Putin Shifting Fire

Are you suggesting that in the event of a WW3 scenario that the rest of NATO would abandon Germany?
That doesn't make any sense and Russia isn't as invincible as you're making them to be.

 

As I said:

In Europe, Germany would in such extreme case count on:

the British Navy
french support in the army

support from all other Nato members including small countries and of corse the US


The case is not realistic so much that moment to me, but I think especially the brits would defenetely show up balls and back Germany with all possible. Also , I told you: The main problem in the past (WW1 and 2) was to have two frontlines, no moral justification (WW1 has some at least, WW2 had nothing).

In that case, nobody in the west would attack Germany and Germany could concentrate all at the eastern front. No way...Britain would put all they feel competetive about Germany on the side and directly back us. A sort of Montgommery combined with a sort of Rommel would be no fun to a potential invader from Russia.

But tax, explain to me please why Russia would be so mad eaven with a leader like Putin to destroy what they need? A destroyed industry here would not serve them anything.

Also: do you think that russians would obey the order to attack at Central Europe by knowing that such step would cause a potential nuclear counterstrike?

I mean a lot would do. Others would resist I think and cause a civil war or to try to kill their leader in such case.

I mean you really need the spirit of Kamikaze to start such WW3.

I am not 100% sure the russians are made that way.

But as I said: generally I do support more arms for our army and more training in our army and more cooperation with the brits and americans and french...but also less actions somewhere in Africa or Afghanistan.

Kosovo was needed and just perfectly done. Afghanistan..up to a certain limit also, but Iraq allready I did not see any need.


My 2 cents

 

Taxcutter says:
It isn't a matter of NATO abandoning Germany or Poland for that matter, but with the US neutralized, the rest of NATO is like having Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Albania as allies. Not much help.

As atrophied as Germany's armed forces may be they are robust compared to the rest of NATO.

If nobody can bestir themselves to get ready to resist them, Russia - for all its weaknesses - will defeat unprepared foes. Germans (of all people) should know that Russians can be very dangerous enemies.

 

I do think you can solve things often two ways:

Fight a war

If you cannot beat somebody, you become his best friend.


Solution no 2 is impossible with Putin and his thinking, I do agree.

But again: why should the USA leave us alone? Why? I did not get that from you. Obama here, Obama there..we do have a contract. If Russia attacks Germany, the contract does work. Ok, Denmark would not be a big help, but again: I cannot see the brits just saying that moment:

"sorry, but we stay on our Islands, Handle all yourself"

We had some wars with them. One was caused because Germany did not respect Belgiums neutral status. Britain did act.

I am 1000% sure, Britain will never ever leave Germany alone, no matter how often we did beat them in football/soccer. British mentality is in that very close to our mentality. A promise is a promise. One man one word.

Also: no Churchill would ask to bomb german cities. They would do all to stopp the russians to bomb here! So again: No front in the west! That is an essential factor for german forces to act. If the west is calm, the strategic situation is 100% different to 1914 / 1939.

To the britsih guy inhere: I mean am I wrong telling inhere that forgetting about the promise to back us in Nato is unthinkable to real britons?

If I am mistaken here, I do not understand anything anymore on earth. The brits wont let germans fall down in such extreme case. No matter if that strange guy Farage, Cameroon or british socialists would be in power. The reaction always would be only:

"We mobilize, we help Germany"

 

Right so you're saying that Britain and France have weak forces.

Britain has some of the very best tanks available (Challenger 2) none of which have been lost in action and to this date it holds the record for the longest range kill.
We have extremely well trained regular soldiers and even the TA now known as the army reserve are just as well trained.
Britain also has some of the most advanced warships in existence even the Queen Elizabeth carrier is a pioneering engineering achievement and all it's waiting on is for the F35C's to be delivered.

So to say that Britain doesn't have any teeth is a flawed assessment.
The French have the most experience and have a modern army and air force.

And these are just the major players. Spain,Holland, and Italy can also supply adequate land and air forces.
Also Greece and Turkey can cause major problems for Russia in the Black Sea.

Russia has actually been scaling down in the last decade. They don't have an overwhelming tank advantage any more and they haven't built anything new for their navy since the 80's.

 

It wasn't that long ago that this happened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_cyberattacks_on_Estonia

 

I wasn't denying that. I was merely trying to understand a point of view.

I don't think there was any real moral argument for aggression in WW2 but that's another story.

I'm assuming that Germany is the defender in this scenario.

I don't believe that Russia has any reason to make war against Europe and it isn't feasible anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

If life were but Space Invaders.

 

It's surely not the same as a physical invasion, but clearly, Russia likes to flex its muscles periodically. Sometimes it goes for the hacking approach. Other times, we see more direct involvement like with Crimea.

Estonia and Lithuania are probably lower on Putin's list than say, Georgia, but if we suddenly see an influx of ethnic Russians into either of these countries, what may follow could be very messy.

 

I did no say that there was any moral justification for Germany in WW2 - I said there was none.

Germany did act criminal, but that is the past. May be my english did confuse. I am not a native speaker so sry.

 

There's no denial that Russia does see itself as a regional power.
However the Crimea represented a unique opportunity to gain control of an oil and gas rich region although undeveloped and of course the overwhelming number of Russians in the Crimea who wanted out from the Ukrainian government made an exceptionally viable case for annexation.

As for armed aggression beyond it's borders I believe that it's limited at best.

I don't think that they represent any possible gain to Russia.
And Georgia isn't worth it either. They had the opportunity then and there to conquer Georgia in 2008 but they didn't because their only interest was in keeping Abkhazia and South Ossetia independent.
And I seriously doubt that Lithuania and Estonia will suddenly see large numbers of Russian migrants who then revolt against the government.

 

No worries

I wasn't exactly clear on what you were saying at the time. If it's any consolation I've come across much worse English speakers and occasionally some of them were English

 

I still think that is all a very very theoretical szenario, dispite I do have to admit, that Crimea was not what I did expect a year ago and I would have answered about it same way...now it did happen, nevertheless.

I would say germany would mainly count in such szenario that Britain does take care 100% for all sea actions in the Baltics, that the french support Germany by land forces and that Poland is willing to cooperate, what I am also certain about. In such case I also do not get why the USA would not support Europe. But eaven if not - you are right: Turkey could cause extreme trouble to Russia in the Baltics and Russia would rsik to lose Crimea as fast as they did get it...

I think the main reason why Russia would not go that far is an other:

Russia would get within weeks on the status as North Corea, people would have hunger and the economy would completely collapse. A destroyed german economy would get help from the USA and just survive, later rebuilt. But Russia? What could be the purpuse?

Russia would risk far more than they could get...Industrial total damage, hunger, to lose territory (Crimea to Turkey, Königsberg to Germany - who would think that in case Germany would be attacked and had to fight we would let Russia get away with that is more than naiv, sorry. Germany would 100% liberate Königsberg if possible and kick all russian military out...and many other territories to Japan also Finland..all lost), all credibility (I mean who on earth would trsut russians anymore just anything...it is allready very very damaged...), the market (who wants to buy gas if after a vicory we just could get it for reparations? ) they would lose lots of population, ...Russia after all would suffer for 30 years or more.

So I do not see exactly why Russia would go so far.

But Georgia? Armenia? I am 70% sure Russia will attack. Baltics? 10% because of the risk of a big war. Poland? less than 1%, because Poland would cause that Germany would take action 100%, Germany itself? I think that would damage Germany a lot and destroy Russia. So I cannot believe that...

Today

 

...and to finish that discussion from my part:

Germany would be in such case be as loyal to Britain as I would expect it from the britons. And Germany would not surrender to Russia knowing they are backed from all Europe. No way.

But that so far...is may be intresting stuff for making some money at Hollywood. Nothing serious for the Cannes festival so far

But again...Crimea made me thinking. 1 year ago, I would not have eaven responded to such question as "what would happen if Russia is at the Oder river".

Crimea did change a lot in me and I am a left wing german. Far from beeing conservative - dispite I am traditional. But not at all right wing.

 

There's around 400 of them and they do have the range and power to destroy Russian tanks and it's unlikely that they would work alone.
As for Lanchesters law. It's not completely applicable to combat as it doesn't take into account technological differences because it was written during WW1 when warfare was much more simpler.
And of course there's the luck factor which any soldier whose been in combat can tell you about.

Britain has always had a small army but it does well because of it's skill and character.
But I think that in hypothetical Russian push on Germany it would most likely be one or two small but well supported brigades which when coupled with allied forces can easily hold whichever sector of operations they are in.
And of course being in a defensive position helps as well as infantry anti tank weaponry can be installed furthering the advantage of the armoured brigade.

Actually she does. They were mulling over using an EM catapult system but realised that it would drain the power substantially.

But as for the air wing, well that's the thing about the QE is that she can re equip and resupply much more quickly than most modern carriers courtesy of a special rail system and also she only needs 800 sailors plus 200 for the air wing.

Actually they've fought with Libya in Chad although this was done rather quietly and one shouldn't underestimate a guerilla force no matter the ethnicity.

No they wouldn't be the primary concern but the point it that they add weight as they do have largely up to date land and air forces.

Their grievances have been largely reconciled and they don't have to work together either.

 

We do have a habit of sticking to our agreements.

I don't think that it's realistic but it is an interesting scenario.

Well it's not as if Russia stormed into the Crimea like a blitzkrieg attack.
And the soldiers that occupied the airports were not from the rest of Russia because they are actually MORPEH and were already at the Russian naval bases.
MORPEH btw is actually the Russian naval infantry who are also charged with base security which makes me doubt the whole invasion of Crimea idea.

 

It could be intresting if you could make Rommel and Montgommery awake and bring them up to such szenario.

If I do think about all what was rebuilt in Germany and all what was destroyed and if I think how beautiful my country is nowdays...I am not that intrested, if you can understand me.

Look at the Frauenkirche. Also rebuilt by Coventry! I mean...why all that destroyed again? My intrest is pretty little. Dispite: as I said it inhere many times. Germans do not have the habbit to run away if they are confrontated with a problem.

Crimea was more like the Anschluss of Sudetenland in 1938.

The moment Putin takes by military forces Kiew / Ukraine, that will change all in Germany, really all. That moment, I tell you by 100%, germans will demand to get nukes, to re-arm the army, they will also demonstrate for peace but react like they did in Yougoslavia:

No party, no fun, but they will do what has to be done and if Poland is attacked, they will respond.

I think a Montgomery / Rommel duo would have been a problem to Russia. My idea here did not change. I think Russia should not underestimate the reaction.

I would give a lot to see the expression on Churchills face in case such duo would be needed and such terrible destruction realistic. I would give all that it wont happen ever.

 

I don't think that any rational person is interested in war for the sake of war, so yes I do understand.

Quite right. War affects more civilians than it does soldiers.

Yes and that reference has been thrown around quite a bit.

Well if Putin goes for Kiev then the alarm bell will start ringing.
But hopefully there shouldn't be a need for an expanded Bundeswehr and definitely not nuclear weapons.

If something like that does happen then force will have to be used.

I suppose that militarily a Anglo-German force would be a formidable one.

Well the world has changed and I think that we wont see a world war anytime soon

 

I do really think Finland should ask to join Nato after the russians did occupie Crimea and Putin did claim Finland as russian soil last days.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-finland-for-russia-adviser-says-9224273.html


Finland does count on Germany in case Russia attacks, but in Nato, help would be certain. Bases in eastern Finland where nice.

 

Well judging by that article I don't think that Putin has claimed Finland but rather his former economics advisor is speaking about Putin's personal views.

I think that NATO would probably come to Finland's aid irrespective of it's membership or at the least there would be support from NATO nations.

 

I tell you if Putin will carry on, Sweden and Finland will both ask for full Nato membership.

The alternative would be a european defense system, ruled by Germany. But than, they do have to spend far more for military.

 

Russia's only concern in that part of the world is to keep the Empire of Chaos away from it's territorial waters and its oil and gas reserves... which includes just about everything in the artic circle thanks to Siberia. Seems like Finland and Sweden are suffering from illusions of grandeur. Well guess what, Moscow isn't going to bother with peanuts. But if they keep on butting and annoying Russia, then Moscow will react...and hard.

 

What grievances have been reconciled. Oh that's right I forgot, our news media doesn't publish non essential news...which is just about everything. Just so you'll know, the Turkish warships have been advancing further and further into Greek waters in order to provoke Greece to respond, not to mention the sorties their jets make over the Aegean islands. But shhh, people aren't supposed to know these things.

 

It is the USA and its European running dogs who are causing all the trouble in Ukraine.
The USA should be happy that Russia basically gave Ukraine to the USA terrorist hijackers.
But, the USA smells blood and intends to take all of Ukraine including Crimea and use it all as a base to launch terrorist attacks deep into Russia.