OT? A New Cold War

[Raellus]

"History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes." -misattributed to Mark Twain

I find the evolving dynamic between the Russia and the West (NATO et al) fascinating. As a Cold War kid, historian, and T2K enthusiast, I see unsettling parallels between the current strained relationship between Putin's Russia and Europe/the U.S.A. I also see significant differences.

In the past two weeks, Russia sent several flights of combat aircraft into NATO airspace, tested a new ballistic missile, and may have snuck a submarine into and out of Swedish waters. Why? The following article does a good job of explaining why Russia may have initiated these fairly significant provocations.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...ato?cmpid=yhoo

Where is all of this going? It's fairly clear that Russia is attempting to reestablish a layer of protective buffer states between itself and NATO. Russia likely sees the West as an existential threat, social, economic, and or military. Is fear causing Russia's aggressive disregard for contemporary international norms? Is Russia simply trying to reestablish its lost status as a world superpower?

Either way, the continuing escalation in provocative behaviors between Russia and NATO could very well lead to a shooting war. A pet project of Rainbow Six's and mine is rebooting the T2K concept by bringing it into the near future, incorporating history (since v.10 and v2.2), current events, and projections based on careful analysis of such.

I intend to use this thread as a clearinghouse for articles dedicated to developments in this "New Cold War", for those of you interested in current events, modern military science, and possible ramifications thereof in a near-future T2K scenario. Feel free to post your own links and/or make your own comments.

[RN7]

I'd say Putin is doing his best to expand Russian political influence over the former Soviet republics, and as the article states how independent are the former Soviet states from Russia in reality? There are at least 15 million ethnic Russians still living in these countries and their economies are still closely linked and dependent on Russia. Particularly through Russian energy exports to them, and Russia's guarantee of their security through its strategic nuclear forces and its air defence capabilities. However there is also a lot of resistance to Russian interference in their affairs for example the Ukraine, the Baltic States and Georgia, and Russia has its own troublesome ethnic minorities such as the Chechens.

However beyond the old Soviet borders Russia will have a lot of trouble regaining the political influence that the Soviet Union once had. In Europe most of the old Warsaw Pact nations are now part of NATO as are the Baltic States, and Germany is united. All of Europe's neutral countries are Western democracies, and the only ally that Russia has in Europe is Serbia although there may be some lingering pro-Russian sentiment among the Eastern Slav's and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe. Also Russia is not much of an economic power. In 1985 the Soviet economy was about 55% the size of the US economy. In 2013 the Russian economy was still smaller than the Soviet economy was in 1985 and is about 13% the size of the current US economy. In Europe the Russian economy is the same size as the Italian economy, and smaller than the economies of Germany, France and Britain. Russia still has the world's third largest defence budget, but China spends twice as much and America spends seven time as much, yet Russia is still trying to keep up with America and China in numbers.

Russia's economy is also dependent on energy and arms exports. China, India and others buy a lot of arms and technology from Russia, but they do so because they can't afford Western arms or because the West won't sell them arms (China). Many countries are also still dependent on Russian oil and gas, notably the former Soviet Republics, China and Europe, and Putin has used Russian energy resources as a tool to bully them. But oil exports are dependent on the price of a barrel of oil, and that can and has been manipulated in the past.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...iet-Union.html
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...t-saudis-pump/

Today America doesn't need Middle Eastern oil anymore because of its shale resources. Imagine the economic harm that it could do to Russia now

[Raellus]

An interesting article on Poland's role in the current dynamic- quite a change from the old Cold War days.

http://www.businessinsider.com/polan...vasion-2014-10

[Raellus]

A fairly concise and fair-minded analysis of Russia's attempt to enlarge and modernize its military, and the obstacles that it will likely face along the way.

http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...tary-back-9181

[Raellus]

Potential fault lines within the NATO alliance.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...military-11661

At least some NATO member nations are taking the Russian threat seriously.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...tml?cmpid=yhoo

[rob]

Take the verboseness of Russia with grain of salt. Their land forces are still draft based, loaded with corruption, have many out dated systems from the 1980s. Don't get me wrong here, they do have some good stuff, not just enough of it. What NATOs problem is since the winding down in Afghanistan, NATO members have not been keeping the forces current. Right now, in dealing with Russia, the use the economic method. Russia trades sells oil which is bought and sold in US dollars, as is gold, with oil prices down, their economic situation is not good.

[Raellus]

Rob, your point's well taken. However, with Moscow increasing spending on defense, and the U.S. cutting defense spending, the qualitative gap is starting to close. And in some military categories, like armor, the Russians have a quantitative advantage.

My point is that the Russians aren't pushovers. 10-years ago, probably. Today, not really. 10 years from now, if these defense spending trends continue, even less so. I don't want the West to make the mistake of underestimating ta potential adversary.

[Raellus]

Moscow still has a few friends.

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-troops...162814039.html

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

My point is that the Russians aren't pushovers. 10-years ago, probably. Today, not really. 10 years from now, if these defense spending trends continue, even less so. I don't want the West to make the mistake of underestimating ta potential adversary.

I agree in general but Russia has short and long term issues which will probably break those trends.

1. The aggressive posture seems to be the result of a cult of personality. If Putin is removed from the equation (perhaps his shirt allergy flairs up ) I believe Russia would not maintain its current stance.
2. Demographic issues related to the age of the populace I have discussed before.
3. Their economy is a one trick pony (energy) and crude futures are down 6% this week and 29% annually. Also the energy strangle hold on Europe is weakening with the first LNG transports from the US arriving in Lithuania last month.

A populace will accept a reduction of freedoms (as Putin has done) if there is a dynamic economy. The crash of the Ruble (down over 30% since the beginning of the year) should put a bit of a damper on Putin's tightening control and his military buildup which is riddled with graft and corruption.

I am not saying I don't think the USA is in bad shape compared to a decade ago, but fundamentally I think China is positioned better to be our primary opposition over Russia.

[Olefin]

Keep in mind too that the effective Russian Army is actually quite small compared to their whole force. Most of their forces are still not that well trained, motivated or equipped. In many ways their army is more like the early WWII model right now - a core of well trained and well equipped men with the vast majority being little better than militia, albeit decently equipped militia. The question is will Putin have the time and the money to be able to make that mass of ineffectives into something like what the Soviets had in the early 80's

[Raellus]

You guys both raise a lot of good points, and I don't disagree with most of them. Kato, your shirt allergy comment made me LOL. But that's why I'm so troubled. I think Putin is very realistic about Russia's limitations. If you read the articles, Russia is actively trying to rectify its military shortcomings. It probably won't succeed to the point where those major, endemic weaknesses are completely cured, but it's trying. Likewise, Putin has shown that he is an opportunist and is ready to take aggressive action when he sees an advantage or opportunity arise. Russia is clearly testing the waters of expansionism now in the Ukraine and Moscow's learned that aggressive, expansionist behavior is not being adequately punished, not to any degree that has deterred said behavior. Recent reports suggest that active Russian military involvement in east Ukraine is actually increasing. Putin appears to be learning the same lessons that Hitler learned from his earliest land grabs: the West talks a big game but isn't willing to back it up.

My fear is Putin realizes Russian limitations and, at some point, events will reach an event horizon where Russia feels like the time to reclaim the old Soviet break-away republics is now or never. There are a number of factors that could trigger Russian aggression. I see those weaknesses that you pointed out Kato, especially the economic ones, as being pressures that will actually encourage increased aggression. For example, if Putin senses that he is losing control due to domestic disatisfaction in a weakening economy, it might increase his aggressive behaviro. The Argentine Junta did this in the Falklands in 1982.

I can definitely see him trying to pull a Crimea in Latvia and or Estonia. I can even see an outright military invasion of the Baltic Republics. Sure NATO could probably kick them out, but would they really try? They've taken a very soft stance regarding Crimea and Eastern Ukraine- the vibe NATO's been putting out there is that they probably wouldn't risk all-out war to defend the sovereignty of a few tiny nations. Granted, that's a worst-case scenario, but I really can see it happening. Heck, according to a couple of the articles, Estonia and Latvia, and even Poland, are afraid of being ditched by NATO if Russia were to attack.

[kato13]

If you are saying you think Putin is a major threat in the near term (say 3 years), I fully agree with you.

The longer term is where I have less concern.

Full disclosure regarding the shirt joke: Credit should belong to "The Daily Show".

[Olefin]

The real question is will Putin make the same mistake that Hitler made

Hitler got his way in the Rhineland and Austria and Czechoslovakia and planned to fight the West between 1942-1944

So he figured he could easily invade Poland, get what he needed there and then build up for the really big war - instead he miscalculated and got his big war right there and then - and in the end he lost

[Webstral]

George Friedman has some interesting observations about Russia and a second Cold War in The Next 100 Years. He called the Ukraine when he wrote the book. While I don't agree with everything he writes, the book is very well worth reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years...next+100+years

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The real question is will Putin make the same mistake that Hitler made

Hitler got his way in the Rhineland and Austria and Czechoslovakia and planned to fight the West between 1942-1944

So he figured he could easily invade Poland, get what he needed there and then build up for the really big war - instead he miscalculated and got his big war right there and then - and in the end he lost

He got several months of "Sitzkrieg" as French and British forces sat on their hands watching the final stages of the partition of Poland. In the meantime, he conquered Norway and the Low Countries. After that, he steamrolled through France in about a month and sent the BEF across the Channel in tatters. At that point, things were looking really good for Nazi Germany.

By far, his biggest strategic mistake was invading Russia, and doing so before Great Britain could be knocked out of the war. Second to that, in terms of colossal strategic blunders, was declaring war on the U.S.A. Imagine how he could have complicated things between the U.K. and the U.S. by refusing to officially declare war on the U.S. The American public, who were already baying for Japanese blood, would have had a very hard time with a unilateral declaration of war against Germany when Japan was perceived as the more legitimate, imminent threat. Congress likely wouldn't have backed the the Germany First agreement. Hitler signed his own death warrant when he held true to the Tripartite Pact and declared war on the U.S.A.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Keep in mind too that the effective Russian Army is actually quite small compared to their whole force. Most of their forces are still not that well trained, motivated or equipped. In many ways their army is more like the early WWII model right now - a core of well trained and well equipped men with the vast majority being little better than militia, albeit decently equipped militia. The question is will Putin have the time and the money to be able to make that mass of ineffectives into something like what the Soviets had in the early 80's

^This. Exactly right. The post-Soviet Russian Army has tried to simultaneously retain the mobilization-type force of the Cold War alongside a professional, well-trained, well-equipped ready reaction force and it's really strained them. They've enjoyed a short period of economic happy times due to their energy exports but that isn't a constant. As the years go by all that old equipment gets older and they can't maintain it all properly.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And there's always China to worry about as well...
http://news.yahoo.com/video/chinese-...044547470.html

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

And there's always China to worry about as well...
http://news.yahoo.com/video/chinese-...044547470.html

The Chinese are shameless and will just flatly deny it as they do about everything else, and the blancmange in the White House will do absolutely nothing about it.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

I am not saying I don't think the USA is in bad shape compared to a decade ago, but fundamentally I think China is positioned better to be our primary opposition over Russia.

I would totally agree. China is a strategic competitor to the US on an economic scale that Russia or the USSR could never match. China's intellectual thievery is also becoming menacing, although most of the hardware it clones still sucks. But the rate China's technology is advancing I'd say America has about five years to put an end to it or it might become to difficult to stop.

However America is becoming energy self sufficient again because of shale, and that will give it a freedom on the international stage that it really hasn't had for the last sixty years. Unlike China and Europe it can't be bullied by the likes of Russia and OPEC. Also the things that once made China attractive to investment will soon make it unattractive; big population, low wages, non-existent labour and health laws, dictatorship. Now it has an ageing and soon shrinking population, popular demands for higher wages, fairer laws and an end to government corruption and more democracy. The Chinese government can only manipulate and lie too its population and the rest of the world so much.

[Raellus]

I agree that China is the stronger rival to the U.S.A., ATM, and looks likely to continue being so. I've shared my thoughts on that matter in the Twilight 2030 thread. That being said, I still think that, ATM, is the more dangerous one, currently at least.

I'd like to focus more on Russia here. I encourage you to read the articles I've posted the links to here. Here's an oldie but goody.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-...t-line-2014-10

The map with U.S. and Russian bases, correlation of forces table, and flashpoint blurbs is a pretty good place to start.

[kato13]

For me this argument is falling into the fact that I bought the USSR was in parity with NATO capability and sustainability and "Fool me once, shame on the USSR, fool me twice shame on me". Back in the 80s I ignored chronic systemic issues with their military and economy (by reading articles that sounded very much like the ones I see now).

I think if you want Russia to be the big baddie in 2030, you need to focus on how their economy is able expand now not their military IMO. The Russian economy is not doing well. I read an article earlier this week where Apple Corp's valuation was 33% greater than the ENTIRE Russian stock market.



Just spit-balling but maybe throw something beyond oil and gas into the equation. Maybe they master fusion or superconductors which is dependent on some rare element they have a near monopoly on.

If I were to play T2k now I would explain the USSR's survival by having them produce as much oil as they do now, plus finding and exploiting the gold and mineral reserves which were featured in Clancy's Bear and the Dragon. I think you need to do something similar. My planned point of historical divergence went back as early as 1973 IIRC, with the Soviet expanding their oil exploration in response to the oil crisis.

This can certainly be frustrating when writing "future" history as you have to make the point of divergence earlier to allow the economy to change dramatically in time before the military build up, and in a year it might already be wrong.

Of course as far as RPGs go most players did not know the rich and well thought out history of DnD's Greyhawk realm, and they still enjoyed it. You don't have to make everything logical or perfectly connected to real world in order to make an interesting game world. Because of this please only take my suggestions if they help you make what you want.

[Raellus]

I appreciate constructive criticism and I appreciate helpful suggestions even more. I'll think about how we can make Russia stronger economically so that they can pay for the wide-reaching modernization that they are currently pushing for, but won't likely be able to sustain given their financial woes. The will is there, but they might be losing their way. If I can reconcile the wants with the hows, I think this could work.

Also, keep in mind that the premise for our T2030 is that the U.S. is concurrently embroiled in ground combat with the PLA in North Korea, and the Asian war is widening when the Russians go in for the Baltic States. The U.S. and its allies won't just be fighting the Russian Federation, they'll be fighting the PRC and its allies as well. Therefore, Russia doesn't have to be strong enough to fight the entire might of the U.S.A. on its own.

Even now, IMPO, Russia is strong enough to take at least one of the Baltic states before NATO can mount an effective military response (if Russia can somehow achieve surprise). The Estonian military, for example is tiny, and lacks armor (aside from a few second-hand CV-90s) and fighter aircraft (they may be purchasing some SAAB Grippens, but the deal is still up in the air- pun intended). Estonia barely has a blue water navy. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for NATO to get there with sufficient heavy brigades to stop Russia in the event of a massive combined arms invasion.

[Olefin]

I can see the Poles definitely in the case of a Russian invasion of the Baltic states coming to their aid very quickly - especially as they have sufficient armor and training to be able to hand the Russians a very bloody nose. And also keep in mind that the Soviets took away an awful lot of Poland after WWII - if anyone has a grudge in Eastern Europe against the Russians its the Poles.

However I agree that the Baltic nations militaries, as they currently stand, would be little more than speed bumps against the Russians.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I appreciate constructive criticism and I appreciate helpful suggestions even more. I'll think about how we can make Russia stronger economically so that they can pay for the wide-reaching modernization that they are currently pushing for, but won't likely be able to sustain given their financial woes. The will is there, but they might be losing their way. If I can reconcile the wants with the hows, I think this could work.

The problem here Raellus is finding a way to make Russia economically stronger in the future. Its current strengths are its energy resources and its arms industry.


Oil: Russia is currently (2014) the world's third largest producer of oil after Saudi Arabia and the USA. Russian production is all conventional and unless they find the motherload of oil fields under Siberia or offshore in the Arctic they are unlikely to produce any more than they currently do. Russia has potentially the world's largest technically recoverable oil shale resources (if you believe their figures), even bigger than America's so they say. Although they have plenty of water needed to recover it, unlike America they don't have the technology and the favourable geology needed to economically exploit it.

Ores: Russia has plenty of ores, and many rare ones. But what's out there that's going to make Russia a ton of money and dominate the world market in it? Unless we try 2300AD tantalum!

Arms Exports: Most years Russia ties with America as the world's leading exporter of arms by value. I think their currently first but it changes periodically, and the big Western European arms exporters (France, Britain, Germany) and others eat away at their market share. China also is becoming a force in arms exports, and over the next decade may start to match American and Russian leadership. However America is by far the biggest market for American defence contractors, but Russia's defence industry needs the likes of China and India and others to buy its weapons.

Other areas Russia could exploit in the future.

Copy China: Russia could try and copy China and make itself a low cost hub for multinationals to make consumer brands and gadgets for re-export back to the rich developed world. Despite Obama claiming that Russia doesn't build anything, Russia does have a sizeable existing capacity to manufacture a whole range of consumables products, with most of it goes back into the Russian market. It could be greatly expanded with foreign investment, but Russian industry is notoriously inefficient and the country doesn't have a good reputation in quality and reliability. Ironically Russia is also considered a rich country compared to others, as the standard of living of your average Russian is twice that of your average Chinese. If a Russian worker can't compete with an average German who earns US$45K a year how are they going to compete with a Chinese earning US$ 7K a year?

Civil Aviation: Russia has since the breakup of the Soviet Union tried to become a force in the production of civil aircraft. America (Boeing) and Europe (Airbus) dominate the large civil jet airline industry, America (Cessna, Gulfstream), Brazil (Embraer) and Canada (Bombardier) dominate the regional/business jet airline industry, and America (General Electric and Pratt & Whitney) and Britain (Rolls Royce) build all the engines. Russia has the industry and technology to build its own civil airlines and engines but has pretty much failed miserably to do so outside of selling some aircraft to Russian airlines and few oddball regimes around the world. Its best bet would be trying to break into the regional/business jet airline industry, but China and Japan are also trying to do the same. Oddly enough Antonov has carved a niche for itself in the heavy air cargo industry that is dominated by Boeing 747 freighters through the An-124 transport, but Antonov is a Ukrainian company and not Russian.

Space: Russia is still a force in the space industry. Since Obama shut the Space Shuttle programme down and cancelled NASA's Constellation programme, Russia has pretty much dominates manned orbital launches and charges America a premium for the use of its rockets. However American astronauts will be back in space within five years with the ongoing development of the SLS launchers and the Orion spacecraft. In unmanned launchers they compete with America, ESA, China and others, but haven't been that successful in selling their commercial communications and observation satellites to other countries. China is interested in acquiring Russian military satellites for its own military uses, but I don't think Russia will be selling them their most advanced ones.

Nuclear Fusion: Russia has a major nuclear power industry and has an ongoing nuclear fusion programme. Only America has a bigger nuclear weapons industry and builds more nuclear reactors for military purposes, but Russia's civil nuclear industry is smaller than many think. American nuclear power stations produce four times as much energy as Russia's do, and France and Japan also have bigger nuclear power industries and soon China will too. Future breakthrough's in nuclear fusion are likely to occur in America or Western Europe (Britain and France) who are devoting the most resources towards it. The same could be said for other cutting edge technologies. Russian research is highly respected and the country still produces plenty of smart scientists and engineers, but they can't compete with America and others for funding.

[Webstral]

I agree that there are things Russia could do in a hurry. The question would be what it would take to stay there. If Putin could pull off a major diplomatic coup in the wake of an invasion of one or more Baltic Republics, he might be able to get the US to agree to let him keep what he took. This doesn't seem likely, though. The chicken hawks in the US are looking for an excuse to dust off the good stuff that seldom got used in OIF or OEF. Escalation would be virtually unavoidable, given the tiny nature of the Baltic Republics versus the operational range of the aircraft that would be involved. The logic of counter-air pretty quickly would involve combat in the airspace of nations around the Baltics, followed by attacks on air bases, SAM, and ground-based radar in neighboring countries. While one might argue that escalation might be managed by a sort of firewall between aircraft penetrating non-Baltic airspace in prosecution of operations focused on the Baltics and ground forces crossing land borders, the inevitable efforts of USAF SO rescuing pilots would blur the line between rescue and commando operations, which would blur the line further regarding heliborne raids, which might finally lead to cross-border actions by ground forces. Though I'm not Putin, I have a hard time imagining what he thinks he could get out of occupying one or more Baltic Republics compared to the firestorm that could erupt in response.

[stormlion1]

One thing to remember about Russia in comparison to the west is they are still producing new Aircraft, Tanks, Helicopters, etc while most NATO nations have stopped producing quite some time ago. Most of that gear is for the export market but it all can be seized before it leaves the country for domestic use. Stalin once said Quantity has a quality all on its own. The Current leadership in Russia I think is taking that lesson to heart. In a non-nuclear war they can flood a battlefield while every piece of NATO gear will be priceless in comparison. Its only the lack of clear allies that stops the Russians from really getting ambitious.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree that there are things Russia could do in a hurry. The question would be what it would take to stay there. If Putin could pull off a major diplomatic coup in the wake of an invasion of one or more Baltic Republics, he might be able to get the US to agree to let him keep what he took. This doesn't seem likely, though. The chicken hawks in the US are looking for an excuse to dust off the good stuff that seldom got used in OIF or OEF. Escalation would be virtually unavoidable, given the tiny nature of the Baltic Republics versus the operational range of the aircraft that would be involved. The logic of counter-air pretty quickly would involve combat in the airspace of nations around the Baltics, followed by attacks on air bases, SAM, and ground-based radar in neighboring countries. While one might argue that escalation might be managed by a sort of firewall between aircraft penetrating non-Baltic airspace in prosecution of operations focused on the Baltics and ground forces crossing land borders, the inevitable efforts of USAF SO rescuing pilots would blur the line between rescue and commando operations, which would blur the line further regarding heliborne raids, which might finally lead to cross-border actions by ground forces. Though I'm not Putin, I have a hard time imagining what he thinks he could get out of occupying one or more Baltic Republics compared to the firestorm that could erupt in response.

Right. But that's where the West's response so far, which in some ways echoes the Appeasement policy of the Great Britain and France leading up to WWII, might be informing Putin's decision-making. So far, he's annexed Crimea and destabilized large chunks of Ukraine without receiving anything harsher than stern warnings and economic sanctions, both of which Putin has pretty much ignored. So far, sanctions have not proven to be an effective deterent. Is he really worried about a NATO military response? Probably, but if his plans in the Ukraine pan out in the not-so-distant future, he may decide that NATO is a paper tiger, all bark and no bight (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

Hilter said something to the effect that if the French military had responded to his reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936, he wouldn't have been able to hold it. France's innaction encouraged Hitler to take control of Austria and invade parts of Czechoslovakia and, ultimately Poland. Just four years after he could have been stopped by France, he demolished it.

I have a scenario which I'm almost ready to share here that I think makes a compelling case that Russia could take and hold at least one of the Baltic States (probably Estonia), even with a conventional military response from NATO.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

One thing to remember about Russia in comparison to the west is they are still producing new Aircraft, Tanks, Helicopters, etc while most NATO nations have stopped producing quite some time ago. Most of that gear is for the export market but it all can be seized before it leaves the country for domestic use. Stalin once said Quantity has a quality all on its own. The Current leadership in Russia I think is taking that lesson to heart. In a non-nuclear war they can flood a battlefield while every piece of NATO gear will be priceless in comparison. Its only the lack of clear allies that stops the Russians from really getting ambitious.

I totally agree, Stormlion. I've been arguing the numbers game for years. Yeah, an M1A2 is, overall, a better tank than a T-72MB, but if the Russians can field 5-6 T-72MBs for every one M1A1, a rough parity can be achieved. And some of the latest T-90 upgrades are narrowing the qualitative gap.

If NATO shows any cracks, it might serve, in Putin's mind, to mitigate his lack of strong allies. Regardless, he's working to build economic and military alliances with sympathetic or easily bullied nations (see the recent "anti-terrorist" join maneuvers with Serbia and the [economic] Eurasian Union).
-

[Raellus]

I'll wager that NATO will hold a qualitative edge in aerial combat over Russia for the foreseeable future but this article makes me a little less confident.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ame...s-7e974b11d217

The F-16 is still my favorite jet fighter bomber, has been ever since I first set eyes on one. I used to spend hours on my old black-and-white Macintosh trying to earn ribbons in a Falcon sim game. This news has me feeling a little sad.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I have a scenario which I'm almost ready to share here that I think makes a compelling case that Russia could take and hold at least one of the Baltic States (probably Estonia), even with a conventional military response from NATO.

Unless a US Navy carrier battle group was sailing around the Gulf of Riga and a fully mobilised NATO corps and air group was positioned in Poland the Baltics wouldn't have a hope in resisting a Russian invasion. They have a no air force other than some light transport planes, 13 Mi-8/17 helicopters and some civil aircraft. Their navy has 4 patrol vessels and 15 minesweepers, and they have an army of 14,000 troops with 3 T-55 tanks, 266 APC and 142 towed artillery pieces and 50,000 reserves and para-military.

Originally Posted by Raellus

If NATO shows any cracks, it might serve, in Putin's mind, to mitigate his lack of strong allies. Regardless, he's working to build economic and military alliances with sympathetic or easily bullied nations (see the recent "anti-terrorist" join maneuvers with Serbia and the [economic] Eurasian Union).

Since Russia annexed the Crimea a good way to rub Putin's nose in it might be for Germany and NATO to threaten to annex the Kaliningad enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. It used to be part of German East Prussia until 1945, although it would also make the Poles very nervous!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Since Russia annexed the Crimea a good way to rub Putin's nose in it might be for Germany and NATO to threaten to annex the Kaliningad enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. It used to be part of German East Prussia until 1945, although it would also make the Poles very nervous!

If that happened my joy would know no bounds. Perfect scenario: NATO annexes the Kaliningad enclave, Putin goes on a Siberian wilderness trip in an effort to make himself feel better and look macho to his people and gets mauled by a bear, subsequently dying slowly and in pain and dimly aware that he has become incontinent.