The Colonel has a point.
But I disagree about the Germans.They won't fight the Russians in Poland,let alone in Belarus.Or not seriously,at least.More likely they will commit symbolic forces .Outright betrayal is not impossible.
I also suspect the Russian main effort isn't in the North,but South.Here's why.Russian opportunities to break NATO do not mean attacking strength.In the South there are weaker and less willing NATO members.Hungary is a double agent.Bulgaria is in Russia's pockett.They can make them or break them almost at will.Turkey is an enemy of Russia,but a rather dubious NATO member of late.Greece is a friend of Russia,while Serbia needs no further explanation.All these nations can be influenced or controlled by Russia via soft power.
The really hostile nations are Poland,the Baltics in the North and Romania in South.But Romania is both only half as powerful as Poland and surrounded by unreliable allies.
In the North there is both greater strength and fewer prizes.In the South there is acces to the ME,encirclement of Turkey,discrediting NATO and further isolation of the remaining hostile nations of the East.
Moreso,controlling the South gives them influence on the energy routes from both ME and Central Asia and makes Western inroads into the Stans futile.
So,as personal opinion,I see the fuss about the Baltic states as playing a bit in the hands of Russian maskirovka.
Military build-up in the N is of course good.But if I were to bet,I'd say we won't face a Russian invasion in the N,or even subversive wars Ukraine style.
I also disagree a bit about US.The US won't die massively regardless of the type of war.But US has invaluable force multipliers.The cavalry is engaged in dog and pony shows.The ability of US is to lift a few Patriot btn's or a few C17's with PGM's .
As the Colonel said,is not the WW3 of past.The stakes are a bit lower.
But I disagree about the Germans.They won't fight the Russians in Poland,let alone in Belarus.Or not seriously,at least.More likely they will commit symbolic forces .Outright betrayal is not impossible.
I also suspect the Russian main effort isn't in the North,but South.Here's why.Russian opportunities to break NATO do not mean attacking strength.In the South there are weaker and less willing NATO members.Hungary is a double agent.Bulgaria is in Russia's pockett.They can make them or break them almost at will.Turkey is an enemy of Russia,but a rather dubious NATO member of late.Greece is a friend of Russia,while Serbia needs no further explanation.All these nations can be influenced or controlled by Russia via soft power.
The really hostile nations are Poland,the Baltics in the North and Romania in South.But Romania is both only half as powerful as Poland and surrounded by unreliable allies.
In the North there is both greater strength and fewer prizes.In the South there is acces to the ME,encirclement of Turkey,discrediting NATO and further isolation of the remaining hostile nations of the East.
Moreso,controlling the South gives them influence on the energy routes from both ME and Central Asia and makes Western inroads into the Stans futile.
So,as personal opinion,I see the fuss about the Baltic states as playing a bit in the hands of Russian maskirovka.
Military build-up in the N is of course good.But if I were to bet,I'd say we won't face a Russian invasion in the N,or even subversive wars Ukraine style.
I also disagree a bit about US.The US won't die massively regardless of the type of war.But US has invaluable force multipliers.The cavalry is engaged in dog and pony shows.The ability of US is to lift a few Patriot btn's or a few C17's with PGM's .
As the Colonel said,is not the WW3 of past.The stakes are a bit lower.
Comment