The Germans seem to be preparing for a War with Russia!

[muppet]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-24/paul-craig-roberts-warns-armageddon-approaches-after-german-leak
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/09/germany-preparing-for-war-against-russia.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37155060
http://www.thelocal.de/20160821/germany-to-chart-first-civil-defence-plan-since-cold-war-report

Is this just electioneering or is there any real merit to this?

[omaghjoe]

Was reading a wile back that Russia is still prepared for an all out land war and could mobilise extremely quickly.
Whats more, their tanks vastly outnumber NATOs and their mobile air defences are the best in the world, which would give them cover from superior airforces and missles.
With Putin at the helm they could move on Ukraine if they thought it would benefit them, and after that who knows.
If you ask me Germany would be very silly to rely solely on NATO for their soverign defence, as from the current military situation Russia could have them overrun before NATO said booo.

[Ulick]

Russia doesn't have the military capability to project power more than a few hundred miles past it's borders. IMO all the scaremongering about a Russian threat is NATO propaganda attempting to make itself relevant in client states in order to justify it's continued existence/funding.

[omaghjoe]

You want to believe that Ulick (I do to) but its very far from the case a bit of honest researach on the internet and you will find its very far from the case


So how far is Syria from Russia? Interestingly I seen a theory floated that the real reason Russia is in there was to capture some of the American hardware that ISIS acquired from the Iraqis (2 Abrams tanks in particular I think) so that they could try out their new tank against it.

Russia might not have a deep water Navy required to Globally mobilise their military, but In a land war while not as trained or advanced technologically as NATO they can mobilse much faster and have far greater numbers. The former in particular is at their benefit. IF a war started tomorrow realistically Russia could sweep across Europe in a few months with only the sovereign military of France or Italy capable of giving them significant resistance.

NATO would be scrambling. Since the cold war ended NATO has been used as a global hard diplomatic tool and its land defensive capabilities have been diminished greatly.

They also have nuclear warheads mounted on IC ballistic missiles (stationary and mobile), subs, and long range bombers. They are a serious force and dismissing them as such is only playing into their hands.

Of course Political and economic checks prevent a war at the moment but those things are becoming increasingly unstable.

[muppet]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37164960

Germany considers return of conscription for civil defence

Germany may reintroduce a form of national service for civilians to help the army deal with a future disaster.

The role of civilians is part of a new civil defence strategy to be discussed by the government on Wednesday.

Since the strategy was leaked to the media there has been intense debate about stockpiling food and water.

In a crisis civilians might be obliged to help direct traffic or provide fuel and accommodation for the military, German news agency DPA reported.

Germans appeared generally unfazed by what some MPs have called government "scaremongering" but the word "Wehrpflicht" (conscription) was trending on social media on Tuesday.

[Wildweasel74]

Some black haired lad in Germany not use the same scare mongering tactics 80 odd years ago, he went far, bringing millions of people down with him

[Ulick]

Syria is so far from Russia, they have to borrow two airbases from the Iranians and Syrians as well as the compliance of Turkey to keep their naval base at Tartus adequately supplied. Don't get me wrong what Russia did with 24 aircraft in Syria will be studied in military history for decades. They flew more missions than the whole NATO forces combined, but that kind of intensity isn't sustainable. NATO outguns them with hardware and infrastructure exponentially. Russia simply cannot fight an overseas ground war especially against the like of NATO. If they could there'd be no need to be deploying the S400s into Kaliningrad and along it's borders. The Russians are spooked by all this NATO activity in Europe and they fear not being able to defend against a NATO first strike.

[omaghjoe]

Every country that doesnt have a operating aircraft carrier needs to stop off in other countries bases. Shit even the Americans who have 5 or 6 still stop off in Shannon.

Firstly lets get a few things straight

I am not saying that Russia does not fear a first strike, they do.

I am not saying that Russia is significantly less well equipped to deliver a first strike, they arent. Although probably because of this they are significantly better able to defend one.

I already mentioned that Russia can't fight a war overseas without a deep water navy. But Germany or Europe arent over seas they are on their doorstep

The S400s you mentioned can take out any aircraft or missile that NATO (or anyone else) has, which giving cover to a full on ground assault scenario would render NATOs vastly superior air power completely useless against it. The only method to repel an assault of this type is with tanks and troops, which NATO simply does not have in large enough numbers in the right areas to repel. By the way I did a bit of up to-date research and it does look like America is bolstering forces in the Baltics, and I also misjudged Germany's tank numbers they have increased quite a lot and their MBT is very highly regarded so they probably could give the Russians a bit of bother. However they are a drop in the ocean compared to what  Russia has. I still suspect they could not contain the Russian divisions for for long enough for the full American deployment to come in time to save them. Then again a new front could be opened up fairly quickly on southern Russia via Turkey which would probably be NATOs best method of stalling a main Russian assault across Europe before they could get their arses in gear.

How this would all play out politically who knows, you would think Russia would be more stable in this scenario as the people have a bigger stomach for war and no pesky democracy to get in the way either. Still tho... in a longer conflict NATO should be able to turn the tide, but for the first few months Russia could wreak havoc in Eastern and Central Europe, so Russian goals would have to be achieved relatively quickly and then go about looking a peace treaty.

[Oghams Law]

To answer the original question its just electioneering.

[Ulick]

The vast majority of Russian tanks are Soviet era T-90s which are no match for the American Abrams isle even the German Leopard. Any that were deployed in Syrian were easily picked off by the jihadis. They do however currently have what is recognised as the world's best and most advanced tank, the T-14 Armata, complete with active armour which protects against direct strikes from guided anti-tank missiles. A handful of these have managed to make big advances for the Syrian government, however it is so new the Russians have less than 50 in use at the moment. In terms of aircraft carriers, the Russians only have one Soviet era ship which could be described as a carrier with about 30 aircraft, the US alone had 10 modern Nimitz class carriers each with about 80 aircraft and their own support fleets. Also as you rightly say, Russia is completely surrounded by NATO bases, starting a war on one border would immediately leave them vulnerable to attack on at least two other sides.
The Russians are no threat to world peace but they are strong enough not to be pushed around by the Yanks and so are in a good position to ensure the US doesn't continue to bring wrecks and ruin to the rest of the world. IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII.

[No wides]

You want to believe that Ulick (I do to) but its very far from the case a bit of honest researach on the internet and you will find its very far from the case


So how far is Syria from Russia? Interestingly I seen a theory floated that the real reason Russia is in there was to capture some of the American hardware that ISIS acquired from the Iraqis (2 Abrams tanks in particular I think) so that they could try out their new tank against it.

Russia might not have a deep water Navy required to Globally mobilise their military, but In a land war while not as trained or advanced technologically as NATO they can mobilse much faster and have far greater numbers. The former in particular is at their benefit. IF a war started tomorrow realistically Russia could sweep across Europe in a few months with only the sovereign military of France or Italy capable of giving them significant resistance.

NATO would be scrambling. Since the cold war ended NATO has been used as a global hard diplomatic tool and its land defensive capabilities have been diminished greatly.

They also have nuclear warheads mounted on IC ballistic missiles (stationary and mobile), subs, and long range bombers. They are a serious force and dismissing them as such is only playing into their hands.

Of course Political and economic checks prevent a war at the moment but those things are becoming increasingly unstable.

Jesus wept - lets hope you are never in a position of power!

[Mike Tyson]

The vast majority of Russian tanks are Soviet era T-90s which are no match for the American Abrams isle even the German Leopard. Any that were deployed in Syrian were easily picked off by the jihadis. They do however currently have what is recognised as the world's best and most advanced tank, the T-14 Armata, complete with active armour which protects against direct strikes from guided anti-tank missiles. A handful of these have managed to make big advances for the Syrian government, however it is so new the Russians have less than 50 in use at the moment. In terms of aircraft carriers, the Russians only have one Soviet era ship which could be described as a carrier with about 30 aircraft, the US alone had 10 modern Nimitz class carriers each with about 80 aircraft and their own support fleets. Also as you rightly say, Russia is completely surrounded by NATO bases, starting a war on one border would immediately leave them vulnerable to attack on at least two other sides.
The Russians are no threat to world peace but they are strong enough not to be pushed around by the Yanks and so are in a good position to ensure the US doesn't continue to bring wrecks and ruin to the rest of the world. IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII.

Why? Not being a smart ass, just genuinely curious.

[Ulick]

Trump may be a nut-job but he is essentially an isolationist who believes in "America first" before forming alliances and intervening in other countries. Clinton on the other hand is an ideologically driven neoliberal interventionist who wants to bring American corporate values to all corners of the globe, whether they want it or not. Destabilising other nations, "preemptive" wars and "intervention" are all fair enough to her if they fit her perception of what is for the greater good. The current situation in Libya, Syria, Iraq and arguably Ukraine can be laid at her door and I don't see any reason why the pattern won't continue only with even higher stakes. Saunders was the best hope for the US, failing that, they're either f**ked domestically (if Trump gets in) or the rest of us are f**ked if Clinton gets in.

[muppet]

Trump may be a nut-job but he is essentially an isolationist who believes in "America first" before forming alliances and intervening in other countries. Clinton on the other hand is an ideologically driven neoliberal interventionist who wants to bring American corporate values to all corners of the globe, whether they want it or not. Destabilising other nations, "preemptive" wars and "intervention" are all fair enough to her if they fit her perception of what is for the greater good. The current situation in Libya, Syria, Iraq and arguably Ukraine can be laid at her door and I don't see any reason why the pattern won't continue only with even higher stakes. Saunders was the best hope for the US, failing that, they're either f**ked domestically (if Trump gets in) or the rest of us are f**ked if Clinton gets in.

Iraq??

Seriously?

Ukraine?? That is John McCain's baby, although it is fascinating to see Trump former campaign manager was on the other side. That can't be properly pinned on Obama, never mind Clinton. The Republicans are all over it.

The others emerged from the Spring tide, which kicked off with a lot more European influence than people with agendas would care to admit.

[Ulick]

She was Secretary of State with responsibility for foreign policy during the period which saw the rise of ISIS and the transferring of weapons from Libya to them in Iraq. She was also Secretary of State in the period directly preceding the Maidan protests in which the (democratically elected) Yanukovych government was first destabilised and then overthrown. It's fairly widely accepted that Clinton and the Obama administration were laying the groundwork there for a few years previous to that and triggered the coup when Yanukovych backed out of the European Union deal. Her chief spokesperson Victoria Nuland was already a well known aggressive anti-Russian from her time as Dick Chaney's security advisor. Nuland was then made Assistant Secretary of State by Obama on Clinton's retirement and given responsibility carrying through with their Ukrainian 'policy'. Given the timescales involved it's pretty inconceivable she wasn't already working on Ukraine under Clinton. Maybe she wasn't, but as I said arguably both Nuland and Clinton's fingerprints are all over it.