So NATO is adding 4 battalions to Eastern Europe.
1 Germany, 1 UK, 1 USA and 1 Unknown.
Can anyone explain to me what the fuck this is supposed to do? You seriously don't think 4 battalions is going to stop Russia do you?
>>30264082
Basically it's going to add 4 more battalions to Eastern Europe.
>>30264082
>Can anyone explain to me what the fuck this is supposed to do?
Keep Russia from dicking with the host countries like they have been in Ukraine unless it is willing to get its shit pushed in. Those 4 battalions are in addition to whats already there.
>>30264136
dickface
Politics. Bullshit attempt to maintain semblance of relevance and symbolic gesture to reassure peripheral members in your commitments without investing any actual resources.
>1 German battalion
Isn't that like their whole military?
It's more symbolic than anything else - basically a veiled threat to the Russians that if they want to start something there's a good chance they'll have to fight for it, which Putin really really doesn't want to do if he can help it.
>>30264429
A battalion is a pretty significant investment for the UK and Germany.
>>30264493
Russians have just formed 3 new divisions along the western border.
http://www.euronews.com/2016/05/04/russia-boosts-western-border-defence-with-new-divisions/
>>30264588
You got to look at the quality of the troops as well NATO > Russia
>>30264619
yeah
>>30264640
THE NUMBERS MASON, WHAT DO THEY MEAN?!
Also
>Eastern district
Who will the US send?
A ranger battalion maybe?
>>30264661
For fighting on the plains? Not a chance.
Mechanised Infantry.
>>30264640
I can't imagine those 100,000+ man exercises being run well at all.
>>30264675
Oh, right. Mech infantry seems logical.
Do you really think things could heat up there? Man, I have Russian family and couldn't imagine fighting my blood.
>>30264082
how fast could NATO get to the Kremlin if they launched a surprise attack?
>>30264640
Wow, can you imagine that it's easier to run an exercise in your own back yard?
>>30264640
I'm re-reading "Red Storm Rising" just in case.
>>30264684
It's Russia, a nation known historically for it's military competence and efficiency
>>30264706
How fast does a cruise missile or a B1 bomber fly?
>>30264703
Nah, it's not very likely that anything will happen anytime some. I wouldn't worry about it.
>>30264732
could a B1 fly to the Kremlin uncontested?
>>30264732
>cruise missile
>B1
I think you mean a Minuteman.
>>30264720
Japan was also known for not having lost a single war.
>>30264661
That is a good question, it already has an Armor BCT in Poland on rotation, an Infantry BCT in Italy and Stryker BCT in Germany plus prepositioned equipment.
>>30264588
Are they going to be undersized like other units?
>>30264709
>norway
>UK
>US
>not NATO back yards
i thought NATO had better force projection as it anyways ;^)
>>30264789
>Are they going to be undersized like other units?
define undersized
>>30264082
Poland could probably stop russia cold.
>>30264719
When you get to the land war portions, remember to add in even more effective and intense Russian fires as well as more Russian jamming disrupting NATO.
>>30264805
Compare your penis to a normal sized one
One US battalion is probably equivalent in skill and firepower to a Russian division.
>>30264868
TOPKEK WRECKED
>>30264868
will namefag ever recover?
>>30264136
lel
It's just so Obama and the rest of the cucks in Europe can say they're not being weak on Putin.
It's a token defense, and we all know how much modern liberals love tokens.
>>30264653
for one, a glaring gap in scale, magnitude, cohesion, mobility and speed of deployement
russia moves 100k servicemen with tanks and artillery over 1,500km in a matter of days. nato can barely amass 5k people two rivers across its hq in brussels
russia maintains ability to conduct large combined arms offensives with every branch of the military present on the battlefield. nato holds small incoherent pr shows in small separated formations - an armored platoon in norway, a paratrooper company in romania
one side actively contemplates the prospect of a major war within next few years. the other phlegmatically expects nothing but local skirmishes and asymmetrical games.
it's safe to assume that someone here has clear perspective on what's going to happen and prepares accordingly while someone else is too overwhelmed with bloated arrogance and complacency to have a place in the future. generals are always preparing for the last war is all i'm sayin'
>>30264936
Don't we have a battalion-based Army now?
>>30264709
One would think it would be easier for a group of nations to orchestrate larger exercises than those conducted by a single nation.
>>30265645
Committees suck at getting things done efficiently and in timely fashion.
>>30264868
oh SNAP
>>30264703
I feel you as well, I have Armenian family and the last thing I need is killing my own kinsman while supporting the Turks.
>>30264703
>Man, I have Russian family and couldn't imagine fighting my blood.
Good thing not everybody is as ethnocentric and unpatriotic as you are.
>>30264868
i dont see what 9 inches has to do with your argument anon, maybe ill ask your mother when she gets out of the bathroom
>>30266014
Are you German or 16 because that's some shit banter m8
>>30265304
Brigade based
BCT
>>30266063
Calling sombodys banter weak is even weaker counter banter
>>30264172
this, plus if anything happens to any of them because of Russians trying to pull some vatnik bullshit its just a reason to justify glassing Moscow
>>30266356
weak bantz tbqh
>>30264653
It means that ruskies don't sweep parking lots and wash rocks all day.
What ever happened to Ukraine?
>>30267606
Minsk agreement
>>30264082
>Stopping Russia
Everybody knows they're just memeing, like everything that involves more than two or three nations. Same for the Russians with their border movements.
>>30264476
>Isn't that like their whole military?
Nah it's pretty sizable, just very low quality.
>>30264082
Russians will outlast NATO. They play the long game. The war between them and NATO will never be a hot one so they will use demographics, deception & subversion to destroy it. It's already happening. They will help destroy Turkey, a NATO member, by helping Kurds. On the other end, UK, USA, Germany & France have already committed suicide by demography so they will play both sides, ally themselves with far-right parties (whites) and just demolish everything and pick up the pieces. Russians have allied themselves with FN in France, with Orban's party in Hungary, with German far-right parties and so on. We've seen some of this deception at work in Crimea when they outsmarted US who tried to take over that huge naval base there.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-in-syria-russia-s-rustbucket-military-delivers-a-hi-tech-shock-to-west-and-israel-a6842711.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/25/russia-flirts-with-far-right-parties/29099107/
Once NATO is out of the picture, they'll have to deal with China. And I'm sure they have something planned for them as well.
They truly are the masters of deception and subversion and they have lots of high-IQ people who are constantly scheming and thinking long-term. And that makes them a scary and dangerous opponent.
>>30264619
Russia will have a lot more heavy armor though so it cancels out.
>>30267842
>The USSR will outlast NATO. They play the long game.
>>30267842
>any of those parties
>far right
TOP KEK maybe by socialist yurope standards I guess.
>>30267889
EU's falling apart already. Once BREXIT happens, EU will be on its death throes. And once banks start going under (like Deutsche Bank which is close to becoming illiquid), it will all be over quickly.
Trump is already telling the NATO to start paying their own defense bills. EU has been bale to run welfare states by outsourcing defense to US and by not paying for anything. Now the party's over.
Make no mistake, NATO's days are numbered. Some of it is from self-inflicted wounds and some it it is from Russian deceptions.
>>30267835
>Germans
>low quality
They may not be the best front line fighters, but their armor seems pretty good.
>>30268081
>They may not be the best front line fighters, but their armor seems pretty good.
Sure their military production's top tier, they make great toys. But they've got absolutely no military experience after WW2, other than NATO token deployment. I'd never think of relying on them as an army.
Not to say that they can't get good if needs be, it's not like they're held back by their tech, budget or demography.
>EU has been bale to run welfare states by outsourcing defense to US and by not paying for anything
Feels good to be French.
Honestly can't wait for all the non-countries to be wiped off the map and for history to take back its normal course.
>>30268072
>EU
Diversionary tactics already? Not that you image gave you away or anything.
>>30268291
>Feels good to be French.
France is an exception. They've been doing their part. Rest of the NATO, not so much.
>Honestly can't wait for all the non-countries to be wiped off the
The end is nigh. You won't have to wait long.
>>30268430
>Poland
Poland's a fucking joke. All they do is suck on Obongo's BBC.
>>30268479
>Poland's a fucking joke. All they do is suck on Obongo's BBC.
They've got circumstances. Germany and especially Russia scared the existential crap out of them, they can't see themselves surviving without some form of Western support. Which frankly isn't historically inaccurate, it's been like that since Napoléon.
>>30268479
>yfw Russia would be forced to nuke Poland because it couldn't defeat it in a conventional war
>>30268557
>delusions
go back to cleaning toilets.
>>30268548
they're doomed to being just a buffer zone.
>>30268581
>they're doomed to being just a buffer zone.
Doesn't work that way if they are not directly under Russia's boot.
>>30268621
Russia has no need to conquer Poland. They have too many issues as it is. Their goal is to destabilize whole of EU. And it's working... like I explained above.
>>30268662
You're over-estimating Russia's reach. The EU's destabilized because it's built on sand and the countries within it have a serious set of problems to deal with, and that requires sovereignty. Russia giving a slight push on the back here and there won't really affect the underlying trend. Their purpose is just to get into the could graces of the people that might get into power next.
>>30268662
Changing topics yet again? Lets talk about Russia's issues.
>>30264783
USA used cheats.
>>30268757
>MUH VATNIK MEME
their economy is shit you dumb polack trash. they'd gain nothing occupying all you low IQ retards.
old fucks who think they are still in the cold war, while our countries burn under mass immigration/cultural marxism.
>>30268479
They only do that shit because they are getting hundreds of billions of dollars in handouts
Poland would say fuck off to the rest of europe in an instant if that money ended
>>30267842
You know Russia is a small country with a tiny economy? They aren't doing anything.
The ONLY thing is that they provide some loans to these "far right" parties which the communists in the EU refuse to.
>>30265298
Yeah. Can't maintain presence in Syria cost broke lol. Only managed to bully Georgia because Georgians are even stupider than Russians. Even then managed to get a few sukhois shot down. Stop believing anything RT publishes. About the only thing remaining from the USSR that Chickenproof Russia is still good at is lying.
>>30265995
>Phil
>calling someone else ethnocentric
![canadians-south-park[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hvM70MN.jpg "canadians-south-park[1].jpg")
>>30267942
>applying America's political standards to the world like they're the normal ones
I got news for you, eh.
You guys are fucked, on both sides of the aisle. And that's without forgetting that Europe actually has the occasional fist-fight happen between members of its various governments.
It's why I laugh when I see Americans come in to /k/anada threads and tell us that the Tories need to push even harder to the Right if they want to make a comeback.
>>30264936
What a pathetic chest thumping. There's no guarantee of air superiority, much less the air supremacy in a war against Russia. Without the air support, how long would a battalion or an entire US birgade hold up under sustained MLRS bombardment? While simultaneously being swarmed by UAVs? While being subjected to intensive electronic jamming attack? No skill or training would be of any worth when you're dying enmass without even seeing Ivan. And all of that just preceeds actual assault with armor and personnel. A tactical level confrontation with Russia suggests profoundly different environment to the experience of whole generation of US/NATO armies.
>>30264429
Also if American soldiers get killed in Europe, US will have a lot better reason to act. It's a strategy.
>>30264790
>implying anyone but the US contributes anything meaningful
>>30270276
If American soldiers get killed in Europe, the US will collapse from internal disorder
>>30270276
So what, you think American presence works as some kind of symbolic deterrence? Should the military expedience warrant it whole Estonia will be glassed by BM-30s overnight precisely because of 2000 US marines stationed in there.
>>30270352
Yep, just look at pearl harbor, and the us capitulation that followed.
>>30270358
Conversely, if they glass Estonia the russians can kiss their navy goodbye, as they have no real counter to US attack subs and total US naval supremacy
>>30264684
That's the whole point of the exercises.
>>30270352
The Imperial Japanese high command just called, they want their officer back.
>>30267842
China's not a huge bother for Russia in any sort of threatening sense. They're blocked off from china by a massive range of mountains that nobody lives in.
This thread is bad.
>>30270515
Thanks fuccboi, your contribution made it better.
>>30264082
Why are we in a constant dick waving contest with Russia? The Soviet Union fell. Sure they're assholes but they're not a threat to world stability anymore. Israel is!
>>30270550
Russia constantly fucks with sovereign nations.
>>30270550
>Why are we in a constant dick waving contest with Russia
If Pentagon doesn't get to dick wave against anyone it will lose it's purpose to exist and spiral into an alcoholic depression.
>>30270565
So does China though. And Israel. And US. I think Russia is more of a convenient opponent, as it has neither corporate power nor political platform whitewashing it, while still being a serious military power.
>>30270578
China is currently getting fucked with, along with russia.
Isreal is a us ally, and only really fucks with Palestine, and thats not a one way street.
US cant really fuck with itself.
Thus, china and russia gets fucked with.
>>30270417
Do tell what counter americans CBGs have against supersonic sea-skimming AShMs. Naval supremacy my ass, not even Iranians take your fleet of LGBT activists seriously anymore.
>>30270725
>Do tell what counter americans CBGs have against supersonic sea-skimming AShMs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Missile
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
Wew lad.
>>30270358
>So what, you think American presence works as some kind of symbolic deterrence
It kinda is. Nobody wants glassing.
>>30270417
Their navy can just stay in their territorial waters and nearby, so that it has support of land forces and airbases all the way to the Western Europe 'cause Kaliningrad.
>>30270725
> what counter americans CBGs have against supersonic sea-skimming AShMs
For starters, US CAN intercept singular supersonics. It's a mass launch that can give them a headache. And then they have a counter of having fucktons of ships. Even if supersonic AShMs will prove effective Russian navy is still ungodly outnumbered, with is why Russians are not planning any naval action way overseas.
> not even Iranians take your fleet of LGBT activists seriously anymore
youtried.jpg
>>30270761
Yes, they most assuredly would stay in the "green" waters, but the USN can still outmatch landbased russian airforces.
Just because you are near land does not mean you got your entire countrys airforce at your disposal.
Furthermore, the underwater US forces outmatch russian counterparts in both quality and number.
>>30270761
>It kinda is
More specifically - it's so that any military interference with Estonia (like a blockade) becomes an engagement not just with a NATO member (which can be ignored if the situation allows for it), but also directly with the US forces, which instantly escalates it a few levels higher. Washington can allow however many Baltics to get fucked, buth this way it becomes about OUR DUDES.
>>30270787
>Yes, they most assuredly would stay in the "green" waters, but the USN can still outmatch landbased russian airforces.
Not significantly enough to allow total domination. That would only end in both Russian VVS and USN going out of the commission, which is an overall win for Russians.
>Just because you are near land does not mean you got your entire countrys airforce at your disposal
And US can't concentrate their entire navy in Europe as well without suffering across the globe either.
>>30264082
>what the fuck this is supposed to do
Tripwire.
Russia can't invade without having to kill burgers meaning that the US will fuck russias ass to atoms.
>>30270793
>Not significantly enough to allow total domination.
I disagree, with the absolute disparity in submarine forces, and number of actual surface combatants.
>And US can't concentrate their entire navy in Europe as well without suffering across the globe either.
The US has shown time and time again that it will delegate the number of flattops needed to overwhelm the opponent in question.
If you need 5 CVNs to crush russian navy, thats how many the USN will put in the game.
>>30270798
Exactly.
>The US has shown time and time again that it will delegate the number of flattops needed to overwhelm the opponent in question.
Russia is not exactly Iraq though.
>>30270817
Yes, it is not. Do you know how many flatops and gators we put into iraq the first time around?
>>30270832
I think it was six strike groups, no?
>>30266014
>namefag is underage
WHO'DA THUNK IT
>>30264082
It's not going to stop Russia, but it means that Russian troops are going to be fighting Western NATO troops, meaning that the Western politicians are likely going to stay in the war. Further, they give time to allow for other forces to prepare and then head east. NATO's forty-thousand reaction troops, for example, not to mention the three American brigades that will be in Europe.
>>30270845
3 CVNs and 2 Gators day one. A fourth CVN joined the fun, sailing from the red sea, a week or so later.
I ask you, could russian naval assets survive what the us threw at iraq, even with land based assets?
They would be VERY hard pressed.
What happens if the US doubled their CVNs and gators? Russian naval forces would not stand a chance, and america could conceivablely do it.
If that means the SCS and the med gets a tico instead of a CVN for 3 months, so be it.
>>30270866
>I ask you, could russian naval assets survive what the us threw at iraq, even with land based assets?
I doubt that they would survive, ofc. I also doubt that those USN forces would survive either, which means that US's entire power projection ability goes out the window. Which in the end makes the conflict a net loss for both US and RF, which is the reasons it still hasn't happened.
>>30270874
>I also doubt that those USN forces would survive either,
I dont see how the russian armed forces could wipe out every CVN faced against them, even with nukes.
They could get a few, no doubt, but then boomers would make short work of their relevent mil targets in the area.
Then, off to the peace table we will most likely go, or off to the zone.
>>30270882
>I dont see how the russian armed forces could wipe out every CVN faced against them
Missiles. Lots and lots and lots and lots of supersonic missiles from naval and land launchers. They need to hit only a flattop and only once or twice to make the entire strike group a non-issue for quite awhile.
> even with nukes
With nukes they could do it ridiculously easier, but that would mean a nuclear escalation. RF land forces would be the next ones to get glassed.
> but then boomers would make short work of their relevent mil targets in the area
That's a complete Doomsday escalation, as it means direct nuclear attacks on Russian territory, and will be responded with a full-scale nuclear exchange. At which point there is no more US and RF to fight.
>>30267842
Rofl that greek party symbol looks exactly like the symbol of a thinly veiled nazi party in a near future game/movie what were they thinking
>>30270882
You seem to have hard time understanding the US has no means of securing air superiority over Russia in any conceivable future.
>>30270925
I can see how people can push quantity and claim quality advantage - there are solid arguments for those. But they often seem to imagine that those mean "USN forces fuck up the entirety of VVS before they take off with 0 losses".
>>30270900
I actually just had something pop up, and cant discuss further for a few hours. Ill be back. Basically, the ranges invovled will negate alot of the AShMs, the USN has tons of interceptors, and your wrong about the nuclear esculation process.
I will be back.
>>30270925
See above.
>>30270949
> the ranges invovled will negate alot of the AShMs
You're automatically claiming the circumstance advantage for the US. Which may easily not be the case. Very easily - since remaining outside of Russian missile range would require USN not entering Baltic sea at all. Kaliningrad and Russian territorial waters around it are a thing, you know.
>USN has tons of interceptors
Believing that the are enough is a serious gamble.
> and your wrong about the nuclear esculation process
>"US can nuke RF territory and expect no retaliation"
Nope.
>I will be back.
K. Will try to keep the thread aflot.
>>30270817
>Russia is not exactly Iraq though
Iraq is in better condition desu
>>30271002
I want /pol/ to stay in /pol. Is it too much to ask for?
>>30271006
>/pol/
>not total putin fuccbois
>>30271002
>>30271006
yep, iraqs economy is actually growing
>>30271024
>>30271027
That's what I'm talking about. It's /k/. We talk weapons here. If you want to discuss political platforms or make economic predictions go make a thread on the shitboard.
>>30270565
no
Russia is responding to the US fucking with their neighboring countries
>>30271120
Russia, US, China, Saudi Arabia and literally every other relevant nation all constantly fuck up the rest of the world by turning it into a scene for their powerplay. Nobody's clean there.
>>30269579
All the Eurocowards literally don't matter as long as the US still commits to collective defense.
>>30271120
>Russia is responding to the US fucking with their neighboring countries
Is that the new vatnikspeak for russia meddling with the internal politics of their neighbors?
The U.S never forced NATO on anyone, NATO was welcomed with open arms since russia can't be trusted at all.
If russia truly wanted NATO away from their border they would only have to release pressure on their neighbors for a decade or so and NATO would collapse due to internal bickering and nationalism.
As long as russia continues to act like a ghetto nigger, NATO will thrive.
>>30271120
If you are a minor country near Russia, and you see Russia openly supporting a separatist civil war, do you.
> cede you territory to Russia prematurely to avoid Russian tourists
> do nothing and have a civil war that you will lose
> Join NATO and fall under the umbrella of collective defense?
>>30271308
>The U.S never forced NATO on anyone
The and anti-Soviet uprising in Romania in 1989, pro-NATO coup in Kiev were both openly supported by US. I don't see how this is different to Russia supporting the pro-Russian reactionaries.
One could also remember stuff like Bay of Pigs, but alright it was long time ago.
>If russia truly wanted NATO away from their border they would only have to release pressure on their neighbors for a decade or so and NATO would collapse due to internal bickering and nationalism
They did exactly that in 90s. As the result NATO only expanded.
One could also argue that if NATO was aimed at peace it would accept Russia, as both USSR and RF appealed for membership. But both were denied.
>If you are a minor country near Russia, and you see Russia openly supporting a separatist civil war, do you.
> Join NATO and fall under the umbrella of collective defense?
Third option is LITERALLY impossible, as NATO charter prohibits accepting members with ongoing wars or territorial disputes.
>>30264429
Do you know how large a battalion is? Each itself is a significant addition to Europe's defense.
>>30271308
>If russia truly wanted NATO away from their border they would only have to release pressure on their neighbors
Unbelievable retard. First wave of NATO expansion followed immediately after the start of bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. The next enlargement coincided with first color revolution in Ukraine. Even people in charge of anti-USSR containment policy said it was retarded to expand eastwards. Endorsing Chechen terrorists, financing and arming Georgian regime, as if the alliance hasn't indicated its intentions regarding Russia clear enough when it declined Russia's membership in 2000.
>>30271358
>anti-Soviet uprising in Romania in 1989, pro-NATO coup in Kiev
Supporting popular uprising against russian overlords, to help the people throw off the shackles of russian opression is not a bad thing. Besides, Ukraine is not even in NATO. Try again.
>They did exactly that in 90s
What russia did in the 90s was to collapse like a vatnik whose legs got rotted away by krokodil. Smaller nations made the wise decision to join NATO before russia got back up again. Those who did not hop on the bus in time like Georgia and Moldova saw russia fund separatists and steal parts of their land piecemeal.
>>30271599
>Supporting popular uprising against russian overlords, to help the people throw off the shackles of russian opression is not a bad thing
"Here are our Pure Noble Freedom-Fighters lead by a Wise leader of the People, fighting the Good Fight against the Mad Dictator's Evil Regime and His Terrorist Hordes! The Ministry of Truth approves this message"
>What russia did in the 90s was to collapse like a vatnik whose legs got rotted away by krokodil.
And? Your argument was that Russia weakening it's presence in the region would stop NATO expansion. Historic precedent proves that it is false.
>>30271562
>declined Russia's membership in 2000
Nigger what?
Under the Clinton administration it was debate if and how NATO could accept russia but Moscow shut those talks down right quick.
Russians has never ever wanted to be part of NATO.
>>30271625
Back in the cold war it actually tried.
>>30271654
>USSR tried to join NATO in the cold war
i am in awe of your brass balls, anon. If you do not get verbally raped, count yourself lucky.
>>30271625
USSR appealed for membership once, and RF - twice. All appeals were shut down, and for a reason - that would create a major conflict of interests within the alliance, plus the corporate lobby would never allow it, as Russian presence on NATO military equipment market would hurt those as hell.
It's not about US imperialism knowing no bounds or RF acting like a ghetto nigger. Sad truth is - Russians want to protect their interests, Americans want to secure theirs, and more often than not those interests require straight out opposite events taking place.
Whoever proceeds to push the "Other side is retarded idiots fucking up the world peace that we try to secure" is a brainwashed shill, who can't even love and respect his homeland without acknowledging it's shortcomings .
>>30271623
>"Here are our Pure Noble Freedom-Fighters lead by a Wise leader of the People, fighting the Good Fight against the Mad Dictator's Evil Regime and His Terrorist Hordes! The Ministry of Truth approves this message"
Yes, it was the people of Romania earnest wish to live under the boot of russia and the Ukrainians was ever so happy being ruled by a russian sockpuppet!
Dear and Great Leader Putin even said so himself so it MUST be true!
>Your argument was that Russia weakening it's presence in the region
No, a strong russia showing goodwill is what I'm after. Weaker nations like the baltics knew exactly that the friendly russia of the 90s and early 2000 was only forced by russia being broke as fuck. They knew that as soon as russia got back up again imperialism was to follow. They where right of course.
A russia with a strong economy and friendly demeanor would help so much towards stabilizing the eastern Europe which would eventually lead to people asking themselves why they put up with drunk american servicemen raping local girls.
>>30270437
East Siberia is slowly filling with Chinks
it won't be too long and they might get Crimea'd
Outer Manchuria is historical Chinese clay
>>30271654
>Back in the cold war it actually tried
Source plz. Genuinely curious about this quite outlandish claim.
In any case it was russia who declined in the Clinton era, after the alleged cold war request.
>>30271669
Well, it was floated back in 1954. Obviously it didn't work out.
>>30271716
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-join-nato-march-1954
I thought it was pretty funny.
>>30271688
>Yes, it was the people of Romania earnest wish to live under the boot of russia and the Ukrainians was ever so happy being ruled by a russian sockpuppet!
I argue that both sides are full of shit and are using other nations as their playground, not that Russia has any sort of moral high ground.
>No, a strong russia showing goodwill is what I'm after.
And strong US showing goodwill is what we're after. You go first, we'll follow your example. Pinky promise!
>was only forced by russia being broke as fuck
And Russia being broke AF certainly had nothing to do with it's economical connections being severed by it's former allies re-orientating towards the West.
>>30270966
not that guy, but assuming the scenario, how will the Russians gather enough launchers to get an advantage and overwhelm the CSG anyway? Movement on that scale is very noticeable, and finding the CSG is hard enough anyway. It would require the CSG commander to go full retard and sail his carrier straight into the obvious trap.
>>30271760
>And Russia being broke AF certainly had nothing to do with it's economical connections being severed by it's former allies re-orientating towards the West.
Russia was broke as fuck before this happened.
>>30271783
>Movement on that scale is very noticeable, and finding the CSG is hard enough
Not when it enters Baltic sea, which RF monitors really well. It's not the Pacific ocean.
>It would require the CSG commander to go full retard and sail his carrier straight into the obvious trap.
Entering Baltic sea would be exactly that.
>>30271786
You surely know better than I do how my country was off before the collapse. Please proceed.
>>30271814
>my country
When did they let you back in?
>>30271838
The nation-wide IP ban lasted about 6 hours.
>>30271507
>Do you know how large a battalion is?
Yes, ~800 foreign tourists with Strykers and LAV-25s. Russian division on the other side of the border is 12000 men with tanks, APCs, Grads, 152mm howitzers and close-to-mid range SAMs.
>>30271760
>I argue that both sides are full of shit and are using other nations as their playground, not that Russia has any sort of moral high ground.
The US has it's fair share of dirty history, especially in south america. NATO has however never forced it's entry into an eastern European nation, it has only been invited due to Russian actions towards its former subjects.
>And strong US showing goodwill is what we're after.
Attempts where made and Putin and Bush was downright bros. Obama also toned down a missile shield in Poland so some attempts has been made.
>And Russia being broke AF certainly had nothing to do with it's economical connections being severed by it's former allies re-orientating towards the West.
Russias former allies flocked to the west because russia oppressed the SHIT out of them during the Soviet years.
If you rape someone for half a decade you could expect them to run when opportunity presents themselves.
Russia being thoroughly corrupt and run into the ground due to failing at communism didn't help either.
>>30271814
>Entering Baltic sea would be exactly that
What if they hide behind Gotland?
>>30271849
Seemed longer than that.
Unrelated, but I have to ask: what are you having for dinner? I'm making eggplant parmesan later.
>>30266014
>>30271697
That would be awesome
>>30271760
>allies
You mean conquered vassal states, stop being disingenuous.
It is not even slightly surprising they would want to be with the West after they gained their independence.
>>30270013
Hello Putin propagandafag
>>30270352
Put down The Man In The High Castle and pick up a history book, faggot
>>30266014
weak namefag, weak.
>>30271880
There's just one tiny little problem. It's called Kaliningrad.
>>30271987
>You mean conquered vassal states, stop being disingenuous.
Kinda true for anyone west of Bug river, kinda false for everyone else.
>>30272034
Lithuania and Estonia wanted nothing to do with the USSR, Belarus being run by a Soviet nostalgiafag does not mean the people like it. And we all saw how many 'volunteers' Russia had to send into Ukraine.
>>30272034
>Kaliningrad
How would Kaliningrad help russia hit something behind a fuckhuge island?
>>30272123
>Lithuania and Estonia wanted nothing to do with the USSR
True for Estonia, questionable for everyone else.
>Belarus being run by a Soviet nostalgiafag does not mean the people like it
He got reelected recently, with a mad advantage to other candidates, and OSCE said the elections are legit enough. Doesn't mean people like it this way, only that they see it as their only valid option at this moment.
That's not the the point though. Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and the rest of midasian sandniggers were parts of the core Union before the fall. More than that - Union was the first to give them borders and any sort of their own government, as they were nothing but Imperial territories with no rights at all back under Russian Empire. And the collapse only provided local bureaucracy with opportunities to form dictatorships. Population was rather against the secession, as proven by 1991 referendum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991
Do tell me how Turkmen population suffered under the Union, without a chance to build golden statues for Turkmenbashi.
>>30270966
I am back.
>You're automatically claiming the circumstance advantage for the US.
In regards to land based assets? Airfields and what not are pretty damn static. Furthermore, the scenario is the USN going after Russian naval assets as reprisal for a attack on US forces in Europe, there is no need to deal with the land based antiship assets, and i will explain below.
Lets look at the strike options for the USN. Im talking current shit, and will leave the planned anti shipping tomahawk, and ignore the very few LRASM's the us currently has, and the Few F-35's...
This leaves the harpoon, carried by the super hornet (i realize that legacy hornets are still used but given the above, and to make it easier, i will assume all naval attack aircraft will be superhornets and growlers.) Also, they COULD use JASSM-ER, but again, ill ignore that too.
So, superhornets and the metric fuckton of harpoons the USN has.
The Superhornet has a Combat radius of about 400 nautical miles, thats there and back. The harpoon has a range of about 60 nautical miles.
So, to strike Russian naval assets RIGHT off the coast of russia, a CBG can sit 460 nautical away. Thats 850 kilometers away. Russia does not have a single land based AShM that can touch a CBG at this range, not a AShM 3M-54 Klub, not a sunburn, nothing, and thats assuming that the front sprocket of the TEL is dipping into the sea water.
Now, Russian naval assets dont have anything to strike back at this range either. Not the P-500, not the P-1000, not the Brahmos, nothing.
To put it shortly, land based SAM systems wont play that big of a role because the F-18's will be firing on targets from beyond the horizon, and as far as i know the Russians dont have CEC and cant fire sam's based upon aircraft targeting data.
So what we REALLY have is land based aviation for both offense and defense. Of course, the issue with this is land based aviation assets are both known and static. Its hard to hide a damn airfield
>cont
>>30272168
It can rather prevent them from getting there in one piece.
We can fix two NATO/EU/USA problems at once.
We cut off the flow of oil/gas/people from the middle east. We start buying oil and gas from russia and allow them into the West easier.
Muslim economy worsens and internal conflict increases. Muslim leaders start cracking down on jihadis instead of supporting them, because they are costing them money.
Russian economy improves. Russians not happy with Putin can leave for the West. Putin softens.
>>30272236
This of course leaves the airfield vulnerable to the very real possibility of a 2,500km+ TLAM spam. This is where you say that SAM systems will take care of the TLAM spam, this is not a logical argument once you realize the problems with this line of thinking.
First of all, TLAM's fly nap of the earth the entire time. This means your Sam system has to be right on top of it, and the super long range Theater systems are all but nullified. The radars are not magic, if there is a hill or whatever between it and the engagement radar it wont see it. the 76N6 Clam Shell (the low flying target/cruise missle engagement radar) has a stated range of 50nm for a target at 1,500m, assumeing a perfectly flat featureless plain, or 100km. The Tomahawk flys at 100m, so it will be less than that.
Now, sure, you can get one, but 50? 100? Lets assume you know the attack vector of the TLAM. Thats completely unrealistic, but fuck it. Lets say ONE Ohio class sub fires off 100 of the fuckers (not even its full load) It will take 25 S-300 TELs to stop that attack, assuming a 100% kill rate, and assuming perfect placement of its radar and TEL to engage the low flying TLAM, assuming it assigns one missile to each target (not two as is doctrine), and lets assume the targeting computer can actually track all 100 at the same damn time and not put more than one missle per tomahawk accidentally (which is not true, the S-300 system at best can only keep track of, at most, 36 per complex, guide 2 missiles per vampire)
Now, lets assume that the air base is enjoying moscow level of protection. That means each sam site will employ 8-12 TEL's, we will shoot for the middle ground for ease, and say 10. Keep in mind most Sam complex's has 4 or so TEL's.
So, the Russians lay out HEAVY TEL coverage, perfectly upon the path of the tomahawk. That would mean the TLAM would have to overfly not one SAM complex, but THREE assuming the VERY generous (to the point of absurdity) engagement details.
>>30272249
This would mean that pretty much every airfield in relevant ranges that could come to the defense of the naval assets will be severely degraded. Those land aviation assets that do get off the ground will be severely hampered by the USN naval aviation assets, and the AShM's that do get fired at the naval assets will be hampered by the fuckton of interceptors the surface assets of carry's. Keep in mind, i did not go into ECM or the fact the russian forces has to find, target, and keep a stable track on the USN forces in the first place.
So, in my humble opinion, the Russian forces will be unable to effectively strike at USN assets assuming the scenario above, due to lack of assets available at the time of tactical relevancy.
Sorry about the spelling, English is not my first language. Also, i am assuming open ocean. Things get froggy in the black sea, but thats true for russian naval forces too. I could go on for hours about the tit for tat that could possibly go on there. I would not want to be a burke commander. Im sure his orders are "if shit gets hot, run. If found, blow your tomahawk load at relevant targets, and run faster"
>>30272236
>So, to strike Russian naval assets RIGHT off the coast of russia, a CBG can sit 460 nautical away.
Dude, this guy >>30272168
posted a map of the Baltic sea. Find me a point there 460 nautical miles away from Russian coast there.
I swear, Americans and their geography.
>and as far as i know the Russians dont have CEC
We have this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar
>>30272249
>>30272269
Not rebuking the rest, since the entry assumes USN sitting 460 miles away (which is impossible) and Russian land-based SAM having to means of hitting targets over horizon, which is topkek level bullshit.
>>30272280
OTH radars are for detection, not weapon quality target tracks.
See the rest of the thread.
>. Find me a point there 460 nautical miles away from Russian coast there.
Out in the Atlantic.
>>30272322
>since the entry assumes USN sitting 460 miles away (which is impossible)
The CVN does not have to be in the baltic sea to hit targets in the baltic sea, you silly man.
> and Russian land-based SAM having to means of hitting targets over horizon
They dont, OTH is for detection.
>>30272324
>OTH radars are for detection, not weapon quality target tracks.
I don't actually know the technical details, but when I served in AA near Murmansk, we got targets data from OTH and kept the track of them, ready to fire. Had to jump around a fuckhueg glass board keeping track of target's quadrant and update that every 30 damn seconds. Regardless - I personally assure you of Russian SAM being perfectly capable of hitting targets over horizon.
>OTH radars are for detection, not weapon quality target tracks.
Pinpoint the location from which Estonia would be within reach.
>>30264082
Like the US forces in South Korea, they're a trip wire.
If American, German, and British soldiers get steamrolled by Russians, the armed forces of all Western civilization become politically obligated to step in and remove vodka.
>>30272364
>I personally assure you of Russian SAM being perfectly capable of hitting targets over horizon.
Like civil airliners?
Anyway, it's getting late here, gotta go. Good night /k/, you actually managed a halfway decent NATO/RF thread for once.
>>30267842
I love this "play the long game" meme.
>>30272393
Uh before I go - YES. We did keep the track of EVERY target spotted by the OTH. INCLUDING airliners. So every time you fly over Russia, be assured - somewhere down there, a dozen little green men are jumping around a dozen glass boards, pinpointing and updating your location all the way you go.
>>30272280
>Find me a point there 460 nautical miles away from Russian coast there.
Sure, here you go.
Its about 500 miles, or so.
>>30272364
> we got targets data from OTH and kept the track of them, ready to fire.
Of fighter sized aerial targets?
You sir, just violated a fuckton of OPSEC and might get yourself killed, OR, you are full of shit.
Or possibly, you were tracking very high targets that were still within LOS.
Either way...
>The resolution of any radar depends on the width of the beam and the range to the target. For example; a radar with 1 degree beam width and a target at 120 km (75 mi) range will show the target as 2 km (1.2 mi) wide. To produce a 1 degree beam at the most common frequencies, an antenna 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi) wide is required. Due to the physics of the reflection process, actual accuracy is even lower, with range resolution on the order of 20 to 40 kilometres (12–25 mi) and bearing accuracy of 2 to 4 kilometres (1.2–2.5 mi) being suggested. Even a 2 km accuracy is useful only for early warning, not for weapons fire
>>30272406
OTH as in Line of Sight, not BVR.
I dont doubt that you DETECTED such targets, but you did not track them.
Or you did and just fucked up, because russia found a way to break the law of physics.
Most likely, you are full of shit though due to, you know, the whole "breaking the law of physics" thing.
>>30272426
That position you are pointing out is quite close to Kaliningrad though
>>30272426
>Its about 500 miles, or so.
Look down South just a bit, you might be surprised.
>You sir, just violated a fuckton of OPSEC and might get yourself killed
Nah. It's the glass board's contents (the map) that were secret. Not it's existence itself. I told about how we did it on Russian boards multiple times and GRU is yet to kick my ass.
>Or possibly, you were tracking very high targets
Liners were high targets. Scouts went in low. That how we distinguished them at first glance. Anyway, gotta go now.
>>30264082
>>30264429
>buzzword buzzword buzzword
Did you learn that in your first year politics class?
Leave the analysis for people with degrees higher than a BA please.
Thanks, tard.
>>30264684
That's the difference in doctrine, Russian doctrine is such that you can move 100,000+ men well.
>>30272468
>Look down South just a bit, you might be surprised.
The 3M-54 AShM klub TEL has a range of about 410 miles.
Pic related, it does not quite have the range, even in the tippy tip border of Latvia.
>>30272468
>Nah. It's the glass board's contents (the map) that were secret.
The fact that there is no publicly available systems that can do what you are claiming Russian OTH radars can do says something quite different anon.
>>30272560
I think he meant south from your point. There's a patch of Russian territory there, the Kaliningrad oblast.
>>30272406
So you want to tell me, they correct the position on the glasboard the whole time? How is this even technically possible by this amount?
>>30272619
A better question is why are they useing an OTH radar to track airliners at 30,000 feet when traditional radar works just fine.
>>30272238
The question is if russia can ID and hit a target bobbing and weaving between islands off the immediate coast of Sweden under heavy ECM conditions.
It's almost a 400km shot to make against a land backdrop over the horizon to boot before the target can enter an archipelago.
The carrier would be pretty safe in other words.
>>30272324
Missiles used by S-300 don't require external tracking data.
>>30272710
Now that's just hilarious. You really think they can't ID a bleeding formation chilling a hundred nautical miles off their coast?
>>30272799
>Missiles used by S-300 don't require external tracking data.
They sure as fuck do if you want to hit a damn thing.
>>30272799
It will be over 400 nautical miles off their coast, overland.
>>30272805
They employ active radar homing.
>>30272830
Only for the terminal phase.
>>30272394
I don't think it is realy a deal in this matter.
>>30272816
>It will be over 400 nautical miles off their coast, overland.
A think a dozen people ITT mentioned Kaliningrad. Why do you have to deny geography?
>>30272830
>They employ active radar homing.
I am well aware. (well technically S-400 does but whatever)
>>30272837
They don't need anything else - the target area will be provided for complex by OTH, they only need to missiles in the general area of the target.
>>30272840
Kaliningrad is not russian coastline?
>>30272799
>hundred nautical miles off their coast
It's one thing to track a target on the open seas and another one to track one hugging the coast. OTH radars does not do this accuracy thing very well.
>>30272848
These missiles can be used with S-300 as well.
>>30272863
The fuck?
>>30272860
>They don't need anything else
They sure as fuck do with a 20-40km target range, with a bearing accuracy of 2-4 km.
>>30272871
Is Kaliningrad not russian coastline?
>>30272867
I don't think they will have a lot of issues with ID of a FORMATION from such range. And as they get the general location of the CVN, they don't need to know it's exact position - the missiles will do that.
>>30272876
You think OTH can't point a fighter squadron's location with a +-40km accuracy?
>>30272876
I'm rather sure it is.
>>30272871
>These missiles can be used with S-300 as well.
The S-400 system is just upgraded S-300.
If your S-300 system is using 40N6, 48N6, or 9M96, then congratulations, its now a S-400 system.
>>30272923
Not exactly but whatever.
>>30272908
>You think OTH can't point a fighter squadron's location with a +-40km accuracy?
No, i think thats possible, im saying a 40N6 does not go terminal at 40km against a fighter sized target.
>>30272908
>I don't think they will have a lot of issues with ID of a FORMATION from such range. And as they get the general location of the CVN, they don't need to know it's exact position - the missiles will do that.
You'd run a serious risk of hitting commercial traffic going in and out between all those islands in the archipelago. Besides, this exercise demands that you'd manage to track and hit a target among islands in close proximity of a coast.
It's easy to track something on the ocean, tracking something hugging a coast is very difficult.
>>30264765
wtf i hate minutemen now
I am now a #CruzMissile
>>30265645
Haha you're totally bass ackwards on that one bud
>>30264684
It's probably smart though if not less cost efficient. If all you food train on the battalion level you will never experience and fix the kinks encountered with large combined arms maneuvers.
>>30272973
Commercial traffic doesn't really move in military formations.
>>30265995
Hi there friend, it appears you forgot to take your tripcode off
>>30273067
Im sure the missile will care if you are in a .mil formation or not, becuase thats what we are going on here.
We are dealing with very large engagement ranges.
Going off of OTH data as targeting data is like shooting a gun blindfolded after being pointed in the right direction and hope you hit something.
I mean, there is also no target discrimination, so one ship might get hit 15 times as it sinks, while the other ship is just fine.
>>30273090
>Im sure the missile will care if you are in a .mil formation or not, becuase thats what we are going on here.
That's easy - only formations will be shot at. I don't think they will be hugging any cruise liners as navy regulations require civilian ships maintaining minimal distance, AFAIK.
>I mean, there is also no target discrimination, so one ship might get hit 15 times as it sinks, while the other ship is just fine
Russian AShMs fly in packs and exchange targeting data. Which they use to go for the target most like a flattop. The rest of formation can go fuck itself as long as carrier is taken out.
>>30268291
>no military experience
In the past decade they have successfully invaded and consolidated territory from two sovereign nations as well as having successfully defeated most insurgent resistance in the Caucasus region. The only trouble Russia faces right now are sanctions and low energy prices; and both are highly subject to change over time.
>>30273125
>That's easy - only formations will be shot at.
With range variances, you wont be shooting at formations, but formations and everyone around them.
>Russian AShMs fly in packs and exchange targeting data.
Only one russian AShM does this, the p-800 and varients.
>>30269723
Economic wealth and political power are not a 1:1 correlation. Not even close in fact.
>>30273162
People also tend to conveniently forget Soviet intervention in Afganistan, despite it being larger than any war US got into since Gulf.
>>30273125
There are very very many boats going between Germany, Denmark and Sweden. Large bulk ships, grain carriers, containers, cruise liners and tankers.
In other words, all the CBG has to do is hug the coast and spread out slightly while using Islands as cover and russia would have to resort to firing on every ship formation in order to be sure to sink the carrier.
Commercial tubs do go in formation from time to time, during the U-137 crisis Sweden almost fired upon a pair of German grain carriers due to this exact problem.
In this case the task would be magnitudes harder since the distances are much longer, the target is actively using the coast to hide, the entire coast must be monitored, ECM and large amounts of commercial shipping in the area.
>>30270590
Israel has been is the antithesis to peace in the Middle East and the west. Make no mistake, Arabs would be slaughtering one another without its existence, but the US could limit our involvement be economic rather than political. Essentially we could be to the Middle East what China is currently.
>>30273220
>There are very very many boats going between Germany, Denmark and Sweden
Pic related is what it looks like today. Without additional means of confirming targets, sending AShMs across the baltic sea would be a very bad thing to do unless you are mustache twirling evil.
>>30264653
kek
>>30265298
Same reason as with the soviets, NATO isnt looking for attack, while Russia most likely make the first "defensive" strike. To quote an ex-National People's Army officer: The russians always said that NATO will attack first, but we were basically just training attacks on west germany and hardly anything in regard of defending the German Democratic Republic.
