Ka-pi96 said: forest-spirit said: I don't know about Finland but from what I've read Sweden won't have any guarantees from Nato until we're a full member, so there will be a window during the application process where Russia could attack without risking war with Nato. They're both EU countries though, right? So they should have a guaranteed defensive pact with the rest of the EU due to that already.

Had to look it up. I’d figured that yes, the EU would intervene if a member state was attacked but I didn’t think there was a specific obligation to like Nato’s article 5. I was wrong. Treaty of Lisbon Article 42(7) covers such an eventuality.

Nuvendil said: Bofferbrauer2 said: That much was known already to most military analysts. And it's even worse if Russia mobilizes it's citizens, since they lost too many senior officers to actually lead those into battle - or even train them to some degree. Ka-pi96 said: They're both EU countries though, right? So they should have a guaranteed defensive pact with the rest of the EU due to that already. They do, but apart from France, most countries in the EU have a rather puny army, so they couldn't send much support. However, with most countries in the EU are now increasing their military investments by quite a bit, so in a few years down the line, they could actually send some very substantial support even without the rest of NATO having to do anything. Even in their current "puny" state, the EU has a powerful collective miltary capacity.  Over a million active personnel and millions of reserves.  And unlike Russia, the EU has the industrial and economic capacity to field their full strength.  A lot of their equipment is also substantially ahead of Russia's.  And unlike Russia, the EU could produce their most cutting edge military equipment en masse if needed.   And then there's the naval element, which would become important if Russia engaged the EU and the disparity is humiliating for Russia.  The EU collectively has 6 aircraft carriers.  Russia has one. An old and very vulnerable one.   If Russia initiated a war with tbe EU, it would be suicide.  The disparity in military power is made infinitely worse by the disparity in economic power.  To be blunt, if you remove the nukes from the equation, Russia could hardly be considered a true major power.  The EU, if taken as a whole, is a superpower.  Russia isn't in the same league, in any category, when you really dig into it.

Yes, but they would be needed to spread out all the way from Finland to Romania, and many equipment parts need to be refurbished before they can be deployed. It thus would take some time before they would really get to full power.

But I agree, that would be suicide for Russia, even without NATO. It would just take a while to get to that point where Russia gets hopelessly outmatched.

Bofferbrauer2 said: Nuvendil said: Even in their current "puny" state, the EU has a powerful collective miltary capacity.  Over a million active personnel and millions of reserves.  And unlike Russia, the EU has the industrial and economic capacity to field their full strength.  A lot of their equipment is also substantially ahead of Russia's.  And unlike Russia, the EU could produce their most cutting edge military equipment en masse if needed.   And then there's the naval element, which would become important if Russia engaged the EU and the disparity is humiliating for Russia.  The EU collectively has 6 aircraft carriers.  Russia has one. An old and very vulnerable one.   If Russia initiated a war with tbe EU, it would be suicide.  The disparity in military power is made infinitely worse by the disparity in economic power.  To be blunt, if you remove the nukes from the equation, Russia could hardly be considered a true major power.  The EU, if taken as a whole, is a superpower.  Russia isn't in the same league, in any category, when you really dig into it. Yes, but they would be needed to spread out all the way from Finland to Romania, and many equipment parts need to be refurbished before they can be deployed. It thus would take some time before they would really get to full power. But I agree, that would be suicide for Russia, even without NATO. It would just take a while to get to that point where Russia gets hopelessly outmatched.

If you think Russia could engage along a front of that size all at once, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Also, if he wanted to avoid fighting NATO - which let's be blunt, it's about avoiding the US for obvious reasons - he would only be able to invade non-NATO EU members which would contract his potential targets considerably.

And I also forgot the disparity in air power.  Russia has a lot of aircraft but it only has FIFTEEN stealth fighters.  And the SU-57's stealth capabilities are roughly equal to the F-117 Nighthawk...from 1983.  Which is several times worse than China's J-20.  Which is itself seceral times worse than the F-35.  Which in turn is several times worse than the F-22 (which if that sounds absurdly overdisigned...it's because yeah, it is). 

The EU collectively already has dozens of F-35s with more on order.  And of course has the latest, most cutting edge radar and anti-air systems.  So not only does Russia not have enough stealth aircraft to actually USE effectively, even if they did they would be effectively useless in the face of what the EU can field at this very moment, let alone after ramping up for war.  And if you can't establish air superiority over the regions you wish to operate in, you're going to get annihilated. 

(Oh and let's not pretend Britain wouldn't jump in on this either.  Again, *suicide*)

Nuvendil said: Bofferbrauer2 said: Yes, but they would be needed to spread out all the way from Finland to Romania, and many equipment parts need to be refurbished before they can be deployed. It thus would take some time before they would really get to full power. But I agree, that would be suicide for Russia, even without NATO. It would just take a while to get to that point where Russia gets hopelessly outmatched. If you think Russia could engage along a front of that size all at once, I've got a bridge to sell you. Also, if he wanted to avoid fighting NATO - which let's be blunt, it's about avoiding the US for obvious reasons - he would only be able to invade non-NATO EU members which would contract his potential targets considerably. And I also forgot the disparity in air power.  Russia has a lot of aircraft but it only has FIFTEEN stealth fighters.  And the SU-57's stealth capabilities are roughly equal to the F-117 Nighthawk...from 1983.  Which is several times worse than China's J-20.  Which is itself seceral times worse than the F-35.  Which in turn is several times worse than the F-22 (which if that sounds absurdly overdisigned...it's because yeah, it is).  The EU collectively already has dozens of F-35s with more on order.  And of course has the latest, most cutting edge radar and anti-air systems.  So not only does Russia not have enough stealth aircraft to actually USE effectively, even if they did they would be effectively useless in the face of what the EU can field at this very moment, let alone after ramping up for war.  And if you can't establish air superiority over the regions you wish to operate in, you're going to get annihilated.  (Oh and let's not pretend Britain wouldn't jump in on this either.  Again, *suicide*)

The main non-Nato EU states (due to their proximity to Russia) are Finland and Sweden. Others like Cyprus and Malta would be pointless to attack as they have like geopolitical relevance in context, or then Austria which would involve going through multiple Nato states first. 

Glad to see Macron won.

Le Pen and papa Jean-Marie need to crawl back under their rock and stay there.

Ryuu96 said: BREAKING: Emmanuel Macron projected to WIN the 2022 French Presidential election, the first French president to win re-election for two decades, since Jacques Chirac in 2002. MACRON: 58.2% LE PEN: 41.8% (IPSOS) — Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) April 24, 2022 Thank you, France. Disaster avoided.

Honestly Macron had it easy with Le Pen, just like Biden with Trump. Trump was the only elected Republican President in history to keep that political party in power for the minimum 4 years. Other presidents were at least decent enough to keep it going for themselves or others.

We can hope that the right leaning parties can put forth decent candidates for the next elections and not literal idiots/Russian stooges.

These are the indicative estimates of Russia’s combat losses as of April 25, according to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/eGqtAjxSR0

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) April 25, 2022

Compared to April 19 (last I posted this)
+1100 Troops
+12 Planes
+4 Helicopters
+82 Tanks
+25 Artillery pieces
+195 personnel carriers
+17 MLRS
+71 Vehicles
+43 UAV
+2 Anti-aircraft
+1 Special equipment

Key takeaways :
Numbers are mostly slightly down from last weeks depicting a Russian offensive that may be a little more careful but still haven't managed to find a coherent strategy.
Most notable, the number of tanks, personnel carriers and UAV are up from last week by +5, +55 and +4 respectively which assert to a maintained Ukrainian readiness and effectiveness.

Edit : I realize now that last week numbers were for 8 days and this weeks only 6. This only makes this week number even more impressive.

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 25 April 2022

Nuvendil said: Bofferbrauer2 said: Yes, but they would be needed to spread out all the way from Finland to Romania, and many equipment parts need to be refurbished before they can be deployed. It thus would take some time before they would really get to full power. But I agree, that would be suicide for Russia, even without NATO. It would just take a while to get to that point where Russia gets hopelessly outmatched. If you think Russia could engage along a front of that size all at once, I've got a bridge to sell you.

No, of course I don't think they could. But they would have to if they attacked a member of the EU.

Any information on losses and damage from Ukraine's side? I've heard reports about destroyed railways that make it harder for weapons from the West to reach the fronts.
I mean, we have to be subjective and keep an eye on both sides if we are to know how the battle for Donbas is shaping.

https://www.investing.com/news/world-news/ukraine-says-russia-is-targeting-railways-to-cut-arms-supply-routes-2809950

Ryuu96 said: Russian Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, has said Moscow has sent a diplomatic note to Washington demanding the US stop sending military aid to Ukraine. — Will Vernon (@BBCWillVernon) April 25, 2022

So Russia invades under false pretences then gets angsty that other countries are helping the invaded country defend itself? The phrase ‘bite me’ comes to mind.

Also, just seen reports on the BBC about several explosions in the separatist region of Transnistria. Regardless of whether this is Moldova attacking or a false-flag attack by Russian forces, this will likely be part of a move to bring Transnistria into the war, which will no doubt see Moldova enter as well. 

Russia is estimated to have circa 1,500 troops in Transnistria and I’m unsure if such a small number is big enough to hold off a reather small country like Moldova. Its not like Russia could quickly get over there to help if things are going sideways.

The main concern I’d have is over further spillover. Romania is a very close ally to Moldova and could well join any war in Transnistria. Romania is Nato member and Russia could use this as justification for further aggression on its part. Nato likely would anticipate this and convince Romania to stay out though.