Military experts say Russia has upper hand over NATO

Discussion in 'Religion' started by PetriFB, Jul 20, 2016.

  1. PetriFB Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    92
    Legendary and retired US Army Commander Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor has said that Russia would "Annihilate" US in head-to-head battle. Loren Thompson has said that Russia has a number of advantages that can ensure the country’s military forces will succeed in a hypothetical armed conflict.

    More info: http://www.kotipetripaavola.com/russianato.html
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well, no, that's not what MacGregor has said. MacGregor is a mid-level American Army officer. He was speaking specifically about US Army military tactics and he laid out a number of scenarios, two of which resulted in a Russian win, in others the US won. MacGregor is arguing for change within the US Army and for what it's worth, I agree with him.

    But here is the thing, the US Army is just but one component of US military forces. The other, the most powerful American armed force, is the US Navy. The US Navy employs and has employed all of the tactics MacGregor is arguing for, this isn't new to the US Navy. The US Navy has always had to be lighter and more nimble. It has always had to do more with less. It has always had to be more mobile. Over the years I have seen a some progress in the US Army. The US Army has slowly become more like the US Navy, but even so, the US Army still remains too bureaucratic.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Give Finland one nuke, Russia won't invade. Finland can say, sure you can take over with overwhelming ground troops, but you will lose one medium sized Russian city if you try.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I doubt Putina would care much about losing one Russian city. He destroyed 4 apartment building in order to become president. Putina won't invade because he knows he will get his butt kicked. Putina is fine with killing others, he's not so fine with losing his miserable carcass.

    The US Army has long had a doctrine of overwhelming force even going back to the US Civil War and a tendency towards bureaucracy. And that's a fine strategy as long as you have overwhelming force. But you don't always have overwhelming force and that's when you have problems. Russia would be fighting close to the motherland. That's a significant advantage, it's not overwhelming for the US. But it is an advantage. It just means the US needs to position more troops along Russia's border. The good news is US military planners are now doing just that and making plans for an eventual confrontation with Russia. That wasn't the case before Mother Russia went rogue and began invading, occupying, and annexing the lands of neighboring states.
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Speaking of Finland:


    They may have lost Karelia, but had Sibelius(more than enough for my desires)(thanx)
     
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Why is this thread in the 'Religion' forum?

    I don't believe that Russia has the upper hand over NATO. That may (or may not) have been true during the Cold War when NATO faced the Warsaw Pact. But it isn't true today. Today the Warsaw Pact is no more (Warsaw is a NATO capital), East Germany has been absorbed into a reunified Germany, while Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are NATO members.

    Russia doesn't even border on NATO any longer, except in the Baltics, and Poland if we count Russia's rather isolated and vulnerable Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania. They would have to come through Ukraine and Belarus. While Belarus might allow the Russians to launch an attack on Poland and Lithuania from its territory, the Ukraine certainly wouldn't.

    Russia's conventional military forces are much smaller than they once were, albeit more modern. They no longer have thousands of aircraft and tanks in shock armies, ready to overwhelm the West.

    I do agree that if Russia invaded the Baltics, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, NATO members with only tiny armed forces of their own, Russia would definitely have the upper hand in that limited area of operations. The stationing of a NATO battalion in each country and the creation of a rapid deployment force to come to their aid wouldn't be very helpful in the face of a full scale multi-division Russian mechanized attack.

    But if Russia took on all of NATO, which an attack on the Baltics would certainly imply because of the NATO mutual-aid treaty, Russia would have bitten off more than it could chew. Things would turn against them and they would likely lose a conventional war. The danger then would be a nuclear escalation. Both NATO and Russia retain sufficient nuclear weapons to wipe each other out.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016
  10. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    They might have the upper hand over NATO if the USA did not take part in a confrontation or outright war.

    In the 1950's I was a member of a SAC Think Tank which was planning for WW3 versus Russia.
    When Stain died, we & the rest of the intelligence community breathed a sigh of relief.

    It was thought by many knowledgeable people in the intelligence community that Stalin was neurotic or worse. Communists had a belief that it would eventually take over the world.

    There was a fear that Stalin would start WW3, desiring to be the Communist leader in charge when communism triumphed.​

    When he died, it was known to both sides that WW3 with nuclear weapons would destroy most (if not all) of the major cities in each country.

    United States has hundreds of (perhaps over a thousand) small to medium towns with libraries, engineers, small manufacturing facilities with machine tools, technicians, medical facilities, automobiles, trucks, & other modern resources.

    Almost all such Russian facilities & human resources are in major cities.

    It is possible to drive from coast to coast in the USA using secondary roads.

    Almost all Russian roads go through major cities.​

    The USA would be modern culture recovering from a disastrous war.

    Russia would be similar to a 12th to 15th culture, with few engineers, technicians, libraries, manufacturing facilities, et cetera. While some automobiles & trucks might still be usable, they would be seriously limited in where they could go.

    The Russian leadership of the 1950's were aware of the above. That is why Kennedy could demand that Russia not put missiles & other weapons in Cuba. They knew the USA could invade Cuba or destroy such weapons/facilities by bombing them, without fear of Russian retaliation.
     

Share This Page