It’s been about 600 days since the SMO started, all NATO aids have proven useless and have been mostly destroyed. There is not much left in the stocks of all the European countries.
What are NATO’s chances of survival following these rates while running out of all our resources? Is this equipment replaceable and in what time frame? NATO tanks performance has not been up to par, what do you think will happen with U.S.-made tanks under combat conditions?
Equipment is only as good as the Soldiers manning it. In addition, no weapon system whether a tank, a mortar or an infantry fighting vehicle is effective if the operational framework for employment is unsuited to warfighting environment. Ukrainians are not adequately trained. They are not organized to fight properly with integrated air and missile defense, real-time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Ukrainian force, like NATO forces, is organized to refight a version of WW II. This is a recipe for certain defeat. NATO is in trouble. It was never designed for offensive warfare. Its original purpose was to deter Soviet Military Power from attacking Western Europe. After 1991, most US and European officers through the NATO Military Structure was designed to ensure no future wars would break out on European Soil. Events in the Balkans in the 1990s and NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine have altered the original purpose. At this point, alliances involving 32 Nation States with very different interests are unprecedented. Such a large, fragile grouping like NATO is unlikely to endure in the current environment.
If you had the same men and means at your disposal as you did in 1991, do you think you would be able to break through Russian lines?
No. See my books, Transformation under Fire (2003) and my recent work Margin of Victory (2016) for the reasons why. The West has systematically rejected the radical changes in force design, organization and modernization that are required to operate on the modern battlefield. (New technologies) 3) New technologies show that complex anti-tank systems are no longer needed to destroy a tank; a few thousand dollars drone is often enough. How will drones impact the warfare scenario of the future, given the results and conclusions that can be drawn after the blitzkrieg between Azerbaijan and Armenia, or the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine?
New technologies show that complex anti-tank systems are no longer needed to destroy a tank; a few thousand dollars drone is often enough. How will drones impact the warfare scenario of the future, given the results and conclusions that can be drawn after the blitzkrieg between Azerbaijan and Armenia, or the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Does the West have anything ready among its arsenals to be able to respond even minimally to Russian superiority?
Adequate air and missile defense including a range of air defense systems and radars must be integrated into the ground force to protect it from destruction in the current environment. At the moment, the Ukrainians confront conditions similar to the German Army in 1944-45. The Anglo-American forces had 5,0000 fighter aircraft in the air over their ground forces in France when the entire German Air Force was defending German cities against US and UK Bombers. German forces had no tactical fighter coverage or air support. As a result, German Formations could move only at night and never in daylight. Even then, movement was dangerous. This effectively robbed the German ground forces of the opportunity to maneuver. However, this did not lead to the end of tanks and supporting mobile arms.
We often talk about swarms of drones, new exoskeletons, new weapons, but is there anything concrete behind the U.S. industry or just million-dollar contracts that bleed taxpayers dry and fatten the military industrial complex? We could cite the F-35s. These are proposed to “partners” almost forcing them to buy them, despite dubious characteristics. At the moment, the coalition maintains air superiority but under non-simulated warfare conditions how long would our planes last against Russian air defenses and fighters? Does the West has any possibility to win if the conflict expands further?
Yes, the United States could also have lived with a neutral Ukraine. Ukraine’s principle strategic value was the distance a neutral Ukraine created between Russia and NATO’s Eastern Border. It worked to the mutual advantage of NATO and Russia. Unfortunately, the globalist-neocon leadership in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome and other European Capitals decided to exploit Ukrainian manpower and resources in a pointless war to destroy Russia and its government. Thus, the real question is not what we will accept, but what the Russians will tolerate. They would likely still tolerate a rump Ukraine that was neutral with a government that was not hostile to Russia. Whether that rump Ukraine is exclusive West of the Dnieper River or also includes some territory on the Eastern side is unknown.
In your opinion, could the United States accept a partition of Ukraine or would it be inclined to end this game at the expense of the Ukrainians, at any price, including neighboring European nations?
Do you think Europe will be involved more than it already is?
Drones of various types can be employed in volleys or small numbers against targets that lack air and missile protection. The Ukrainians lost their air and missile defenses over the last 12 months thanks to a systematic Russian campaign to eliminate them. Meanwhile, the Russians have developed and fielded dense, and effective integrated air defenses that would seriously weaken, even neutralize US and Allied Air Power. Remember, German air defenses between 1942 and the end of the war in 1945 shot down 18,000 bombers that tried to penetrated Germany’s homeland air defenses. Today, the West has too few aircraft to fight and defeat such a threat. The best way to fight Russian integrated air defenses is a combination of missiles and drones (unmanned aircraft) with advancing ground forces. The Israeli Defense Forces experienced similar problems in their fight against Soviet Air Defenses in Egypt during the 1973 war. In most cases, Egyptian Air Defenses were destroyed by Israeli artillery and tanks. I suspect the same would happen to Russian Integrated Air Defense today, but the operation would require thousands of missiles, rockets and drones, as well as robust ground forces protected by effective air and missile defenses as noted earlier.
In your opinion, could the United States accept a partition of Ukraine or would it be inclined to end this game at the expense of the Ukrainians, at any price, including neighboring European nations? Do you think Europe will be more involved than it already is?
Yes, the United States could also have lived with a neutral Ukraine. Ukraine’s principle strategic value was the distance a neutral Ukraine created between Russia and NATO’s Eastern Border. It worked to the mutual advantage of NATO and Russia. Unfortunately, the globalist-neocon leadership in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome and other European Capitals decided to exploit Ukrainian manpower and resources in a pointless war to destroy Russia and its government. Thus, the real question is not what we will accept, but what the Russians will tolerate. They would likely still tolerate a rump Ukraine that was neutral with a government that was not hostile to Russia. Whether that rump Ukraine is exclusive West of the Dnieper River or also includes some territory on the Eastern side is unknown.
Since the end of the Second World War, Italy is a vanguard against communism and has gone through tremendous phases of internal struggles. Today that there is no longer this distinction, red communists or blue capitalists, how are Italians viewed by our allies and masters, given the number of bases we host on our territory? Do we still have a strategic relevance or are we losing that too, after the economic one we already lost?
Italy’s strategic relevance lies with its central position in the Mediterranean and proximity to the Middle East. This is an unchanging condition. The U.S. Military views the strategic position as vital to the capability to project U.S. Power and influence. Americans, in general, like Europeans and they certainly like Italians. The real question is whether the Italian people want their country to host foreign forces that regard Italy as a platform from which to extend US military power and influence to other regions including the Balkans, Near East and North Africa. To date, the US presence has not invited war to Italian soil. However, changes in the technology of warfare have turned static bases of all kinds into potential targets that are increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to protect. This naturally includes U.S. Bases in Italy that depending on the warfighting scenario could come under attack.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment