NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned Thursday that the military alliance would defend every inch of its territory should Russia attack a member country, as he slammed Moscow for launching a brutal act of war on Ukraine.
How many NATO countries besides the US have functional militaries capable of actual warfighting? Perhaps the UK and France, but who else?
The real question is: how much military capacity does Putin have in reserve? This is still his show.
Only the US can fight a war on the other side of the planet. Russia does not have the logistics to project as far, but within 1000km of the Russian border they have almost unlimited escalatory potential. Artillery, MRLS, EW, air support, air defense, short range ballistic and hypersonic middles, and long range standoff weapons are all fully integrated with infantry and tank armies.
While Russia’s new weapons systems are in serial production they can’t match the capacity of the US to manufacture new munitions and the numbers already created are supposedly pretty small, so how long they could maintain operational tempo in a war of attrition is unclear.
Russia will not attack NATO unless attacked by NATO, but has warned that interference in their “special military operation” in Ukraine will be met with force. They have made it clear that it will not only be soldiers but the people giving the orders that will be destroyed if Russia is attacked.
The Saker, Moonofalabama, and Andrei Martyanov have a huge body of work on these topics if you aren’t familiar.
Also- I believe that this is just the beginning of the actions Russia will take to regain the security it lost as NATO moved eastward. Expect the unexpected - the gloves are clearly off, the ultimatums have come and gone, and Russia has decided that the sanctions were going to come anyway so they are not a deterrent. Russia has made it clear that they will not tolerate the further subjugation of its citizens abroad and there is no further position for them to retreat to. The west’s refusal to discuss the security guarantees demanded by Russia, plus Germany’s dismissal of the idea that what has happened in Ukraine is genocide, plus Zelensky’s threat of developing nuclear weapons have led directly to the decision to demilitarize Ukraine and arrest those involved in the murder of Ukrainian civilians.
Finally, there has been a lot of talk inside Russia about war crimes so expect capture and trial of Ukrainian military involved in the aftermath of the 2014 coup.
According to media accounts, Putin committed some 190,000 troops to his "special military operation". He still has forces in Syria. Russian military morale is said to be problematic at best. So how many additional troops can he put in play?
Russia has some impressive munitions, but taking and holding territory still requires boots on the ground. And that requires an ability to arm, feed, and house them at the front lines. After the failure of operation market garden the allies focused on capturing Antwerp to resolve the problem of a massively overextended supply line from Normandy.
Drilling into the question of Putin's military reserve capacity is not about munitions but how many troops can he sustain in the field? How long will his Ukrainian force of 190,000 remain viable without replacements, and what efforts will he need to effect those replacements?
I don't pretend to know the answers, but given the troop numbers being discussed by NATO--5,000 here, 8,500 there, 40,000 somewhere else--I am far from convinced the tactical geniuses at the top of NATO even know to ask the questions.
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.
Only the US can fight a war on the other side of the planet. Russia does not have the logistics to project as far, but within 1000km of the Russian border they have almost unlimited escalatory potential. Artillery, MRLS, EW, air support, air defense, short range ballistic and hypersonic middles, and long range standoff weapons are all fully integrated with infantry and tank armies.
While Russia’s new weapons systems are in serial production they can’t match the capacity of the US to manufacture new munitions and the numbers already created are supposedly pretty small, so how long they could maintain operational tempo in a war of attrition is unclear.
Russia will not attack NATO unless attacked by NATO, but has warned that interference in their “special military operation” in Ukraine will be met with force. They have made it clear that it will not only be soldiers but the people giving the orders that will be destroyed if Russia is attacked.
The Saker, Moonofalabama, and Andrei Martyanov have a huge body of work on these topics if you aren’t familiar.
Also- I believe that this is just the beginning of the actions Russia will take to regain the security it lost as NATO moved eastward. Expect the unexpected - the gloves are clearly off, the ultimatums have come and gone, and Russia has decided that the sanctions were going to come anyway so they are not a deterrent. Russia has made it clear that they will not tolerate the further subjugation of its citizens abroad and there is no further position for them to retreat to. The west’s refusal to discuss the security guarantees demanded by Russia, plus Germany’s dismissal of the idea that what has happened in Ukraine is genocide, plus Zelensky’s threat of developing nuclear weapons have led directly to the decision to demilitarize Ukraine and arrest those involved in the murder of Ukrainian civilians.
Finally, there has been a lot of talk inside Russia about war crimes so expect capture and trial of Ukrainian military involved in the aftermath of the 2014 coup.
According to media accounts, Putin committed some 190,000 troops to his "special military operation". He still has forces in Syria. Russian military morale is said to be problematic at best. So how many additional troops can he put in play?
Russia has some impressive munitions, but taking and holding territory still requires boots on the ground. And that requires an ability to arm, feed, and house them at the front lines. After the failure of operation market garden the allies focused on capturing Antwerp to resolve the problem of a massively overextended supply line from Normandy.
Drilling into the question of Putin's military reserve capacity is not about munitions but how many troops can he sustain in the field? How long will his Ukrainian force of 190,000 remain viable without replacements, and what efforts will he need to effect those replacements?
I don't pretend to know the answers, but given the troop numbers being discussed by NATO--5,000 here, 8,500 there, 40,000 somewhere else--I am far from convinced the tactical geniuses at the top of NATO even know to ask the questions.
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.
The Bee nailed it: https://babylonbee.com/news/americas-armed-forces-ramp-up-inclusiveness-training-in-face-of-looming-war-in-ukraine