much limits what you can do to them if they do roll, you don't have a bomb them into the stone age option, NATO will be the ones who were risk averse if Ivan makes his move.

Ivan is not gonna make his move until he has nothing to lose, but that will make him the most dangerous of all.

Yeah, I agree. Paper tiger was a bit of an exaggeration. But the way Russia is portrayed today, as a power comparable to the Soviet Union, is pretty much a lie. And it's an expensive lie.
They could take a non-NATO aligned Baltics, but there's very little for them to gain there, so there's really no reason to do so. They have more obtainable goals in Eastern Europe anyway.

What they did after Georgia, also seems to have passed most western politician's minds. The reforms after 2008 have been largely successful, and can explain a lot of the reasons why Russia didn't go all out against Ukraine in 2014. By reducing a lot of the conscription, and gradually turning their armed forces into a smaller, and more professional force, they've managed to cut costs considerably. They had to do this, or else their economy would be even further down the gutter than it is today. The reforms are still ongoing though, but the tendency have been to move away from a lot of the Soviet methodology, and move towards a new doctrine, more suited to Russia's limited conventional force projection.
Georgia did more than anything else, show the Russians that they had to change the way they organized their armed forces. The Georgians never really stood a chance, but they almost managed to inflict enough casualties in the Russians near those tunnels that it could have internal political consequences.

BTW, glad you're posting again.

If the regime is imperiled, lets say the Americans were to kick them out of the international banking system for example, which is a big stick America is holding over their heads, then it would be go time, but unless and until somebody is actually imperiling the rule of Czar Putin, the Russians simply hold their military as a last resort weapon.

None the less, if it came to that, they could do a lot of damage, although as you say, they are not the Soviets, and most importantly, they don't have the same objectives, Russia doesn't want the Soviets world socialist revolution, Russia just wants its empire back, or as much of it as it can get back by whatever means available.

With 10,000 thermonuclear weapons, 2,000 or so on hair trigger alert, Russia trying to take its empire back incites cold war, not as big as the Cold War perhaps, but none the less a very big war, if/when Russia is backs against a wall.

Also I think Putin would react very aggressively if the regime in Belarus is imperiled, at which point things move right up to the start line on the Suwalki Gap

[Smitty-48]

People keep saying why would the Russians want the Baltic States?

They don't, but if push comes to shove, they would take them as leverage.

Would that be World War Three on the spot?

Probably not, but it would be one heck of a crisis which could then escalate laterally out of control.

Not to mention, you can have a limited theater thermonuclear war in Europe without having WWIII.

In 1983, you couldn't have, but now, you could.

[heydaralon]

People keep saying why would the Russians want the Baltic States?

They don't, but if push comes to shove, they would take them as leverage.

Would that be World War Three on the spot?

Probably not, but it would be one heck of a crisis which could then escalate laterally out of control.

Not to mention, you can have a limited theater thermonuclear war in Europe without having WWIII.

In 1983, you couldn't have, but now, you could.

Would there be a way to let Russia and Europe nuke one another and the US to just stay out and let it happen? I think that might actually work out pretty well for us tbh. You would see an evil Empire (the EU) and an authoritarian dictator destroy one another, and America would then only have to worry about China. Sounds like a win win for America to me. Not much in Europe that's any good right now, except some neat artwork and architecture.

[Smitty-48]

People keep saying why would the Russians want the Baltic States?

They don't, but if push comes to shove, they would take them as leverage.

Would that be World War Three on the spot?

Probably not, but it would be one heck of a crisis which could then escalate laterally out of control.

Not to mention, you can have a limited theater thermonuclear war in Europe without having WWIII.

In 1983, you couldn't have, but now, you could.

Would there be a way to let Russia and Europe nuke one another and the US to just stay out and let it happen?

That is in fact the most likely scenario, America simply keeps its options open, the Russians simply decline to commit suicide; by avoiding a direct attack against the CONUS.

[Smitty-48]

This was actually the Soviet plan as well, the Soviets plan was to use nuclear weapons, except on Britain, France and America, on the assumption that none of Britain, France nor America, would incite a global thermonuclear exchange, just to save West Germany.

[Smitty-48]

And as I say, I did not believe the NATO narrative that the Soviets were going to incite the French neutron bombs unto their tank formations by trying to take France directly. Once West Germany was taken, the Soviets would have stopped at the French border, then incited a Communist Revolution in Paris, which would then invite the Soviets in.

If the Soviets could take the Rhine before the Americans could reinforce, the war was already won by then.

[Smitty-48]

That being said, by the 1970's, I would submit, the Soviets no longer believed they could take the Rhine before the Americans reinforced, so the Soviets changed tacks, they switched from land war to sea war, and instead of investing in tanks they invested in espionage and associated massive improvements to their nuclear submarines.

[Otern]

Now that you're here Smitty, what's the current role of Canada when it comes to ICBM defense of the US? Just seems like you guys have been a little more sensible than us Norwegians, and stayed out of it, for the most part. But is that about to change now?