I agree with fischtown7, the Russians are tired after years of dicking around in Ukraine. The Poles will kick their *ss on the ground and in the air in the first 72 hours. Unlike the circus going on now, the Poles will take the gloves off and go at it regardless of what Brandon says or anyone else in the WH.
Anyone who has served with the Poles knows.

If Putin wanted to break NATO, he would invade a Balkan like Estonia or Latvia, and then dare NATO to start WWIII. Would NATO go all-in for one of these countries? Article 5 says we have to, but when put to the test, I don't think the western world wants WWIII over a small Balkan.

Would Putin gamble that hard? Probably not, but he's old and he wants a legacy. And he knows Biden is weak and the rest of Europe is weaker.

Poland is a bad idea and just sounds like a replay of WWII. People care about Poland, especially a ton of Polish Americans. But Latvia? Estonia? I don't think the average person could even find them on a map. Remember that people protested Scott Adams negative depiction of the fictional Elbonians...

PZ has some interesting things to say about China, global trade under the Bretton Woods model, the geographic advantages of the US - location, distance from Europe and Asia, advantages of farmland and inland waterways, and trade within NAFTA and the Americas. But every damn week China is ABOUT TO COLLAPSE and he's missed more deadlines than Greta Thornburg and Al Gore combined.

I find Zeihan interesting, but I think he exaggerates his predictions for the sake of clicks. Just like everybody else.

No different than those crooked preachers every few years predicting the so-called Rapture or the return of Christ.

I'm convinced he's a CIA asset. His demographics information is top notch.

quote:

If Putin wanted to break NATO, he would invade a Balkan like Estonia or Latvia, and then dare NATO to start WWIII. Would NATO go all-in for one of these countries? Article 5 says we have to, but when put to the test, I don't think the western world wants WWIII over a small Balkan.

Would Putin gamble that hard? Probably not, but he's old and he wants a legacy. And he knows Biden is weak and the rest of Europe is weaker.

Poland is a bad idea and just sounds like a replay of WWII. People care about Poland, especially a ton of Polish Americans. But Latvia? Estonia? I don't think the average person could even find them on a map. Remember that people protested Scott Adams negative depiction of the fictional Elbonians...

PZ has some interesting things to say about China, global trade under the Bretton Woods model, the geographic advantages of the US - location, distance from Europe and Asia, advantages of farmland and inland waterways, and trade within NAFTA and the Americas. But every damn week China is ABOUT TO COLLAPSE and he's missed more deadlines than Greta Thornburg and Al Gore combined.

I'd find it easier to think you have a valid opinion if you knew the difference between the Baltics and the Balkans.

As far as Zeihan goes, I have the same opinion of him as I do the rest of the plethora of talking heads that clutter our lives: They can be wrong again and again with no adverse impact to their livelihoods or reputations. Many, if not most of us, have not had that luxury in our careers.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
If Putin wanted to break NATO, he would invade a Balkan Baltic's like Estonia or Latvia, and then dare NATO to start WWIII. Would NATO go all-in for one of these countries? Article 5 says we have to, but when put to the test, I don't think the western world wants WWIII over a small Balkan.

Would Putin gamble that hard? Probably not, but he's old and he wants a legacy. And he knows Biden is weak and the rest of Europe is weaker.

Poland is a bad idea and just sounds like a replay of WWII. People care about Poland, especially a ton of Polish Americans. But Latvia? Estonia? I don't think the average person could even find them on a map. Remember that people protested Scott Adams negative depiction of the fictional Elbonians...

Fixed it for you.

If Russia were to invade any of the Baltic's, they'd have the Nordic-Baltic Eight to deal with, along with Poland leading parts of the Visegrad Group...NATO would still be dithering about what to do. All of those nearby countries have stepped-up their defense commitments in the face of Russia's decade-long aggression; Sweden & Finland shucked-off their neutrality positions to join NATO and other alliances, and Poland has the largest land army in Europe, with long term commitments towards modernization and positioning of NATO forces like we saw during the Cold War.

Any attempt by Russia to re-absorb parts or all of the Baltics would be through subversion and non-kenetic means. Their combat forces continue to get degraded in Ukraine, as most of their modern mechanized forces are already destroyed...they don't have the means to get into a modern fight.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
If Putin wanted to break NATO, he would invade a Balkan Baltic's like Estonia or Latvia, and then dare NATO to start WWIII. Would NATO go all-in for one of these countries? Article 5 says we have to, but when put to the test, I don't think the western world wants WWIII over a small Balkan.

Would Putin gamble that hard? Probably not, but he's old and he wants a legacy. And he knows Biden is weak and the rest of Europe is weaker.

Poland is a bad idea and just sounds like a replay of WWII. People care about Poland, especially a ton of Polish Americans. But Latvia? Estonia? I don't think the average person could even find them on a map. Remember that people protested Scott Adams negative depiction of the fictional Elbonians...

Fixed it for you.

If Russia were to invade any of the Baltic's, they'd have the Nordic-Baltic Eight to deal with, along with Poland leading parts of the Visegrad Group...NATO would still be dithering about what to do. All of those nearby countries have stepped-up their defense commitments in the face of Russia's decade-long aggression; Sweden & Finland shucked-off their neutrality positions to join NATO and other alliances, and Poland has the largest land army in Europe, with long term commitments towards modernization and positioning of NATO forces like we saw during the Cold War.

Any attempt by Russia to re-absorb parts or all of the Baltics would be through subversion and non-kenetic means. Their combat forces continue to get degraded in Ukraine, as most of their modern mechanized forces are already destroyed...they don't have the means to get into a modern fight.

I have HEARD that Russia is currently using up all of its OLD war fighting materiel, and when they start deploying their GOOD stuff, it's going to get that much more difficult for Ukraine as a result of the more advanced and deadly munitions and systems.

Is that a true or false statement, or is the question or answer more complicated than that?

Russia isn’t functional enough to have “good stuff.”

It’s a military of conscripts, and these days, I don’t think the officers are much better.

(I met plenty of impressive men who were officers in the Soviet military - none of them have children in the Russian military)

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
I've been watching Peter Zeihan's stuff, didn't know about him until recently.

Is he really THAT good, or is he more like one half good delivery plus one half substance, or some other combination of things?

He said if Putin invades Poland after he's "finished" with Ukraine, Nato would enter the fray, and Putin would then use nukes if Putin felt an existential threat. He said it in a way that seemed more like a guarantee instead of a possibility. Is he just hyper smart with a little too much enthusiasm, or something else entirely ?

He seems smart as hell to me, but I'm not smart enough to reliably judge true raw intelligence and superior judgement.

What say you ?

Putin's plate is full trying to handle Ukraine so how's he going to take on Poland???? I don't have any faith in NATO coming to Poland's defense if Russia did attack, Biden is the weakest President in history and without strong US leadership European leaders won't have the courage to act.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Russia isn’t functional enough to have “good stuff.”

It’s a military of conscripts, and these days, I don’t think the officers are much better.

(I met plenty of impressive men who were officers in the Soviet military - none of them have children in the Russian military)

So which is it? Are they impressive men, or are the officers not much better than the conscripts?

^^^ Perhaps he means officers of the Cold War era.

Different time periods, different men.

In the Soviet era, military officer was a very high status job - and the reality is, their equipment was still garbage. (Our arms industry needs a “bogey man” to keep the funds coming/they seem to be obsessed with staying ahead on R&D - not sure how good they are on logistics/supply/etc)

The children of those men, do not seem to have anything to do with the modern Russian military.

I honestly have no idea where the modern Russian military gets its officers. I know the conscripts are coming from the “villages.”

Deleted s bunch of stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
I have HEARD that Russia is currently using up all of its OLD war fighting materiel, and when they start deploying their GOOD stuff, it's going to get that much more difficult for Ukraine as a result of the more advanced and deadly munitions and systems.

Is that a true or false statement, or is the question or answer more complicated than that?

There's zero-chance that a country's strategy would be to willfully hamstring themselves by 'sacraficing' their old material for 2+ years of warfare, see anywhere from 200k to 500k fighting men killed...in an effort to see their opposition expend their own material and funding, only to roll-in around year-3 to achieve victory. Russia had a 72-hour window to capture Kiev and other metro areas, their forces were within the Kiev city limits but, their logistics and air support failed them hanging their elite VDV forces out to dry. For all their engineering pragmatism, the Russian military isn't very good.

The majority of Russia's T-80 & T-90 series tanks have been knocked-out, their ability to maintain and sustain a logistics train was a shambles when faced with organized opposition, all they have left are massive mine fields and artillery barrages that would make the Red Army proud. Conscripts continue to get rounded-up & thrown-in, their Black Sea fleet has been rendered ineffectual by a enemy that doesn't have a navy and the air environment is so thick with all manor of counter-air, that anything larger than a milk-crate gets shot-down...for both sides.

Russian military doctrine, hasn't changed much since the Cold War-Soviet days. It relies on overwhelming mass and firepower to annihilate whatever is in front of it. Their top-down, command structure limits the ability of field commanders to adjust and be flexible while the battle is going on. They're like a heavyweight boxer that has very heavy feet, limited stamina but, has very strong hands...get past the first 3-rounds and all their energy has been expended so their strategy shifts to leaning into their opponent to wear them down. The wars in Chechnya and Tajikistan showed how sloppy the Russian forces are and the performance we're currently seeing is par for the course. The surprise is how they've not cut their losses and turned-off the meat grinder.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Different time periods, different men.

In the Soviet era, military officer was a very high status job - and the reality is, their equipment was still garbage. (Our arms industry needs a “bogey man” to keep the funds coming/they seem to be obsessed with staying ahead on R&D - not sure how good they are on logistics/supply/etc)

The children of those men, do not seem to have anything to do with the modern Russian military.

I honestly have no idea where the modern Russian military gets its officers. I know the conscripts are coming from the “villages.”

Deleted s bunch of stuff.

Fair enough! I initially thought that, except that you mentioned Soviet and Russian in the same sentence, and the way it was written, I took it to mean your were using the two terms interchangeably. Never mind...