magnumcromagnon Tue May 10, 2016 7:28 pm
GarryB wrote:And how has that pressure gone so far?
US and EU sanctions on Russia certainly stopped the Russian invasion of the Ukraine because there never was a Russian invasion of the Ukraine.
Reciprocal sanctions by Russia aimed at EU food has had a significant effect on many EU members... in fact I would say there are quite a few EU members who would beg Russia to take their food exports again... so who is pressuring whom?
Even if the 'stans joined NATO I doubt Putin would suddenly capitulate and bow and scrape to Brussels and Washington like the leaders in so many countries do... Australia, UK, France, Poland etc etc etc... pathetic.
Clearly the secret is bribe both left and right parties and ban the ones that wont listen to money and sell out their own people...
If all of Europe wants to join NATO that is fine... Russia will simply move an appropriate amount of forces to the necessary places and it is sorted.
If anything NATO at the border is easier to hit with ballistic and cruise missiles... those countries will still be a buffer zone that any ground war will be fought upon, so nothing has really changed... it will just mean NATO will start getting pushed back sooner rather than later.
You don't have to go as far as using cruise and ballistic missiles, MLRS such as Smerch/Tornado-S were likely designed to carry tactical thermonuclear warheads. Smerch/Tornado-S are already monstrosities on the battlefield with conventional munitions, but fit them with tactical thermonuclear warheads and you have Emperors of the Underworld. Maybe it's also worthwhile to take the technology of Koaltion and make a brand new replacement 203 mm artillery peace to replace Pion , with expanded range that pushes well beyond 100 km's, GLONASS kits, glide-kits, etc. I can't forget to mention that Pro-NATO mouth pieces were forced to admit that Russia has a
16 to 1 advantage in MLRS (this is even before the 700 order of additional pieces) and a
24 to 1 advantage of SHORAD in Eastern Europe...which means Russia will have the necessary MLRS (with or without the additional 700) to blitzkreig the border lapdogs and those same lapdogs won't have the necessary amount of SHORAD to defend themselves. Also here's my post from another thread:
magnumcromagnon wrote:Looks like the big wigs at the most powerful and influential think tank in the U.S. (Rand Corp) are forced to eat humble pie about who has the advantage in Eastern Europe between NATO and Russia:
Experts believe such a balance of power: Russia will have an initial advantage over the United States and its allies on the tanks in the ratio of 7: 1, by BMP - 5: 1 by attack helicopters - 5: 1, according to conventional artillery - 4: 1 by rocket artillery - 16: 1, by short-range air defense system - 24: 1 and a long-range air defense - 17: 1.
Analysts told what exactly is superior to Russia, NATO
The mean/average comes out to 11-to-1 advantage in favor of Russia...
...Oh and we can't forget Russia will put 2 different anti-ICBM mobile ABM's (S-500 and Nudol/A-235) into service, something NATO won't have in their arsenal for years to come (probably no earlier than 10-20 years from now).
https://www.russiadefence.net/t5172-us-aims-at-forming-offensive-force-on-russian-borders-with-eu-support#161620
BTW there's a long standing historical precedent in war, if a bordering nation is hostile and attacks you, the defending nation has the right to seize and carve out as much of the attacking foreign enemies territory as they can hold! This is in fact a scenario where basically Finland, Baltics, Poland, Ukraine end up being Russian subjects again based on their foolish Pro-NATO self-fulfilling prophecies.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
