daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,613
- Points
- 1,160
Op UNIFIER - CAF and the Ukraine Crisis
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
I know what it says on paper.Poland is a NATO country. An attack against one is an attack against all.
Statement by the North Atlantic Council on the situation at the Poland-Belarus border
I have my doubts if that piece of paper is going to have a good chunk of Europe and a good chunk of North America fighting tooth and nail over Estonia.
- Reaction score
- 1,773
- Points
- 1,060
90 yrs? Poland joined NATO in 1999
The natural boundries of NATO are limited by its membership. If that were to include Sweden or Finland or Ukraine then so be it. I would think that the former Teutonic states have a pretty good claim to membership.
- Reaction score
- 1,773
- Points
- 1,060
If Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland membership isn't worth the paper its written on then god help Bulgaria, Romania etc
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,866
- Points
- 1,210
We also need to consider Ukraine has expressed before that it could require nuclear arms given the failure of the US and Russia to honor the treaty that gave them up. If Ukraine required nuclear arms, that would change the calculations. Belarus is also a wild card, if Russia openly invades, troops will strike from the North too. Moldova is friendly, you could see a 4 front war, and while Ukraine has advanced they by no means have all the assets to deal with Russia.
The only way it could get more pear shaped is if while distracted Georgia made a move on its great away regions or something.
The only way it could get more pear shaped is if while distracted Georgia made a move on its great away regions or something.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
The last really big fight in that region happened because Germany, Soviet Russia, France and the UK were all willing to fight over Poland, and that hasn't really changed.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
I think the west defends Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, and to be honest, I think the last two are outside of Russia's natural interests.
Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia...I have my doubts.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
It could, same way Taiwan could, and it would get the same response. Its more powerful nuclear armed neighbour would use that as a casus belli for annihilating that country.
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,515
- Points
- 1,140
But would Putin care? Never underestimate the ego/ambitions of a megalomaniac.
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Points
- 1,260
The Russians would be in scenario similar to Germany in 1914. The moment they start moving large number of man/material west and stripping the east, the Chinese would be tempted to go North and East. The chance for all that space, clean water and natural resources would be to good to pass up. As a result the Russians are hampered, move to much west and possible lose parts of the east, move to little and risk being boggled down east of Kiev and not able to push to the Polish border.
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Points
- 1,260
It’s in Poland’s vested interests for a viable Ukraine. The Poles will move into western Ukraine the moment the situation looks dicey for the Ukrainians.
As I’ve stated on here before, the Russians are looking for a land bridge to the Krim, right up to Kherson if possible. Crossing west of Kherson threatens Odessa and if Odessa falls, a viable Ukraine falls as well. In addition, if they can take Kharkov, they’ve more than achieved their wildest expectations. Taking the above, including the Donbas, effective turns the Ukraine into a predominately agri-state, with most manufacturing, heavy industry gone.
It’s becomes much harder to pay for all that natural gas come winter time by selling just fruits and vegetables on the open market.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
I've always seen the whole Russo-Sino conflict as way too overblown.
The two have military ties, they have the same enemies, and they both want something they view as theirs back, they have absolutely no reason to backstab each other.
Not to mention, nukes. They both have nukes. If anything, I expect the west, especially America to do a 180 and focus on Russia again if Ukraine goes hot, meanwhile China starts making moves on Taiwan.
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Points
- 1,260
Do you think Ukraine would be on its own if Freeland is PM?
We’ve got little offer in terms of military assets but I’m certain that she’d be pulling every single lever that we have available to us, including working with the Poles in western Ukraine to keep some sort of rump Ukraine alive and well.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
What, do you think that soft power diplomacy by a middle power is going mean a hell of a lot in the face of Russian tanks, jets, artillery and soldiers curbstomping the Ukrainians?
Warsaw will heed to Washington as is the case for all of NATO outside of France and maybe the UK, especially if the Russians limit their gains to linking Russia to Crimea overland. With only 100k troops at the border, I cannot imagine the Russians being able to do more than that anyways.
So Ukraine likely isn't going to be annexed, the Poles aren't moving into Ukraine, nobody is doing anything without Washingtons go ahead, and Canada will add nothing to the conversation other than a press release saying our troops are not in harms way.
Thankfully, the most likely scenario here is that Ukraine bows to Russian pressure and turns the taps back on in Crimea.
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Points
- 1,260
I have to say that your appeasement approach is sounding a bit 'Chamberlin', not that I'm wanting/looking for a conflict with Russia, though I enjoy flicking some sand in their eyes whenever its possible.
I found this article, not sure if its been posted before, I apologise if it has.
Focuses alot on Russian logistical support, overwhelmingly tied to their railheads (still sound alot like 1914) and then their road system. This is their weak point, smash their railheads and ruthlessly hit their truck transports and it all goes tits up for them.
"Russian forces might reach early objectives, but logistics would impose requirements for operational pauses. As a result, a large land grab is unrealistic as a fait accompli. The Russian army has the combat power to capture the objectives envisioned in a fait accompli scenario, but it does not have the logistic forces to do it in a single push without a logistical pause to reset its sustainment infrastructure."
"drawing the Russian army deep into NATO territory and stretching Russian supply lines to the maximum while targeting logistics and transportation infrastructure such as trucks, railroad bridges, and pipelines."
"Russian army logistics forces are not designed for a large-scale ground offensive far from their railroads. Inside maneuver units, Russian sustainment units are a size lower than their Western counterparts."
"Russia’s truck logistic support, which would be crucial in an invasion of Eastern Europe, is limited by the number of trucks and range of operations. It is possible to calculate how far trucks can operate using simple beer math. Assuming the existing road network can support 45 mph speeds, a single truck can make three trips a day at up to a 45-mile range: One hours to load, one hour to drive to the supported unit, one hours to unload, and another hour to return to base. Repeating this cycle three times equals 12 hours total. The rest of the day is dedicated to truck maintenance, meals, refueling, weapons cleaning, and sleeping. Increase the distance to 90 miles, and the truck can make two trips daily. At 180 miles, the same truck is down to one trip a day. These assumptions won’t work in rough terrain or where there is limited/damaged infrastructure. If an army has just enough trucks to sustain itself at a 45-mile distance, then at 90 miles, the throughput will be 33 percent lower. At 180 miles, it will be down by 66 percent. The further you push from supply dumps, the fewer supplies you can replace in a single day.
The Russian army does not have enough trucks to meet its logistic requirement more than 90 miles beyond supply dumps. To reach a 180-mile range, the Russian army would have to double truck allocation to 400 trucks for each of the material-technical support brigades."
"The Russian army makes heavy use of tube and rocket artillery fire, and rocket ammunition is very bulky. Although each army is different, there are usually 56 to 90 multiple launch rocket system launchers in an army. Replenishing each launcher takes up the entire bed of the truck. If the combined arms army fired a single volley, it would require 56 to 90 trucks just to replenish rocket ammunition. That is about a half of a dry cargo truck force in the material-technical support brigade just to replace one volley of rockets.
I found this article, not sure if its been posted before, I apologise if it has.
Focuses alot on Russian logistical support, overwhelmingly tied to their railheads (still sound alot like 1914) and then their road system. This is their weak point, smash their railheads and ruthlessly hit their truck transports and it all goes tits up for them.
"Russian forces might reach early objectives, but logistics would impose requirements for operational pauses. As a result, a large land grab is unrealistic as a fait accompli. The Russian army has the combat power to capture the objectives envisioned in a fait accompli scenario, but it does not have the logistic forces to do it in a single push without a logistical pause to reset its sustainment infrastructure."
"drawing the Russian army deep into NATO territory and stretching Russian supply lines to the maximum while targeting logistics and transportation infrastructure such as trucks, railroad bridges, and pipelines."
"Russian army logistics forces are not designed for a large-scale ground offensive far from their railroads. Inside maneuver units, Russian sustainment units are a size lower than their Western counterparts."
"Russia’s truck logistic support, which would be crucial in an invasion of Eastern Europe, is limited by the number of trucks and range of operations. It is possible to calculate how far trucks can operate using simple beer math. Assuming the existing road network can support 45 mph speeds, a single truck can make three trips a day at up to a 45-mile range: One hours to load, one hour to drive to the supported unit, one hours to unload, and another hour to return to base. Repeating this cycle three times equals 12 hours total. The rest of the day is dedicated to truck maintenance, meals, refueling, weapons cleaning, and sleeping. Increase the distance to 90 miles, and the truck can make two trips daily. At 180 miles, the same truck is down to one trip a day. These assumptions won’t work in rough terrain or where there is limited/damaged infrastructure. If an army has just enough trucks to sustain itself at a 45-mile distance, then at 90 miles, the throughput will be 33 percent lower. At 180 miles, it will be down by 66 percent. The further you push from supply dumps, the fewer supplies you can replace in a single day.
The Russian army does not have enough trucks to meet its logistic requirement more than 90 miles beyond supply dumps. To reach a 180-mile range, the Russian army would have to double truck allocation to 400 trucks for each of the material-technical support brigades."
"The Russian army makes heavy use of tube and rocket artillery fire, and rocket ammunition is very bulky. Although each army is different, there are usually 56 to 90 multiple launch rocket system launchers in an army. Replenishing each launcher takes up the entire bed of the truck. If the combined arms army fired a single volley, it would require 56 to 90 trucks just to replenish rocket ammunition. That is about a half of a dry cargo truck force in the material-technical support brigade just to replace one volley of rockets.
Feeding the Bear: A Closer Look at Russian Army Logistics and the Fait Accompli - War on the Rocks
Editor's note: Don't miss our comprehensive guide to Russia's war against Ukraine. Russia’s military buildup along the border with Ukraine has
warontherocks.com
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
Get out of here with that slander.
I would love to punch Russian in the face. China too. Accept Ukraine into NATO, ally with Taiwan.
But I realize that the west just doesn't have the will to fight anymore. That's the reality. No leader is willing to risk blood and treasure going up against Russia or China, at least not over a place like Ukraine or Taiwan.
Crimea and Hong Kong were the test runs, and the west did the bare minimum in response. We guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but allowed Russia to annex the Crimea. We guaranteed democracy in Hong Kong for 50 years, and stood by and did nothing as China crushed it after 30. What makes you think we would do anything if Russian troops crossed over into Ukraine tomorrow?
Russia and China are willing to use force, we are not, that's the calculus at play. I don't like it, but it is what it is.
Using that calculus, the best case scenario is Ukraine gives Russia what it wants, probably the water supply to the Crimea reestablished. Baring that, we get the worst case scenario, Russia punching Ukraine in the face and reestablishing the water supply itself and having a land corridor to the Russian mainland.
This would mean a lot more if they were facing a NATO power backed by the USA.I found this article, not sure if its been posted before, I apologise if it has.
Focuses alot on Russian logistical support, overwhelmingly tied to their railheads (still sound alot like 1914) and then their road system. This is their weak point, smash their railheads and ruthlessly hit their truck transports and it all goes tits up for them.
"Russian forces might reach early objectives, but logistics would impose requirements for operational pauses. As a result, a large land grab is unrealistic as a fait accompli. The Russian army has the combat power to capture the objectives envisioned in a fait accompli scenario, but it does not have the logistic forces to do it in a single push without a logistical pause to reset its sustainment infrastructure."
"drawing the Russian army deep into NATO territory and stretching Russian supply lines to the maximum while targeting logistics and transportation infrastructure such as trucks, railroad bridges, and pipelines."
"Russian army logistics forces are not designed for a large-scale ground offensive far from their railroads. Inside maneuver units, Russian sustainment units are a size lower than their Western counterparts."
"Russia’s truck logistic support, which would be crucial in an invasion of Eastern Europe, is limited by the number of trucks and range of operations. It is possible to calculate how far trucks can operate using simple beer math. Assuming the existing road network can support 45 mph speeds, a single truck can make three trips a day at up to a 45-mile range: One hours to load, one hour to drive to the supported unit, one hours to unload, and another hour to return to base. Repeating this cycle three times equals 12 hours total. The rest of the day is dedicated to truck maintenance, meals, refueling, weapons cleaning, and sleeping. Increase the distance to 90 miles, and the truck can make two trips daily. At 180 miles, the same truck is down to one trip a day. These assumptions won’t work in rough terrain or where there is limited/damaged infrastructure. If an army has just enough trucks to sustain itself at a 45-mile distance, then at 90 miles, the throughput will be 33 percent lower. At 180 miles, it will be down by 66 percent. The further you push from supply dumps, the fewer supplies you can replace in a single day.
The Russian army does not have enough trucks to meet its logistic requirement more than 90 miles beyond supply dumps. To reach a 180-mile range, the Russian army would have to double truck allocation to 400 trucks for each of the material-technical support brigades."
"The Russian army makes heavy use of tube and rocket artillery fire, and rocket ammunition is very bulky. Although each army is different, there are usually 56 to 90 multiple launch rocket system launchers in an army. Replenishing each launcher takes up the entire bed of the truck. If the combined arms army fired a single volley, it would require 56 to 90 trucks just to replenish rocket ammunition. That is about a half of a dry cargo truck force in the material-technical support brigade just to replace one volley of rockets.
Feeding the Bear: A Closer Look at Russian Army Logistics and the Fait Accompli - War on the Rocks
Editor's note: Don't miss our comprehensive guide to Russia's war against Ukraine. Russia’s military buildup along the border with Ukraine haswarontherocks.com
They are facing Ukraine.
Last edited:
Arguably there is a line in the sand — the line of the border of NATO member states. Ukraine (and Georgia) are not behind that line, and might have to fend for themselves.
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Points
- 1,260
I don't see how the Poles will accept the loss of Ukraine. The ONLY way that they could even begin to stomach the loss of Ukraine, ethnic Poles back living under Russian yoke, is if NATO (the US/Canada/UK) agreed to permanently stationing large, substantial forces on Polish soil (and if this happens, the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians will demanding nothing less for themselves. This in essence would be recreating the Iron Curtain, just a few hundred km's to the east. From the Baltic to the Black Sea, a new, much longer, much more difficult to defend Iron Curtain.
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Points
- 1,260
The more I look at the map, the more sense it makes for Putin, if he's serious about invading Ukraine, is a single large push into Kharkov and then head south-, south-west to Dnipro. South of Dnipro there are only 4 bridges crossing the Dnieper River all the way to the Black Sea at Kherson. Bomb or hold those 4 bridges and the Ukrainians will not be able to reinforce their troops on the entire east side of the Dnieper River from Kharkov south. It will be game over for those troops, they will not be able to get their heavy weapons west across the river nor will they be able to get their supplies across to the east side.
Similar threads
