These are great points and we need to consider the type of conflict that were actually talking about in order to answer the question of the true depth of capability. Putin said in his speech that occupation is not in the cards, but even the logistics of supporting those troops is significant and we will see if there are limits there. So …
These are great points and we need to consider the type of conflict that were actually talking about in order to answer the question of the true depth of capability. Putin said in his speech that occupation is not in the cards, but even the logistics of supporting those troops is significant and we will see if there are limits there. So long as the conflict remains in Ukraine there will be no external threat to the supply lines to speak of. Russia’s armed forces are designed for defensive capability within 1000km of their borders and it seems unlikely that they will go past that to the point that the supply lines are vulnerable. In case the conflict does escalate to involve Nato they will not allow any forward positioning of materiel or troops and so long as the inventory of stand-off weapons is not exhausted there will be no way to protect the massive amounts of materiel necessary to fight a broader war. 8k Americans here 5k there is not sufficient, nor is the combined military might of NATO in Europe. If the conflict escalates every tarmac in Europe would be destroyed and every ship from the US would be a sitting duck.
On a related note, one thing that the Russians are known for is their operational tempo. In Syria their planes are in the air 3x more than NATO can achieve and the same goes for other hardware. Fewer breakdowns means less reliance on supply chain, right?
To call that statement "extravagant" would be a generosity. It is an assumption that cannot possibly be proven in advance.
As for fewer breakdowns meaning less reliance on supply chains, you have it exactly backwards: to achieve fewer breakdowns requires a GREATER reliance on a (superior) supply chain.
There is no air defense system that can counter hypersonic missiles and their ranges are longer than an aircraft carrier’s fighters. How can that not mean that every ship is a sitting duck?
I see what you mean on the supply chain. Maybe the increased operational tempo means that there are more spare parts, repair equipment, personnel closer to the front lines which would mean more logistics not less.
These are great points and we need to consider the type of conflict that were actually talking about in order to answer the question of the true depth of capability. Putin said in his speech that occupation is not in the cards, but even the logistics of supporting those troops is significant and we will see if there are limits there. So long as the conflict remains in Ukraine there will be no external threat to the supply lines to speak of. Russia’s armed forces are designed for defensive capability within 1000km of their borders and it seems unlikely that they will go past that to the point that the supply lines are vulnerable. In case the conflict does escalate to involve Nato they will not allow any forward positioning of materiel or troops and so long as the inventory of stand-off weapons is not exhausted there will be no way to protect the massive amounts of materiel necessary to fight a broader war. 8k Americans here 5k there is not sufficient, nor is the combined military might of NATO in Europe. If the conflict escalates every tarmac in Europe would be destroyed and every ship from the US would be a sitting duck.
On a related note, one thing that the Russians are known for is their operational tempo. In Syria their planes are in the air 3x more than NATO can achieve and the same goes for other hardware. Fewer breakdowns means less reliance on supply chain, right?
Every ship from the US would be a sitting duck?
To call that statement "extravagant" would be a generosity. It is an assumption that cannot possibly be proven in advance.
As for fewer breakdowns meaning less reliance on supply chains, you have it exactly backwards: to achieve fewer breakdowns requires a GREATER reliance on a (superior) supply chain.
There is no air defense system that can counter hypersonic missiles and their ranges are longer than an aircraft carrier’s fighters. How can that not mean that every ship is a sitting duck?
I see what you mean on the supply chain. Maybe the increased operational tempo means that there are more spare parts, repair equipment, personnel closer to the front lines which would mean more logistics not less.