Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

[Officer of Engineers]

A total and blatant misrepresentation of my words: A. I never said the bridge building exercise - or Anakonda 16 - was a NATO exercise; it was NOT. The pontoon bridge exercise was conducted by Anglo German troops is all I said during Anakonda 16, I mentioned it merely as an example that allied troops could be stationed (based) in Poland. B. I never even suggested in the slightest that Poland can guarantee the Baltic's safety, on the contrary I said that Baltic's are currently indefencible. C. I never claimed that Ukrainian armoured forces are equal to Muscovies either - we do not and should not seek a head to head battle in armour as we would lose proportionally worse then they could; even if Ukraine 'won' such a head to head the victory would be Pyrrhic.

A very wise man once said, "Say what you mean and mean what you say or else, no one can know what you mean."

Your words.

But NATO partners came to a Polish exercise.

NATO or Polish? In regards to NATO inter operational capability I would say it was effective.

Intermarium.

Thus our misgivings regarding German support in Belarus (for example). In the end only strong self reliance is dependable shared between CEE nations.

Europe without strong and independent CEE nations is a large war waiting to happen which would cost far more to deter or fight. We are aware of our shortcomings and seek to make them good but let's face the Ukrainians alone have fought the Muscovites and their proxies to a virtual standstill. If you do not defend the Dnipro you will have to defend the Vistula or the Danube. Don't defend them and you are on the Rhine. We are not without some know - how when it comes to bashing Muscovite 'liberators' (white or red). Nor do I think it would be entirely welcomed in Poland to ask the Germans in; it's a bit like asking the Serbs to seek 'salvation' from the Turks.

I don't know much about the Bulgarian situation but am not sure they are in Moscow's pocket. I recall some argument, last year I think, where they had their military aircraft refitted by the Poles - which naturally caused some rancour in Moscow. See also the Craiova Group and recent Visegrad meetings with Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania and others invited. Poland takes over the Presidency of Visegrad later this year.

Still does not change the fact that they are more apt at maneuver warfare than the Ukrainians.

Time may tell on that.

And these are just from this thread. I can search other threads where you say one thing only to backtrack afterwards.

[snapper]

So how do you interpret this to read that Anakonda 16 was a NATO exercise when I specifically said it was Polish exercise, that Poland can guarantee Baltic security when I said that at present the Baltic's are indefencible and that Ukrainian armoured forces were equal to the Muscovites?

Yes I believe in the 'intermarium' project as Ukraine is unlikely to get NATO membership so a CEE alliance provides some greater security not just for Ukraine but for all it's partners but this is a possible (and realistically most likely) future option for the regions security. In real terms it would require some 5 to 10yrs before the CEE nations had the military capability to be self reliant in an alliance.

[Officer of Engineers]

So how do you interpret this to read that Anakonda 16 was a NATO exercise when I specifically said it was Polish exercise,

You're the one who invoked the NATO name. When it has nothing to do with NATO and that German-Anglo bridge? It has nothing to do with the Poles either.

that Poland can guarantee Baltic security when I said that at present the Baltic's are indefencible

I'm not the one who spouted intermarium or CEE. I'm the one who postulate absent the Americans, only the Germans can deter the Russians. You're the one who spouted ANAKONDA-16 as an example of Polish military prowess.

and that Ukrainian armoured forces were equal to the Muscovites?

You're the one who challenged the assertion of Russian maneuver superiority over the Ukrainians. And when provided with examples of Russian military maneuver, you gave excuses (Minsk 1 and 2) why it succeeded without giving credit where credit was due. The Russians saw a weak point and move strong forces onto it and it wasn't even detected by the Ukrainians until it was too late. That the Ukrianians have gotten stronger through defensive belts means they've gotten stronger in positional warfare, not maneuver warfare

Yes I believe in the 'intermarium' project as Ukraine is unlikely to get NATO membership so a CEE alliance provides some greater security not just for Ukraine but for all it's partners but this is a possible (and realistically most likely) future option for the regions security. In real terms it would require some 5 to 10yrs before the CEE nations had the military capability to be self reliant in an alliance.

Try 30 years. Not one CEE country is aiming for expeditionary warfare. All of them, correctly so, are shoring up their positional defences (faster and cheaper to build) but does nothing to go help to rescue their neighbours.

[snapper]

You're the one who invoked the NATO name. When it has nothing to do with NATO and that German-Anglo bridge? It has nothing to do with the Poles either.

I never said it was a Polish bridge!!! I said it was Anglo German but used it - and Anakonda 16 in general - as an illustration that NATO troops could be based in Poland as you had said Germany was built to take troops. Are Britain and Germany in NATO? Yes, so the bridge building exercise was done between NATO partners. Did I say it was a NATO exercise? NO!

I'm not the one who spouted intermarium or CEE. I'm the one who postulate absent the Americans, only the Germans can deter the Russians. You're the one who spouted ANAKONDA-16 as an example of Polish military prowess.

Again I never said anything about "Polish military prowess" let alone a Polish guarantee for Baltic security which unlike yourself I know is impossible.

You're the one who challenged the assertion of Russian maneuver superiority over the Ukrainians. And when provided with examples of Russian military maneuver, you gave excuses (Minsk 1 and 2) why it succeeded without giving credit where credit was due. The Russians saw a weak point and move strong forces onto it and it wasn't even detected by the Ukrainians until it was too late. That the Ukrianians have gotten stronger through defensive belts means they've gotten stronger in positional warfare, not maneuver warfare

Ergo it is not proven today but only in the past. Nor has any battle so far been a maneuver battle. A battle for the Dnipro would be maneuver war but has not happened.

Try 30 years. Not one CEE country is aiming for expeditionary warfare. All of them, correctly so, are shoring up their positional defences (faster and cheaper to build) but does nothing to go help to rescue their neighbours.

Ones own defences must come first but what do you think LITPOLUKBRIG, V4 BG and the soon to be announced Romanian based international Brigade are about?

You blatantly misinterpret me and it's BS, good day Colonel.

[SteveDaPirate]

I'm the one who postulate absent the Americans, only the Germans can deter the Russians.

How about the French?

3rd largest nuclear arsenal, 5th largest defense budget, and currently the largest army in the EU. They are one of the few countries in the world that can and does project military power on a semi-regular basis, and as of 2009 they are once again a full member of NATO.

Even though they weren't the last to do so, I doubt the Russians will have forgotten that the French came knocking at Moscow's gates in the past.

[Officer of Engineers]

I never said it was a Polish bridge!!! I said it was Anglo German but used it - and Anakonda 16 in general - as an illustration that NATO troops could be based in Poland as you had said Germany was built to take troops. Are Britain and Germany in NATO? Yes, so the bridge building exercise was done between NATO partners. Did I say it was a NATO exercise? NO!

Again, it has nothing to do with NATO. No NATO assignment, No NATO exercise. Nothing to do with NATO. You worked or has worked in the Foreign Service, you know very well how words have specific meaning. You were to infer NATO participation in ANAKONDA-16 when there was none.

Again I never said anything about "Polish military prowess" let alone a Polish guarantee for Baltic security which unlike yourself I know is impossible.

Then what is this garbage about intermarium or CEE.

Ergo it is not proven today but only in the past. Nor has any battle so far been a maneuver battle. A battle for the Dnipro would be maneuver war but has not happened.

We can clearly see you don't have the tanks nor the trucks to do with the Russians did. Hence, the odds are heavily stacked against your claim.

Ones own defences must come first but what do you think LITPOLUKBRIG, V4 BG and the soon to be announced Romanian based international Brigade are about?

A freaking brigade! The Germans move entire corps!

You blatantly misinterpret me and it's BS, good day Colonel.

No, you clearly try to make things more than they appear to be and when you are called out on it, you play the victim.

[Officer of Engineers]

How about the French?

They have to go through Germany.

[snapper]

Again, it has nothing to do with NATO. No NATO assignment, No NATO exercise. Nothing to do with NATO. You worked or has worked in the Foreign Service, you know very well how words have specific meaning. You were to infer NATO participation in ANAKONDA-16 when there was none.

What do you understand by "a Polish exercise"? Did NATO allies take part? Yes! Was it a NATO exercise? I said it was Polish exercise. How does this imply it was a NATO exercise? I honestly cannot see it.

Then what is this garbage about intermarium or CEE.

Is the intermarium Poland? No. Did I say that Poland could guarantee Baltic security? No!

We can clearly see you don't have the tanks nor the trucks to do with the Russians did. Hence, the odds are heavily stacked against your claim.

I very much hope we do not have to find out but my point is that large scale maneuver battle has not yet been tested. If they were to 'break out' of the Donbass pocket and go for Dnipro Ukraine would be forced to commit it's mobile armour.

A freaking brigade! The Germans move entire corps!

Last time they moved a Corps?

No, you clearly try to make things more than they appear to be and when you are called out on it, you play the victim.

I am not 'playing victim'; I am calling you out on blatantly misrepresenting me and have proved my case; I never said any of the things you represent me as saying.

[Doktor]

Was thinking something...

Germans defending the Poles. Sounds like a very bad idea. Moreover since I have a gut feeling the Germans are not prepared to lose 1000 men over Poland.

I leave a reserve to be wrong.

[SteveDaPirate]

They have to go through Germany.

And the Germans have to go through Poland, and Lithuania, and Latvia. It's a difference of 650 vs 1000 miles by land to reach the Russian border.

Meanwhile the French army is twice the size of the German army, and the French can deliver nukes via aircraft or SSBN, which keeps the Russian nukes in their silos. Without American involvement, the Germans have less conventional power to stop a Russian advance than the French, and no sword of damocles to keep the Kremlin's WMDs leashed.

I'll grant you the industrial base and manpower available to Germany gives them the potential to eclipse the current French military, but military potential 5 to 10 years from now won't deter a Russian column from crossing the border next week.

[Doktor]

Steve,

USA still exists and still gonna retaliate.

If they'd do it for PRC, can't see why not for NATO allies

[Officer of Engineers]

What do you understand by "a Polish exercise"? Did NATO allies take part? Yes!

No. Because it was NOT a NATO exercise. It was not under the guise of a NATO command and is nothing more than bilateral exercises. You can call it Polish-American, Polish-British, Polish-Canadian but to call it NATO anything is a blatant lie. Georgia and the Ukraines are not NATO and yet, they're there. So, do we call them NATO allies?

Was it a NATO exercise? I said it was Polish exercise.

A Polish exercise where Poles were not even involved in some events. How misleading. In fact, it was not Polish anything. It was a bunch of small training events that got cobbled together and then given a name. The Anglo-German bridge you keep touting, no Poles were involved. How does that make it Polish? The more I looked at ANAKONDA-16, the more it looks like a propaganda exercise. Absent the fancy poster and the Opening and Closing ceremonies, nobody would have noticed anything. The Canadians would still have been there doing the exact same training and the Germans and Brits would still have built that bridge.

How does this imply it was a NATO exercise? I honestly cannot see it.

You keep using the word NATO when everyone around you have been correcting you once we found out.

Is the intermarium Poland? No. Did I say that Poland could guarantee Baltic security? No!

Then what good is your Intermarium? Who else is it going to be? Romania? Ukraines? Georgia? Estonia? Poland is the most powerful and the most cohesive military force in "your intermarium." If they won't or can't guarrantee Baltic security, then "your intermarium" is a lie.

I very much hope we do not have to find out but my point is that large scale maneuver battle has not yet been tested. If they were to 'break out' of the Donbass pocket and go for Dnipro Ukraine would be forced to commit it's mobile armour.

Of course it has been tested. It's called war games. You yourself said that the Ukraines will not commit to a tank battle. Well, what the hell did you think maneuver battle is?

Last time they moved a Corps?

April, 2016. TRUTHFUL SWORD.

I am not 'playing victim'; I am calling you out on blatantly misrepresenting me and have proved my case; I never said any of the things you represent me as saying.

Those were your words. It is your responsibility to be absolutely clear in your words. So, if your intent was to be misleading with NATO allies, ANAKONDA-16 and intermarium, congratulations. You've succeeded.

And the Germans have to go through Poland, and Lithuania, and Latvia. It's a difference of 650 vs 1000 miles by land to reach the Russian border.

It's not Poland, Lithuania, or Latvia I'm thinking of but Kalingrad. I don't even like the idea of a punitive expedition. So, the message must be absolutely clear. Any incursion force, be it an invasion or punitive expedition is going to be isolated to be destroyed and that means attacking and destroying Russian LOCs from Kalingrad.

Meanwhile the French army is twice the size of the German army, and the French can deliver nukes via aircraft or SSBN, which keeps the Russian nukes in their silos. Without American involvement, the Germans have less conventional power to stop a Russian advance than the French, and no sword of damocles to keep the Kremlin's WMDs leashed.

This is actually a German advantage. Would the French trade Paris for Budapest or Warsaw? They would have to halt at some point once nukes are involved, even if they're just out of nukes (but the Russians won't). Since the Germans have no nukes, then they can go all out and they know the Americans would definitely trade Bonn for Moscow.

[SteveDaPirate]

Steve,

USA still exists and still gonna retaliate.

If they'd do it for PRC, can't see why not for NATO allies

Yes of course.

We were discussing a hypothetical about who could deter the Russians from taking the Baltics if the Americans were not involved.

[SteveDaPirate]

This is actually a German advantage. Would the French trade Paris for Budapest or Warsaw? They would have to halt at some point once nukes are involved, even if they're just out of nukes (but the Russians won't). Since the Germans have no nukes, then they can go all out and they know the Americans would definitely trade Bonn for Paris.

I'm not sure I grasp your point here. Are we talking no American involvement at all, or Americans distracted by war in the Pacific?

In a "No Americans" scenario, the French wouldn't willingly trade Paris for any former Warsaw Pact city, but neither would the Russians trade Moscow or St. Petersburg for Vilnius or Riga. The fact that the French have a domestic nuclear deterrent means that the Russians can't use their own nukes without the very real risk of losing more than they stand to gain from any invasion. On the other hand the Germans have no way of keeping Russian nukes out of play without the Americans getting somewhat involved and at least unlocking the bombs stored at Buchel. I was under the impression that a substantial portion of Germany's deterrent power was due to being under the American nuclear umbrella and it's logistical ability to quickly receive American reinforcing divisions.

As far as ability to deter Russian Baltic adventures without American involvement I think I would rank it as follows.

1. France: Army of 112k, domestic nuclear deterrent, ~ 1000 miles from conflict zone
2. Britain: Army of 90k, domestic nuclear deterrent, no connection via land
3. Poland: Army of 65k, very close to conflict zone
4. Germany: Army of 60k, ~ 500 miles from conflict zone

Obviously this is all rather moot since all of European NATO would be responding together even if the Americans somehow sat the whole thing out.

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm not sure I grasp your point here. Are we talking no American involvement at all, or Americans distracted by war in the Pacific?

I think American attention would come back real fast if Bonn was under direct nuclear threat.

However, having no nuclear weapons gives the non-nuclear power advantages the nuclear power does not enjoy. Stuart Slade's Nuclear Warfare 101, 102, and 103 explains it much better than me ... and in alot more pages than I can type from memory. Please google that for the various copies that has been floating around the net. I found a few but my eyes can't read some of the weird formats.

As far as ability to deter Russian Baltic adventures without American involvement I think I would rank it as follows.

1. France: Army of 112k, domestic nuclear deterrent, ~ 1000 miles from conflict zone
2. Britain: Army of 90k, domestic nuclear deterrent, no connection via land
3. Poland: Army of 65k, very close to conflict zone
4. Germany: Army of 60k, ~ 500 miles from conflict zone

Obviously this is all rather moot since all of European NATO would be responding together even if the Americans somehow sat the whole thing out.

That's where our Snapper and Mihas disagrees and hence, this "Intermarium."

Leaving the nukes aside (Stuart Slade explains really well why they won't be used and as I've explained earlier, Russian nuclear force postures puts a lie to their 1st use doctrine), the conventional deterrence has to be that the Russians would lose more than they gain. How do you do this? By killing the incursion force and I don't mean sitting in a fort waiting for the Russians to bash their brains on your walls. I mean go find them and go kill them. In our parlance, it means isolation (we're going to surround it) and reduction (we're going to kill it) and that means attacking the LOC all the way back to Kalingrad.

Not only is Germany have an extra 500 miles of Russian LOCs that they can attack (and extra loiter time), they've also got the American munitions stores that ain't going anywhere close to EE.

Dok and Mihais legitimately asked the question would Germany defend EE? I don't know the answer to that but I do know that without Germany, no one else can do so. If Germany denies the rest of NATO the use of her air space and land, including munitions storage, there's nowhere else you can stage from in this short of time.