German media outlets Süddeutsche Zeitung, WDR, and NDR also cite the report, noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears intent on testing NATO’s Article 5 guarantees. The alliance’s mutual defence clause obliges member states to come to one another’s aid if attacked. The assessment suggests Putin may seek to challenge how seriously that commitment would be honoured.
Checks out. Got to capitalise on having his asset installed in the highest office of the US before things risk stabilising.
Russia can’t even take over Ukraine and they’ll take on entire NATO? Even if we exclude USA from it there is just no chance. Only if dumbass Trump collaborates with Russia to attack NATO together. That would be WW3 then…
They’re already quite successful in hybrid warfare against NATO and EU.
Probing NATO’s security guarantees doesn’t mean taking it on fully. It means testing out how far you can go without them fully committing with military.
There’s this old saying that goes something like: “The European Airforce could beat Russia any day of the week - as long as they don’t have to do it the next week as well.”
Meaning, the most pressing problem are our ammunition stockpiles. If you research that you’ll quickly see how bad the situation is in the EU currently. The Bundeswehr could, according to top generals, not stay in a fight for more than one or two weeks before running out of artillery shells, missiles and bombs.
Then there’s also the issue of lacking infrastructure, the absence of a unified command structure in Europe and with the withdrawal of the US, also a lack of strategic capabilities (awacs, satellite data, military intelligence, air tankers, heavy lift helicopters, …).
The Bundeswehr could, according to top generals, not stay in a fight for more than one or two weeks before running out of artillery shells, missiles and bombs.
You should read these claims with the same amount of nuance you use on claims like “Russia runs out of tanks/missiles/shells”.
What they mean is “we can sustain a full-on, large scale offensive at optimal supply for two weeks, before we need to scale to a lower operational pace and stockpile material for our individual operations.”
No military ever has enough, Russia “ran out” a few days into their offense, and yet they’ve been fighting for years.
the absence of a unified command structure in Europe
Eh, NATO high command exists just fine. Sure, it would be headed by the 2nd in command, but it works.
also a lack of strategic capabilities (awacs, satellite data, military intelligence, air tankers, heavy lift helicopters, …).
Yeah, Europe has a terrifying lack of enablers, but the reason for that is, apart from intelligence, is that European militaries aren’t prepared for, or want to be prepared for, large scale offensive power projection away from home.
You can drive a truck from Gibraltar to Talin in Estonia in 48 hours. A train takes slightly longer, though I imagine clearing the railways is a lot easier under martial law.
Europe only has one good wing of tanker/transport planes, but we have hundreds and hundreds of airfields, and you don’t need much mid-air refueling in a defensive war where everyone has capital cities in easy jet range.
The lack of airborne radar and satellites is MUCH worse for Europe than any other enablers.
Using NATO infrastructure would presumably invite US to the table, which is probably not desirable, even today.
You should read these claims with the same amount of nuance you use on claims like “Russia runs out of tanks/missiles/shells”.
What they mean is “we can sustain a full-on, large scale offensive at optimal supply for two weeks, before we need to scale to a lower operational pace and stockpile material for our individual operations.”
No military ever has enough, Russia “ran out” a few days into their offense, and yet they’ve been fighting for years.
Idk man, we (as in NATO nations, except the US) ran out of ammunition during the air campaign against Libya. And that lasted mere days without any significant enemy pushback. There simply are no significant (deep) depots of ammunitions stockpiled here. Sure, we could probably start throwing helmets at the Russians after a week or so.
Eh, NATO high command exists just fine. Sure, it would be headed by the 2nd in command, but it works.
Most of the NATO command structure is incredibly US centric though, it doesn’t end with the SACEUR. It’s kind of unsettling considering our current relation with the US.
Regarding your last paragraph, I agree that airborne radar and satellite data are the most crucial factors we are lacking without the US.
Russia has the same problem as the same problem has the US, but supercharged it. They made the military the backbone of the economy and main social safety net, so they need to be in a permanent state of conflict to justify it.
That’s not at all comparable to the American economy, wtf dude.
To different scales it is. The US has been using the armed forces as an employer of last resort, and defense factories are the only thing keeping some regions afloat. Of course the US economy is significantly more developed outside of the military, but if the US were to scale back its military there would be transversal cracks all over the economy and society.
Not surprised. The level of European alarm about the Russian threat being real has been greater than what could have been sustained without there being secret direct evidence.
Here’s hoping when he does that and immediately starts to lose, he doesn’t decide to end the world.
Based on intel from my MI buddies, most of Putin’s nukes are probably nonfunctional. They tried to test one not long ago and it blew up, taking out the entire launch facility.
Russia’s nukes are more or less a bluff.
This is an incredibly dangerous assumption. According to the Federation of American Scientists Russia has a stockpile of 4489 warheads of which some 1674 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles.[1] A large part of these warheads might be defective but realistically you only need a handful of working ones. Russia also has the necessary material and infrastructure to keep their warheads in working order.[2] So while their capabilities compared to the USSR are greatly diminished there is no reason to assume that Russias nukes are all in non-working condition.
[1] https://fas.org/publication/nuclear-notebook-russian-nuclear-weapons-2023/
[2] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-10/features/breakdown-breakout-us-and-russian-warhead-production-capabilitiesI’m not saying to assume they don’t all work. I’m saying to diaregard their threats of using thembecause they likely won’t.
Consider this, if only 10% of the warheads work that still leaves over 400 working bombs. Even in the unlikely situation where Russia didn’t know which ones where in working condition they could just resort to throwing 10 bombs at a target instead.
We also haven’t even defined what not-working means. You could for example classify a hydrogen bomb that doesn’t trigger it’s fusion stage as non-working. The primary stage of a thermonuclear bomb can still have a yield of a few hundred kilotons of TNT. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki where well below that.
For these reasons I consider the “Russian nukes don’t work” a nice fantasy at best. The threat is real and only kept in check by western nuclear counterstrike capabilities.
They have >1000. They only need a 1% success rate.
Based on intel from my MI buddies
I really hope you’re lying about that.
I was US Army Signal Corp about 20 years ago. We worked closely with MI, and those guys gave me the info.
where are we? the war thunder forums?
Nothing spills military secrets like having to be right on the internet!
What is the size of the army in men/woman for Russia? Given the last 3 years, their demographic should be impacted overall, isn’t it?
It is definitely impacted but you also need to consider how indoctrinated and thoroughly militarized the younger generations are at this point. Russia might not have good birth rates, but their children are forced to learn marching in formation early on (I think it was at kindergarten level) and practice with wooden rifle mockups.
Wouldn’t Russia have to suddenly produce a lot more young men who are still alive to invade any more countries?
Men who are still alive
Oh no… Putin found Dunharrow. Being alive isn’t needed.
No, it’d have to ensure France. Which means if they struck France could nuke Moscow. If. Anyone in Russia gave a shit, they’d slaughter Putin’s family now.
How else do you save those lives
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/europa-krieg-szenarien-bnd-bundeswehr-li.3227229
translation
Germany’s supreme soldier is convinced that Russia is preparing for a great war. Even after a possible ceasefire in Ukraine, Germany has no time “to take a deep breath”, says the Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, Carsten Breuer. Russia continues to upgrade and has doubled the number of soldiers compared to pre-war times. The Russian military structure is clearly against the West. Therefore, an end to the war on Ukraine will not lead to “we have peace again on the European continent,” he said in the talk show “Maischberger” recently.
This coincides with the assessment of Jörg Schmitt, the deputy head of the investigative department of the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Together with colleagues from WDR and NDR, he was able to evaluate the situation analyses of the BND and the Bundeswehr. By the end of the decade, Russia could create the conditions for a large-scale conventional war against NATO, regardless of the war in Ukraine.
According to these sources, Moscow could try to test the Nato with various scenarios, says Schmitt. For example, by provocations in the Baltic region or in the Arctic. Vladimir Putin is concerned with exploring the US’s responsiveness and assistanceUSA.
I hope Putin dies before that. And in such a personal regime his dead and the consequent fight for power could lead to big changes in Russia.
So let’s hope Zelensky was right, and it’s sooner than later.
His replacement is going to have to do something big to legitimize their rule
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
To me this sound like propaganda to justify military spending. Stockpiling weapons benefits authoritarian governments and rich people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
The numbers speak for themself.
Some military spending is good since you might actually have to, you know, defend your country.
Germany alone is already spending 66 billions a year in “defense”. If they were spending 120 billions and the government would said “we need more” you would drink it arguing that some military spending is good.
We are already all armed to the teeth and waging wars against each others. The same governments increasing the “defense” budget to defend us from evil russia are backing israel in a genocide, no government here has really good intentions.
Germany has been seriously underspending for decades. It’s gonna take a lot of money to get them to any sort of level where they’d have a credible defence.
Removed by mod
You should measure expenses in bullets, shells and bombs. Not in who managed to pay the most money for them.
Quite far down the list. Of the 40 countries, per GDP they’re what, 32nd? And that’s after decades of chronic underspending, where their capability has crumbled.
war propaganda
War propaganda is when you have a credible defence. Right-o.
Having an higher GDP doesn’t mean you have to spend more
Well sure, but it’s a good start for a comparison. Best would be to add in the existing capability, the level of threat, size of the country, that sort of stuff.
It’s just that even Germans have now realized that their chronic underspending has really hurt them and now to have any sort of respectable defence they’ll need to spend more. A more moderate amount for a longer time would’ve been better but it is what it is.
