How reasonable is it, I wonder, to embark on deliberate course of action which could well result in war, which, from ALL reasonable analysis, your forces are out matched and thus, would be overrun, which would then, inevitably, lead to the ‘need’ to utilize nuclear munitions to halt the advance of the provoked power’s military on your crumbling forces, which would lead to devastating nuclear exchanges on European and American ‘targets’ resulting in a mass casualty event unknown since the era of the dinosaurs? According to former NATO Deputy Commander Sir Alexander Shirreff that’s just what’s coming in May of 2017.
As a defense contractor for some thirty or so years, I ponder this as I note the Pentagon and NATO relentlessly parading around Europe with their tanks, their Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Strykers, their troop maneuvers and lately, deploying the Aegis Ashore missile systems right up to the Russian border. The western media and other idiots making statements about these ‘deployments’ are alleging that these are responses to “Russian aggression” but, try as I may, I can’t see a single instance of Russian military forces operating in any kind of hostile fashion against any western country, anywhere on the planet.
Imagine for a moment some crazed lunatic pulling up in front of a local police station, exiting his car, drawing a very sharp sword and marching back and forth in front of the station, waving the sword around while yelling he was going to defend the neighborhood from the evil, aggressive police therein. I’m guessing the cops might look out their windows and, for a while, laugh and wonder “what the hell is that lunatic doing”, but eventually they might just decide something needs to be done before the boob doing the saber rattling actually attacks some of their people.
So think about the balloon going up (for whatever reason) on the Russian border between NATO and the Russians. (American and NATO tanks are currently deployed and playing war games 450 miles from Moscow while our propaganda outlets bleat about “Russian aggression”. Imagine how we Americans might feel with a Battalion of Russian tanks deployed that close -Massachusetts/New Hampshire state line- to Washington DC.) Does anyone ‘reasonably’ think it will be a prime time event like CNN covering the bombing of Baghdad that will have no effect on Berlin or Boston? In spite of the fact I hate mathematics let’s ponder a few numbers after which you can decide how confident you feel for yourself or your children in the propaganda of NATO, the US and their media nitwits prepping the west on the idea that some cold/hot war with the Russians is an acceptable, possibly even ‘neat’ idea.
In any European war, as was seen in the last one, mobile tank warfare plays a major role. The Germans called it Blitzkrieg or “lightning war” back then and my father was there, in Patton’s 5th Armored Division. The plains of Europe were what tanks were designed for. So, lets look at numbers of tanks.
These people, who are itching to bring on a new cold/hot war with Russia, some of whom are actually hinting that a nuclear exchange is “winnable”, love to try to convince us that NATO and the US are the greatest military power on the planet. Question them about a European ground war and they’ll start by telling you the the US has some 5,900 M1 Abrams tanks which sounds awe inspiring. The problem is that essentially all of them are stateside. Indeed, the U.S. Army’s main battle tanks were withdrawn from Europe in April 2013. Now that the cold war is coming back into vogue, the Pentagon claims that by February of 2017 it will have 250 covering the eastern border of NATO but, in the interim you can count on some 150 Abrams tanks being available.
The other players in NATO have their own complement of armored forces but then anyone who’s watched the synching of “coalitions” in combat will immediately recognize that national forces working under joint commands can be problematic at best. That said, Austria owns 56 M1A1 Abrams tanks. Britain has 227 Challenger 2 tanks, almost all of which are in the UK. The Czechs have 30 T-72 tanks with 93 T-72s in reserve. France has about 400 Leclerc tanks but they’re French and, if history is any judge, they’ll abandon them for the local bistro before going head to head in any set piece battle against Russians. Hungary has 30 T-72s in active service. Poland claims 584 operational T-72 and another 230 PT-91s and 247 Leopards but how many are ready to go? Romania claims 250 WW2 era T-55 as well as some locally manufactured tanks. Germany has 225 Leopard tanks. So that totals 2,372 tanks (sort-of) ‘available’ to NATO. Reality however is quite different than any paper accounting.
A report just released in February of 2016 by six senior NATO experts says that member states aren’t meeting their obligations either in financial obligations, equipment acquisition or even (remotely) “readiness”. Indeed, they pointed at Germany as an example showing they had 10 usable Tiger helicopters out of its fleet of 31, and just 280 of its 406 Marder armored infantry vehicles in full working order, so, how ‘ready’ is Germany and its Leopards to join in a fray against Russia?
Were a dust up to begin in eastern Europe, thanks to the Neo-cons, Britain’s 200+ tanks sitting in the UK wouldn’t count for much. The French… are the French and the rest of NATO combined might field a total (with the US) of 950 ‘operational’ tanks spread around Europe. Now that might be a good number of tanks were you to want to overrun, say, Iraq which actually required 1,500 tanks during Iraqi Freedom but, to dance on the Russian frontier? Not so much.
So, what’s on the other side that might repel NATO and, if inclined, drive to the English Channel? There are currently 1,200 of Russia’s most modern T-90 tanks in operational service as well as 30 T-14 Armatas. Awesome machines without peers.
There are 1,200 active duty T-72s ready for deployment.
There are 100 active duty T-64s ready for deployment.
There are 100 active duty T-62s ready for deployment.
There are 100 active duty T-55s ready for deployment.
That’s 2,730 main battle tanks fueled, primed and ready to go when the balloon goes up. Three times the number of tanks NATO can even hope to deploy on a good day.
That said, with the West’s non-stop media conditioning of its public to the “Russian threat” (where none really exists) this whole cold war 2.0 hasn’t been lost on the Russians. They clearly see that not since WW2 has such an array of forces been brought up the the Russian border, so don’t think they’re not preparing for what the West itself is saying is inevitable. I can assure you that their armored reserves are being prepped for active service while the NATO parades around Europe. As such NATO needs to also think about Russia’s 4,500 T-80s, their 9,000+ T-72s, their 4,000 T-64s, their 1,500 T-62s and their 1,100 T-55s equating to another twenty THOUSAND tanks (in reserve) that might not be collecting dust much longer if NATO commanders get their way.
Were that not bad enough one might consider that the Russians would not likely be standing alone. At the very least you would see Belarus (White Russia) attacked (through Poland, Lithuania and possibly Latvia and Ukraine) and thus, likely taking coordinated action against any NATO target that presents itself. For the record, Belarus has some 250+ T-72B main battle tanks in regular service along with another 1,215 in reserve needing a few days to bring them on-line. They also have over 90 T-80’s of their own which would pose no small problem to any advancing (or retreating) forces.
They even have a few (30) WW2 era T-54s which are, frankly, nothing to sneeze at and could well ruin your day were you in a Bradley or similar armored fighting vehicle. So, given some warning (which they’re getting right now with the West’s blustering) even Belarus could deploy over 1,500 main battle tanks against the lesser (entire) NATO force advancing on their country.
So the bottom line is Nato would face a four to one ratio against their tanks and, in short order a follow-on 20,000 more tanks coming out of Russia’s reserves that would finish what the top-of-the-line, active service tanks left behind. By any sane person’s standards, those odds suck.
Optimists (idiots) might say that the US could reenforce Europe in a very short period of time but does anyone really think the Russians would sit still for that? The reality is that unless they were going to land on highways there isn’t an airport in Europe that would be taking any flights to “reenforce” NATO. Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Charles de Gaulle, Paris-Orly, Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich, Cologne, Oslo, Brussels, Vienna and Budapest as well as every other European airport, seaport, military installation or staging area would be immediately hit by cruise missile attack were NATO to attack Russia. The surrounding urban/suburban areas would be laid waste as collateral damage resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.
Of course, this isn’t about “Russian aggression”, any more than the gulf war was about Saddam having nuclear weapons. Russia hasn’t attacked a soul, indeed they supply a third of Europe’s energy supplies and have no reason or desire to rock-that-boat. Rather, it’s about some band of nitwits in DC, London and New York thinking war is the only way to protect their international banking interests as the dollar and other fiat currencies become less stable. This time, war in Europe won’t take years as it did in the nineteen forties. This time, the dust-up won’t even last five days. Hell, the Rand Corporation (a.k.a. CIA) in their 2015 evaluation gave NATO an “unambiguous” conclusion after a series of war games that Russia would overrun NATO in a mere 60 hours – if not less. So, 60 hours before the nitwits would need nukes to stop a Russian counteroffensive.
So, if I get this right, the West bankrupts their financial system, runs around the planet overturning other governments and stealing their natural resources and when a country or two says they won’t play the game, the West invents this make-believe “aggression” and starts threatening these countries with war even though if war breaks out, the other country will have them for lunch. This is all okay, right?
That’s about as ‘rational’ as Canada amassing their entire military’s 100 Leopard tanks on the United States border, rattling their sabers while claiming American “aggression” because they annexed Texas, knowing full well that when they cross the Rainbow Bridge into New York they’ll face five thousand US tanks on the other side . In this goofy scenario someone would promise to “reenforce” Canada’s stupid idea by sending ships and planes with troops and tanks but where would they land when every seaport and every airport in Canada would be leveled though non-stop American missile attacks and airstrikes? Clearly, those folks proposing these ideas are batshit crazy.
Now in case you’ve concluded I’m some limp wristed , hippy peacenik, I can assure you I’m not. As mentioned, I’ve been a defense contractor for over thirty five years and I mention these numerical realities and inconvenient truths because I don’t particularly want to look at the horizon one morning from New Hampshire and see a mushroom cloud rising over Boston, turning it into green glass. While it may be acceptable that global war might finally relieve us of the Kardashians, the absence of Oreo cookies due to supply chain disruptions would be unconscionable. So, the real question is, why the hell do we tolerate such fools pontificating on such utter nonsense when they should be locked up in some asylum?