Jump to content


Photo

Cold War, The Reimagined Series


  • Please log in to reply
8001 replies to this topic

#7941 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,497 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0135 AM

https://consortiumne...ssia-relations/

The Devolution of US-Russia Relations
September 13, 2019 • 
A retired Australian diplomat who served in Moscow dissects the emergence of the new Cold War and its dire consequences.


  • 0

#7942 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,643 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0403 AM

 

The first 24 or so minutes is dead, but the rest is ok and makes interesting listening. Particularly the discussion of the Russian cruise missile threat, and the lack of production capacity they have for them.


  • 0

#7943 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,277 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0604 AM

New NATO command declared operational

17 Sep. 2019 - |Last updated: 17 Sep. 2019 16:14

A new NATO command in the German city of Ulm achieved initial operating capability on Tuesday (17 September 2019). The establishment of the Joint Support and Enabling Command is part of NATOs increased deterrence and defence in response to a changed security environment. The new command will help to speed up, coordinate and safeguard the movement of allied armour and infantry across European borders.

"The new command in Ulm will help our forces become more mobile and enable rapid reinforcement within the Alliance, ensuring we have the right forces in the right place at the right time" said NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu.

In June 2018, NATO Defence Ministers decided to adapt the Alliances command structure with a new North Atlantic command in Norfolk, Virginia and a new command for support and logistics in Ulm, Germany. The command in Ulm will ensure NATO can move troops more quickly across Europe in a crisis situation. The North Atlantic command will help ensure sea lines of communication between North America and Europe remain safe.

Ulm is already home to Germanys Multinational Joint Headquarters, which plans and exercises command and control of crisis management operations for NATO, the European Union and the United Nations. In peacetime, the new Joint Support and Enabling Command will have 160 personnel in total and is expected to be fully staffed by 2021. During a crisis, the command will be able to draw on as many as 600 personnel. Among its main tasks will be to provide security, freedom of movement and support for NATO forces moving across Europe. It will also ensure rapid forward deployment of allied reinforcements. The command will fall under the responsibility of NATO's top officer - General Tod Wolters the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.


https://www.nato.int...news_168945.htm

Edited by BansheeOne, 18 September 2019 - 0605 AM.

  • 0

#7944 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,643 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0638 AM

This presumably is a different thing to ARRC, and is more to allow rapid movement of troops and logistics which previous exercises have highlighted as an option? Its more of a logistics support HQ?


  • 0

#7945 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,497 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 0047 AM

https://www.newsweek...general-1459893

NATO SUPERIORITY OVER RUSSIA HAS 'ERODED,' FORCING ALLIANCE TO CREATE NEW STRATEGY, U.S. GENERAL SAYS

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has warned that NATO military superiority over an increasingly aggressive Russia has been eroded in recent years, forcing the 70-year-old alliance to revamp its strategy to contain a resurgent Kremlin.

 

If this level of spending is not enough for maintaining guaranteed superiority, where are money going?

nato_versus_eurasian_union.png


  • 0

#7946 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,643 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 0205 AM

Much of it is to recreate capablities that vanished when the cold war ended. For example, in the UK, we are buying MPA's to replace the Nimrods withdrawn about 9 year's ago. In Germany they are desperately trying to replace the tank park they allowed to decay, even buying up a scrapyard with Leopards in it to help them along This isnt cheap. All of Europe is doing that one way or another, and its going to take some years before that money will start going into raising force establishment.

 

Meanwhile, Russia kept all theirs, albeit in mothballs, and most of the establishment of the former USSR existed one way or another. All Russia has to do is update theirs, and that is fairly cheap for what they get. We cant upgrade our Chieftains. We sold them all off to Farmers and yuppies.


  • 0

#7947 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,497 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 0244 AM

Much of it is to recreate capablities that vanished when the cold war ended. 

  The same was here in former USSR

pic_16.jpg

22270726_ea802cbd88cd325061f65c87a9e7bea


  • 0

#7948 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,643 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 0314 AM

M-4's were not a lot of cop even when they were new. T72's are clearly much more store-able and useable. Ditto 2A65, Tunguska, BMP2, BRDM, BTR80/82, 2S19, Grad, Su24.....

 

Compare and contrast what the European nations have compared to what they had in 1992, you will see a distinct contrast. Russia has less of a problem with CFE, because it was pulling stuff out of East Germany and parking it East of the Urals. We had no such hinterland where we could stuff tanks against the day we might find them useful again.

 

The UK is a good contrast. in 1992 we had something like 580 tanks in service, and the balance up to 900 stored in war stocks. Today, we have 250 in service, to be further reduced, and bits of another 130 scattered about of which assembly would be difficult if not impossible. Meanwhile you have 12000 tanks. If you assembled all the tanks of all of Europe and the CONUS, you would be unlikely to approach nearly half the number you have. Hence the reason why its fairly easy for you to assemble combat power for a relatively trivial cost, compared to us whom will have to buy anew (overlooking that there is only one tank factory extant in all Europe, so there is something of a capacity limit anyway).


  • 0

#7949 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,030 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 0357 AM

"...there is only one tank factory extant in all Europe..." from above post. Really?


  • 0

#7950 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,685 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 0626 AM

...overlooking that there is only one tank factory extant in all Europe...

 

Ukraine is in the Europe, so is Poland. Don't be stereotypical ignorant that thinks that Europe ends on German-Polish border.


Edited by bojan, 19 September 2019 - 0627 AM.

  • 0

#7951 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,497 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 0742 AM

M-4's were not a lot of cop even when they were new. T72's are clearly much more store-able and useable. Ditto 2A65, Tunguska, BMP2, BRDM, BTR80/82, 2S19, Grad, Su24.....

 

Let’s not forget we lost the best part of our country with most modern heavy and defence  industry, best lands, warm sea (and Navy on it), almost all-Slavic population and so on separated from us by artificial administrative borders that became state borders in one night. And now you claim Russia has “less of a problem” in something? :)


  • 0

#7952 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,643 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 0755 AM

Yet you held onto the equipment. Go and read where all that equipment from East Germany relocated to at the end of the cold war. Ill give you a clue, it wasnt Ukraine and Belarus.


  • 0

#7953 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,497 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 0856 AM

Yet you held onto the equipment. Go and read where all that equipment from East Germany relocated to at the end of the cold war. Ill give you a clue, it wasnt Ukraine and Belarus.

Ukraine started its independence with 9293 tanks and 11346 armored vehicles (https://112.ua/statj...iya-156791.html) - wasn't that more than enough?


  • 0

#7954 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,643 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 1133 AM

Considering the USSR possessed some 40000 MBT's at its dissolution (53000 if you accept Chris Werbs figures), its small beer. The ICBM's were a greater loss, and you got those back.


  • 0

#7955 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,626 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 1148 AM

https://www.newsweek...general-1459893

NATO SUPERIORITY OVER RUSSIA HAS 'ERODED,' FORCING ALLIANCE TO CREATE NEW STRATEGY, U.S. GENERAL SAYS

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has warned that NATO military superiority over an increasingly aggressive Russia has been eroded in recent years, forcing the 70-year-old alliance to revamp its strategy to contain a resurgent Kremlin.

 

If this level of spending is not enough for maintaining guaranteed superiority, where are money going?

nato_versus_eurasian_union.png

Misleading because it fails to account for how much more expensive NATO assets, personnel, real estate, etc. are.


  • 0

#7956 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,928 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 1655 PM

Considering the USSR possessed some 40000 MBT's at its dissolution (53000 if you accept Chris Werbs figures), its small beer. The ICBM's were a greater loss, and you got those back.

 

My figures were from a USMC book on Russian AFVs by Zaloga.


  • 0

#7957 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,595 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 1715 PM

Whats 10k MBTs among friends?
  • 0

#7958 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,384 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 1719 PM

 

https://www.newsweek...general-1459893

NATO SUPERIORITY OVER RUSSIA HAS 'ERODED,' FORCING ALLIANCE TO CREATE NEW STRATEGY, U.S. GENERAL SAYS

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has warned that NATO military superiority over an increasingly aggressive Russia has been eroded in recent years, forcing the 70-year-old alliance to revamp its strategy to contain a resurgent Kremlin.

 

If this level of spending is not enough for maintaining guaranteed superiority, where are money going?

nato_versus_eurasian_union.png

Misleading because it fails to account for how much more expensive NATO assets, personnel, real estate, etc. are.

 

 

Yeah I was gonna say, you need to factor in salaries, healthcare, so on and so forth.


  • 0

#7959 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,643 posts

Posted 20 September 2019 - 0139 AM

 

Considering the USSR possessed some 40000 MBT's at its dissolution (53000 if you accept Chris Werbs figures), its small beer. The ICBM's were a greater loss, and you got those back.

 

My figures were from a USMC book on Russian AFVs by Zaloga.

 

 

What date was that Chris? Ill have to compare it to figures the IISS have.


  • 0

#7960 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,643 posts

Posted 20 September 2019 - 0140 AM

Whats 10k MBTs among friends?

 

Its nothing, ive found that many down the back of the Sofa.


  • 0