It is such a shame to see Toretsk, so bravely defended, to get more and more encircled.
Regarding the zombies, I agree with everything. HOW COME Macron has the nerve to restart SCALP-EG only three years late? The West is a joke, but a sad one.
Do you see any reason why Putin should not free the Baltic states this autumn?
Currently:
- Russia is at its strongest, with a combat-ready army, 500 T-90s and thousands of older tanks in storage, and it produces 2M FPV drones per year. And they make hundreds of Shaheds every day.
- Europe and NATO is at its weakest point after delivering ammo to Ukraine for 3 years.
In the future:
- Russia's economy is overheated, thus they are unlikely to become any stronger.
- Europe started investing into its defense industry and will start building a modern army in a couple of years.
Therefore it makes all the sense in the world to run a blitzkrieg now while Europe has nothing to put against the Russian invasion force of 1K tanks, 200K infantry, some 10K Shaheds, a few missiles and unlimited number of FPV drones (with their decent AD and fighter planes in close rear).
They can expect to overrun Baltics in a week or two, mine the new borders, and make Trump accept the new reality. This may also help them to reduce the flow of weapons into Ukraine as Europe will need those for itself.
Delivery to UA can be fast redirected to baltic state and also drones from UA can be send there. Poland has quite big army and EU has much more planes as russia and better ones. The war will be harder as in UA because of planes, poland and because russia will need to fight in 2 places. Russia has no free army which can be set there.
If you are not able to win 1 opponent than attacking also stronger one is best way to loose.
> Delivery to UA can be fast redirected to baltic state and also drones from UA can be send there.
- Did you see anything in EU happening "fast"? And in a couple of weeks there will be nothing to defend with those weapons.
The drones from UA:
- Are still needed by UA,
- Require experienced operators.
> Poland has quite big army and EU has much more planes as russia and better ones.
- Poles are unlikely to be combat-ready, are inexperienced and have never had to fight against FPV drones. Moreover, Shaheds are enough to blast oil storage facilities around the invasion, so that there will be no means to transfer the army. And it is questionable if the Poles will be willing to go die for the Baltics without Americans or French leading be example.
- The planes are mostly in the American army, while Trump does not want Americans to die for some Russians who dared to deny that they are Russians. America first!
- The planes will not be able to penetrate the Russian AD, in the same way as the Russian planes cannot penetrate the much weaker Ukrainian AD.
> The war will be harder as in UA because of planes, poland and because russia will need to fight in 2 places.
- The war in UA is hard because it is saturated with the FPV drones. EU has no FPV drones - therefore the war will be hard for them, not for the Russians. The drones outrange artillery these days.
- Poland has no experienced army. Any of their armor will be destroyed by the drones, as the Russian tanks that appear at the front line don't live long today.
> Russia has no free army which can be set there.
- Right now Russia spends their manpower in assaults on Ukrainian positions. And they have reserves, and they seem to hire more than they lose - as deduced from their building the reserves. I think that they can get 100K from reserves and withdraw another 100K from Ukraine without losing any ground they have occupied.
> If you are not able to win 1 opponent than attacking also stronger one is best way to loose.
- There is the difference between "winning" and "not losing". Ukraine cannot win the ground from Russia, but also does not lose the war. If Russia stops trying to take more ground in Ukraine, they will free up lots of resources.
- Your mistake is to believe that NATO ground forces are stronger than the Ukrainian ground forces. NATO has neither FPV drones nor modern combat experience. Another mistake is to believe that the entire NATO army will instantly teleport into Baltics. And if the Russian tanks are not countered by drones or water barriers, they will drive quickly - much quicker than the NATO decision-making.
That sounds like a "Battle of the Bulge" scenario, a last desperate offensive while they still have some capabilities left.
If Russia had more troops, they would put them in Ukraine. To launch an attack on the Baltic states they would have to conscript a lot more people or move some troops out of Ukraine.
The Baltic States have about 75,000 active duty troops, plus their reserve forces and are augmented by 2.5 NATO brigades. It would not be a Pearl Harbor-type attack. The troop build up would be observed, reserves activated, and a few more NATO troop would be deployed.
160k men were conscripted in Russia last year, the largest call up since 2011. There's about 650k Russian troops in Ukraine now. Russia would need about 400k troops to even consider an attack in the Baltics. So they can either conscript a lot of people, which will have an economic impact, regardless of whether there is a political impact or not, or they can take some troops from Ukraine, or both. But if you take even 100k troops out of Ukraine the Russian advances stop and they become vulnerable defensively.
> The troop build up would be observed, reserves activated, and a few more NATO troop would be deployed.
- As far as I remember, ISW published information about Russia building new military bases (the newly created Leningrad military district) and a support railway network at its border with NATO. They may act quickly while NATO is very slow in decision-making.
> Russia would need about 400k troops to even consider an attack in the Baltics.
- Why? Can Baltics alone withstand 200K troops + 1-2K tanks + FPV drones? They don't have the drones, and don't know how to counter them. And which NATO nationals are willing to die for Baltics?
> But if you take even 100k troops out of Ukraine the Russian advances stop and they become vulnerable defensively.
- Ukraine does not have the edge - there will be a standstill. Which is an acceptable price for a victory over NATO and a stronger position in negotiation. Moreover, NATO has very few means to destroy an armored assault without air superiority. And whatever they have on the land may be quickly neutralized by the drones.
It doesn't matter how many bases or rail lines Russia has, nothing they will do will be quick. In the Cold War, a Warsaw Pact attack 'out of the barracks' would still take six weeks to assemble. A deliberate attack would have taken longer, and Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union. Russia only has about 2700 tanks now.
The Baltics would call up their reserves. NATO would send more ground troops. NATO air and naval assets would be involved. It is not a shocking concept to consider that Ukraine might send drone units.
We've already seen the Russian version of a blitzkrieg and this was against a totally unprepared Ukraine. It wasn't the Ukrainian military that kicked Russia out of Sumy, it was Ukrainian civilians. The Russian completely broke through at Soledar but they had no capacity to exploit it. Yes, Russia has learned and evolved, but everyone one of their offensives moved at the speed of foot.
NATO has their own challenges, such as ammo levels, but Russia isn't going to overwhelm the Baltic States with NATO support. At best, they'll achieve another static front with higher rates of attrition than they're suffering in Ukraine. And who knows, NATO nations might even spend 10 or 20% of their GDP on defense to ramp up supplies.
I simply don't support your opinion of Russian capabilities.
- And they are next to useless for operations in Ukraine because of FPV drones, which NATO does not have. Likewise, the NATO tanks - I don't know how many of those are operation in Europe - will be useless against the attacking Russian army - again, thanks to FPV drones. Result? One army has 2K operation tanks, the other - has all its tanks destroyed before they can shoot.
> The Baltics would call up their reserves.
- Maybe. Ukraine did call up its reserves, teach its civilians to fight - and still Russian tanks moved over 100 km in the south in a couple of days. And they did not have drone support at that time.
> NATO would send more ground troops.
- Which NATO? Will Trump send Americans to die? Will GB send the entirety of its already depleted army?
- What will those infantrymen short on ammo do against the FPV drones, NK-provided artillery and tanks?
> NATO air and naval assets would be involved.
- Russia already has naval drones. Shaheds are probably good enough to attack anything above water. And there are lots of old Soviet anti-ship missiles which they waste on Ukrainian hospitals.
- Air assets will struggle against S400 and Russian long-range air-to-air missiles. Provided that Trump will not be afraid to lose both his face and his voters by sending American citizens and warplanes to their destruction, as he boasted today: “there are no Americans that are dying in it.”
> It is not a shocking concept to consider that Ukraine might send drone units.
- That would take time and lots of talking about talking. And it has a long logistics leg. While the Russian tanks have to drive only a couple hundred km to reach the sea.
> We've already seen the Russian version of a blitzkrieg and this was against a totally unprepared Ukraine.
- Ukraine was training territorial defense units since the autumn of 2021. Some AD was saved thanks to the preparations. Still the Russian armor moved 100 km in depth before it was stopped. Their main attack could not penetrate the Irpin flood. What will stop them in the Baltics?
> At best, they'll achieve another static front with higher rates of attrition than they're suffering in Ukraine.
- What will cause the attrition? Their FPV drones have longer range than the NATO artillery. Any how many NATO soldiers will die from the drones before the NATO lines collapse?
> And who knows, NATO nations might even spend 10 or 20% of their GDP on defense to ramp up supplies.
- How many years will it take them to ramp up the production? And how many days will it take for a heavily mechanized army to drive 200 km?
> I simply don't support your opinion of Russian capabilities.
- Then you should probably show how NATO is going to defend its ground units from the Russian FPV drones and its logistics and infrastructure from hundreds of Shaheds.
> S400 and long range weapons are not able to stop old F16 at UA
- The F16s fly at low altitudes and don't come close to the front line - exactly because they cannot survive if seen by the Russian AD. The same happens with the Russian planes - neither side can use them over the enemy's territory.
> EU has also long range missiles(meteor)
- As well as the Russians have their model
> west has also drones
- 10K drones? Or 20K? Russia produces 2M FPV drones per year. And I think that the EW in European army should be weak as never tested in combat.
> artilery has bigger range as most of russia drones
- Yes, still there are longer-range drones and MLRS units. And the entire NATO produces 4 times fewer artillery ammo than Russia. Which is also helped by NK.
- Artillery mey not be very efficient against moving targets, such as tanks. While drones are very efficient against artillery.
> and how UA lines are not collapsing because of drones?
- 1) Fortifications. They protect from drones to an extent.
2) Lines are easier to collapse by tanks. However, Russians are unable to gather enough tanks together for an attack - because of the Ukrainian drones.
> if everything will be so easy, why russia is not able to conquer much weaker UA?
- Because of the technological parity. See how Germany has collapsed the French army during WW2 - just because the German doctrine and technology were updated while the French relied on old methods of thought. We have seen the evolution of warfare in the current war - and now the old army will have to face the evolved one. The new methods appear exactly because they are superior to the old ones.
I just disagree with so many of your beliefs, Denys.
Tanks are not useless. In a war of attrition the firepower they bring isn't worth their rate of loss. They still have a role to play in an offensive. It is not a crazy concept that NATO forces could break through on a sector and then exploit the breakthrough. We saw how the Russians reacted to the Kharkiv offensive. They didn't stop Ukraine, Ukraine's logisitics did. Drones are a very effective tool in all operations but they are stronger in attritional warfare. If NATO ever conducted a breakthrough and exploitation operation, drones alone would not be able to stop it.
You think Russia can quickly send troops for a theoretical offensive but doubt Ukraine can send three battalions of drones quickly. And then you downplay it by claiming logistical lines are too long. Logistics are a NATO strength, and drone units have a very light logistical footprint.
Ukraine was so ill-prepared that Russian armor and other vehicles moved 100 km. On roads. They never left the roads. There were traffic jams. Generals were dying at the front trying to unjam them. They were sitting ducks for artillery. Small Ukrainian units were moving parallel to them and hitting them in their flanks. Repeatedly. For all of Ukraine's issues, Russian command and control, logistics and ability to execute their own doctrine was pretty underwhelming.
When I was in Germany we'd conduct 100 km road marches after breakfast and be back in the afternoon. NATO excels at logistics.
With regards to production, if Russia isn't breaking through, and they wouldn't, then time is on NATO's side. Not only would they be able to hold their ground tactically, they just might be able to conduct their own strikes on targets inside Russia. And their production base is slowly growing even now.
I'll make this wild and crazy prediction: I believe Poland's army of 200k can easily handle the 12k Russian troops in Kaliningrad while defending against the very unlikely attacks from the 50k troops in Belarus, and they'd still be able to send a couple brigades to the Baltic States, not to mention 95% of the troops they used to take Kaliningrad after a couple of weeks.
If Ukraine is shooting down over 75% of the Shahed drones and nearly 100% with the Iris-T, I'm pretty sure NATO could cope with them.
Understand that only about a third of Ukraine's brigades perform at a high level. Because of Syrsky and the suppression of the new generation, the other brigades suffer from command and control and training issues. And this is the army that is holding back the numerically superior Russian army for over three years now.
You're free to have your opinions, of course, we share those values, but I simply don't share your concerns on this issue.
S400 is good in theory, prax in ua has shown it is not as good. West has all infos about war. Ua deliver every info and west weapons are tested in ua. Every big city is a perfect fortification, so no quick victory is posible for russia. Russia has not enough air defence to protect attacks from ua, now it will need to protect at least 3-4 times more front.
I think that you should take into account the North Korea and Laos troops arriving soon. That way, Russia avoids the thorny conscription issue, and gains more manpower, which could be applied on a second front
You keep saying this in your intros posts about these 15 guys that are behind the polititians , and that they control them and want to have their outcome of the war ...umderstand there always lobbying in politics , but is there some proof about this , are there books/articles/whatever where one can look deeper.into this ? Because how you present it it sounds just like a conspiracy theory , assumptions etc. ..thx
Absolutely no proof for anything I say. Especially when one is looking away from the 'phenomena' called 'Political Corruption', endemic for all the major countries ('powers') of 'the West'.
Unless the SCALP-EG contracted is paid by the EU, it is unlikely to materialized.
France is near bankrupted. We dont have a proper budget for this year and it seems we arent likely to get one for 2026 either.
The situation could be salvaged if Macron and his buddies paused their kleptocracy for a few months. I emphasis it : pause, not stop. But they wont anyway. So we have unfinanced budget hole of around 50 billions. This is not the yearly deficit (+160 Billions).
For the past month, the government has talked about doing a "White Year" (année blanche). In essence, all social spending would be froze rather than slightly increased to match the inflation (actually it grossly under-estimate inflation to not match it but that is an other subject). This would help the government to save ... 5 Billions of euros. In a context of exploding poverty.
For the context, Macron is spending well over 220 Billions of euros in public aide to compagnies (last week the government has been incapable to provide an exact number to the parliament). A large part of it is done to subsize salaries below the official minimal wage (and in fact below poverty line). This has to be a rare case in economic history where a government subside to bankruptcy its economy to crash it done and throw the majority of population into poverty.
Back to MoD procurement, While Macron announced a 6 Billions increased through the next 2 years in the MoD budget, the same MoD had to stop all its procurement as it has an accumulated debt of around 10 Billions of debt for equipment already delivered to it. This was discovered a few weeks ago when the parliament discovered the MoD was not signing new deliveries despite Macron's rhetoric.
On a side note, its the national day here in France. Which means military parade and a lot of media coverage on the armed forces. The way both media and military officers talked about drone was ... unimpressive. Afaik the army only managed to bring a single Chinese FPV drone for the parade. And they talked about it as if it was a massive industrial investment ...
Well at least we now have our own slightly different licensed MultiCam camo and our licensed M4.
Also, it sort of comical to see the French Army has now repainted all its vehicle in sand/brown ("Brun de terre" is the official name). Just when France has been fully expelled from the Sahel for which it was designed.
It's not so bad. French "poverty" is a good life in e.g. Ukraine and French social benefits from government are something unbelievable for U.S. workers. French economy has a good base. All it needs it to do reforms: pensions, labour law etc. Macron tried some, but unfortunately, left and right populists block everything, like in other countries. So, it's the same song in other E.U. countries - people are too comfortable, hence unwilling to support Ukraine and even they own defence. (Just Nordic states do better.).
For your information, the near totality of Macron's reform which have caused this situation had been voted with the right-wing support while Macron himself has repeatedly stated core French right wing ideological pillars. Among them his royalist convictions and his admiration for Vichy France leaders (Petain, Mauras, etc).
BTW Poverty threshold is calculated based on local cost of life rather than a flat income indicator. The latter are completely meaningless.
Ukraine is a country ravaged by war. Of course, the situation is worse there. But for instance, France poverty threshold is higher than in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia or Slovenia.
According to our national statistics bureau INSEE, over 9 billion French people lived under the poverty threshold in 2023. Aka +15% of the population. That was before the current recession dramatically aggravated. In the past month, private company bankruptcy reached record high level. Whereas In 2023 and most of 2024, they were high already but mostly concerned disguised employment enabled by Macron "reforms".
BTW, the majority of the population here support Ukraine in voice but dont want any direct participation to the war. While the right and the right wing which are now Macron's voter base are pro Russia. That is to say; the people who want the same "reforms" as you are the only French political group to support Putin.
I have written "right populists" i.e. not counting "classic" right parties like The Republicans. Yes, Reconquête has supported the pension reform, but they are not important. The main "right populists" party is National Rally and allies and AFAIK they haven't supported the reforms.
About the poverty - yes, that's the "comfortability" I have written about. Ok, let's not compare with Ukraine. What about to take "poverty threshold" from Romania? They are in EU, too. Omgsh, we are in war. Not only Ukraine, Russia is waging war against the whole "west" and democracy.
French retirement age is gradually going to be 64 (and with a lot of exceptions to be lower). While Danish retirement age is 67 gradually going to be 70. France - standard work week is 35 hours, Denmark 37 hours. Etc. I have made similar talks with French citizens in the past. Always the same - blaming their politicians, unwilling to change anything, unwilling to lower their comfortability just a bit. (Similar other EU countries.)
You do well to put AFAIK in your post. Because precisely, you dont know.
The near totality of Macron's reforms of the past decade have been approved by the Rassemblement National.
Indeed since the 2024 summer swap election, the Rassemblement National (RN) alone is the biggest parliament group, followed by the wide left coalition NUPES. Since then Macron choose to govern with the earlier, giving it a veto to all its laws project. The RN used this veto once over the 2025 budget prepared by the Barnier cabinet leading to PM Barnier resignation. More precisely the Rassemblement National opposed the preprepared taxes raises.
Generally speaking, RN position is fairly simple : they validate all Macron's reforms on the condition of no taxes increase. While it criticises all about "immigration" and its usual racists program, it is worth mentioning it never uses its legislative veto to threaten the government over it and impose the "immigration" laws of its liking.
The background is RN full embrace of the dominant so called liberal economic agenda in the run up to the 2022 presidential election. Including RN renouncing its long held anti EU posture.
I dont even know why you are talking about Reconquête. This party never had any parliament seat. And so never had any sway on reform projects. Its leader, Zemmour, never talk about anything other than Clash of Civilizations level racism. And its voter base was almost exclusively top 10% income aka the dominant economical class shaping France economic policies of the past decades (or more).
Also, surely you dont consider Phillipe de Villier, Patrick Buisson and their like "populists". Likewise, you cant make a distinction on the political spectrum between RN and "classic" right parties Les Républicains (LR) in a world where people like Eric Ciotti and Laurent Wauquiez are leading LR.
Lastly, I find it incredibly ignorant your suggestion that France and broadly speaking EU countries, are heading this way because of people opposing self styled "reformists" parties due to their "unwillingness to change anything" while in the real world, those "reformists" are leading EU countries since at least the 80s and doing all the reforms they ever want.
In France, the various top ministers have all been personally around since the 90s. The older ones were already in ministries cabinet in the 80s. Macron himself is personally leading all of France economy policies since 2014 aka more than a decade.
Soon you are going to blame some imaginary communist government for France collapsing economy. Fun fact : the post WW2 economic boom ended in France precisely when the local communist party ceased to be powerful enough to influence state policies. While the basis of our Trente Glorieuses were precisely lay when post WW2 French right agreed to a policy of state investment and état providence.
You guys do great work with donations. But the sarcasm thing is tedious and not funny at all. Also, on EU politicians preparing for Ukraine defeat, you clearly have no idea whats happening beyond what u read in the news. I live and work in brussels and have friends working in both commission and as diplomats for several countries. You can accuse several countries (like bloody Spain) of not really caring that much, but no one here is prepping for defeat. Its just usual EU, slow and ponderous.
Yup, sarcasm on a blog named Sarcastosaurus, is entirely wrong in place...
As for what's going on in Brussels: good we are so heavily dependent on the mainstream media to find out, and not at all read, nor contacted, by people working there...
Sarcasm is a way to deal with overwhelming stupidity, corruption, etc. It ws never ment to be funny, it is just a sort of last ditch defence to keep one's own mental sanity and preventing one from exploding.
Thank you for analysis, you give great point of view outside of mainstream Western, Ukrainian and obviously Russian infobubles. Therefore, I have a few questions:
1. Can Ukraine F 16 use APKWS as it would maximise the potential of planes, but I personally hasn't seen any information
2. Osint and satelite photos show decrease of UMPK usage(fall to 104 average this month), as well as seemingly increasing accuracy against frontline fortifications? Could it be the confirmation of antijamming development, although the reduced activity is still mysterious?
3. Why don't Russians use other planes(like Su 24) to boost UMPK usage?
4. In context of Russian shelter building on Airfields, does short range missiles with concrete busting warheads exist? Theoretically, ATACAMS warhead would carry from 2 to 5 GBU 39-like submunitions, that could penetrate aconcrete shelters, at least according to life tests
5. Is there any info about effectiveness and development of Russian Link 16 analogue, as there is some info of S 400 guidance from Su 35?
6. What is state of Ukraine frontline drone air defense? There are plenty of video of recoinassance drones destruction as well as Molniya 2 and Lancets, but does it have noticable effect for Ukraine frontline rear?
7. Fighterbomber in last post talked about the modernisation of command structure, in particular allowing Russian pilots to engage in close aerial combat? As a result, I wonder what would be theoretical advantage to do it, as they would give up their range superiority for nothing
Man I think you are spot on right, and I don't understand why competent and well informed analysts like Tom or Don don't see it the way we see it. That is they don't see what is crystal clear by now: Russia is going to invade a small portion of the EU in the next 12-24 months. Maybe the baltics, maybe the svalbard. The US won't help, they stated it clear. The EU won't even try to respond 1) because they are less capable than ukraine is to hold off russia and they know, mostly thanks to all those people (politicians, enterprise people, opinionist, media analysts etc..) who decided AGAINST rearmament over the last 20 years and 2) because russia already won the hybrid war in the EU media and the public opinion in some of the biggest EU countries (like France and Italy) will not accept any move against the beloved russian oligarchy. The EU will crumble and our nations will be bought by oligarchs. That has been the plan for a long time, which they have tried so many times to accomplish using gentlmen manners... now they are rolling up their sleeves.
It is such a shame to see Toretsk, so bravely defended, to get more and more encircled.
Regarding the zombies, I agree with everything. HOW COME Macron has the nerve to restart SCALP-EG only three years late? The West is a joke, but a sad one.
Hello Tom and Don,
Do you see any reason why Putin should not free the Baltic states this autumn?
Currently:
- Russia is at its strongest, with a combat-ready army, 500 T-90s and thousands of older tanks in storage, and it produces 2M FPV drones per year. And they make hundreds of Shaheds every day.
- Europe and NATO is at its weakest point after delivering ammo to Ukraine for 3 years.
In the future:
- Russia's economy is overheated, thus they are unlikely to become any stronger.
- Europe started investing into its defense industry and will start building a modern army in a couple of years.
Therefore it makes all the sense in the world to run a blitzkrieg now while Europe has nothing to put against the Russian invasion force of 1K tanks, 200K infantry, some 10K Shaheds, a few missiles and unlimited number of FPV drones (with their decent AD and fighter planes in close rear).
They can expect to overrun Baltics in a week or two, mine the new borders, and make Trump accept the new reality. This may also help them to reduce the flow of weapons into Ukraine as Europe will need those for itself.
Well, considering what a military and strategic genious Pudding is... it's really surprising he didn't attack NATO already three years ago... 🙄
3 years ago he did not have the advantage of wide use of FPV droves - which NATO has nothing to counter.
And his army was not experienced in the modern warfare - just like the NATO armies are now.
And he did not have enough Shaheds to black out half a Europe with a single attack.
...yes, because the super-strategic-genious named Pudding cares about such things like Drones?
... almost as much as he's cared about '30,000-50,000 Russian casualties to achieve desired goals' (in Kyiv), back in 2022...
Now the goal of retaking Baltics from NATO seems to be much closer than retaking the entirety of Ukraine.
Which will be his ultimate victory and humiliation of NATO - the one he proclaimed for his goal in 2021: let NATO return to its 1990 borders.
Delivery to UA can be fast redirected to baltic state and also drones from UA can be send there. Poland has quite big army and EU has much more planes as russia and better ones. The war will be harder as in UA because of planes, poland and because russia will need to fight in 2 places. Russia has no free army which can be set there.
If you are not able to win 1 opponent than attacking also stronger one is best way to loose.
> Delivery to UA can be fast redirected to baltic state and also drones from UA can be send there.
- Did you see anything in EU happening "fast"? And in a couple of weeks there will be nothing to defend with those weapons.
The drones from UA:
- Are still needed by UA,
- Require experienced operators.
> Poland has quite big army and EU has much more planes as russia and better ones.
- Poles are unlikely to be combat-ready, are inexperienced and have never had to fight against FPV drones. Moreover, Shaheds are enough to blast oil storage facilities around the invasion, so that there will be no means to transfer the army. And it is questionable if the Poles will be willing to go die for the Baltics without Americans or French leading be example.
- The planes are mostly in the American army, while Trump does not want Americans to die for some Russians who dared to deny that they are Russians. America first!
- The planes will not be able to penetrate the Russian AD, in the same way as the Russian planes cannot penetrate the much weaker Ukrainian AD.
> The war will be harder as in UA because of planes, poland and because russia will need to fight in 2 places.
- The war in UA is hard because it is saturated with the FPV drones. EU has no FPV drones - therefore the war will be hard for them, not for the Russians. The drones outrange artillery these days.
- Poland has no experienced army. Any of their armor will be destroyed by the drones, as the Russian tanks that appear at the front line don't live long today.
> Russia has no free army which can be set there.
- Right now Russia spends their manpower in assaults on Ukrainian positions. And they have reserves, and they seem to hire more than they lose - as deduced from their building the reserves. I think that they can get 100K from reserves and withdraw another 100K from Ukraine without losing any ground they have occupied.
> If you are not able to win 1 opponent than attacking also stronger one is best way to loose.
- There is the difference between "winning" and "not losing". Ukraine cannot win the ground from Russia, but also does not lose the war. If Russia stops trying to take more ground in Ukraine, they will free up lots of resources.
- Your mistake is to believe that NATO ground forces are stronger than the Ukrainian ground forces. NATO has neither FPV drones nor modern combat experience. Another mistake is to believe that the entire NATO army will instantly teleport into Baltics. And if the Russian tanks are not countered by drones or water barriers, they will drive quickly - much quicker than the NATO decision-making.
Russia has a functional army and air force capable of maneuvers of this sort? Somebody tell NATO!
That sounds like a "Battle of the Bulge" scenario, a last desperate offensive while they still have some capabilities left.
If Russia had more troops, they would put them in Ukraine. To launch an attack on the Baltic states they would have to conscript a lot more people or move some troops out of Ukraine.
The Baltic States have about 75,000 active duty troops, plus their reserve forces and are augmented by 2.5 NATO brigades. It would not be a Pearl Harbor-type attack. The troop build up would be observed, reserves activated, and a few more NATO troop would be deployed.
160k men were conscripted in Russia last year, the largest call up since 2011. There's about 650k Russian troops in Ukraine now. Russia would need about 400k troops to even consider an attack in the Baltics. So they can either conscript a lot of people, which will have an economic impact, regardless of whether there is a political impact or not, or they can take some troops from Ukraine, or both. But if you take even 100k troops out of Ukraine the Russian advances stop and they become vulnerable defensively.
> The troop build up would be observed, reserves activated, and a few more NATO troop would be deployed.
- As far as I remember, ISW published information about Russia building new military bases (the newly created Leningrad military district) and a support railway network at its border with NATO. They may act quickly while NATO is very slow in decision-making.
> Russia would need about 400k troops to even consider an attack in the Baltics.
- Why? Can Baltics alone withstand 200K troops + 1-2K tanks + FPV drones? They don't have the drones, and don't know how to counter them. And which NATO nationals are willing to die for Baltics?
> But if you take even 100k troops out of Ukraine the Russian advances stop and they become vulnerable defensively.
- Ukraine does not have the edge - there will be a standstill. Which is an acceptable price for a victory over NATO and a stronger position in negotiation. Moreover, NATO has very few means to destroy an armored assault without air superiority. And whatever they have on the land may be quickly neutralized by the drones.
It doesn't matter how many bases or rail lines Russia has, nothing they will do will be quick. In the Cold War, a Warsaw Pact attack 'out of the barracks' would still take six weeks to assemble. A deliberate attack would have taken longer, and Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union. Russia only has about 2700 tanks now.
The Baltics would call up their reserves. NATO would send more ground troops. NATO air and naval assets would be involved. It is not a shocking concept to consider that Ukraine might send drone units.
We've already seen the Russian version of a blitzkrieg and this was against a totally unprepared Ukraine. It wasn't the Ukrainian military that kicked Russia out of Sumy, it was Ukrainian civilians. The Russian completely broke through at Soledar but they had no capacity to exploit it. Yes, Russia has learned and evolved, but everyone one of their offensives moved at the speed of foot.
NATO has their own challenges, such as ammo levels, but Russia isn't going to overwhelm the Baltic States with NATO support. At best, they'll achieve another static front with higher rates of attrition than they're suffering in Ukraine. And who knows, NATO nations might even spend 10 or 20% of their GDP on defense to ramp up supplies.
I simply don't support your opinion of Russian capabilities.
> Russia only has about 2700 tanks now.
- And they are next to useless for operations in Ukraine because of FPV drones, which NATO does not have. Likewise, the NATO tanks - I don't know how many of those are operation in Europe - will be useless against the attacking Russian army - again, thanks to FPV drones. Result? One army has 2K operation tanks, the other - has all its tanks destroyed before they can shoot.
> The Baltics would call up their reserves.
- Maybe. Ukraine did call up its reserves, teach its civilians to fight - and still Russian tanks moved over 100 km in the south in a couple of days. And they did not have drone support at that time.
> NATO would send more ground troops.
- Which NATO? Will Trump send Americans to die? Will GB send the entirety of its already depleted army?
- What will those infantrymen short on ammo do against the FPV drones, NK-provided artillery and tanks?
> NATO air and naval assets would be involved.
- Russia already has naval drones. Shaheds are probably good enough to attack anything above water. And there are lots of old Soviet anti-ship missiles which they waste on Ukrainian hospitals.
- Air assets will struggle against S400 and Russian long-range air-to-air missiles. Provided that Trump will not be afraid to lose both his face and his voters by sending American citizens and warplanes to their destruction, as he boasted today: “there are no Americans that are dying in it.”
> It is not a shocking concept to consider that Ukraine might send drone units.
- That would take time and lots of talking about talking. And it has a long logistics leg. While the Russian tanks have to drive only a couple hundred km to reach the sea.
> We've already seen the Russian version of a blitzkrieg and this was against a totally unprepared Ukraine.
- Ukraine was training territorial defense units since the autumn of 2021. Some AD was saved thanks to the preparations. Still the Russian armor moved 100 km in depth before it was stopped. Their main attack could not penetrate the Irpin flood. What will stop them in the Baltics?
> At best, they'll achieve another static front with higher rates of attrition than they're suffering in Ukraine.
- What will cause the attrition? Their FPV drones have longer range than the NATO artillery. Any how many NATO soldiers will die from the drones before the NATO lines collapse?
> And who knows, NATO nations might even spend 10 or 20% of their GDP on defense to ramp up supplies.
- How many years will it take them to ramp up the production? And how many days will it take for a heavily mechanized army to drive 200 km?
> I simply don't support your opinion of Russian capabilities.
- Then you should probably show how NATO is going to defend its ground units from the Russian FPV drones and its logistics and infrastructure from hundreds of Shaheds.
S400 and long range weapons are not able to stop old F16 at UA, how they will stop F35? EU has also long range missiles(meteor)
west has also drones and UA will be able to send more
artilery has bigger range as most of russia drones
and how UA lines are not collapsing because of drones?
if everything will be so easy, why russia is not able to conquer much weaker UA?
> S400 and long range weapons are not able to stop old F16 at UA
- The F16s fly at low altitudes and don't come close to the front line - exactly because they cannot survive if seen by the Russian AD. The same happens with the Russian planes - neither side can use them over the enemy's territory.
> EU has also long range missiles(meteor)
- As well as the Russians have their model
> west has also drones
- 10K drones? Or 20K? Russia produces 2M FPV drones per year. And I think that the EW in European army should be weak as never tested in combat.
> artilery has bigger range as most of russia drones
- Yes, still there are longer-range drones and MLRS units. And the entire NATO produces 4 times fewer artillery ammo than Russia. Which is also helped by NK.
- Artillery mey not be very efficient against moving targets, such as tanks. While drones are very efficient against artillery.
> and how UA lines are not collapsing because of drones?
- 1) Fortifications. They protect from drones to an extent.
2) Lines are easier to collapse by tanks. However, Russians are unable to gather enough tanks together for an attack - because of the Ukrainian drones.
> if everything will be so easy, why russia is not able to conquer much weaker UA?
- Because of the technological parity. See how Germany has collapsed the French army during WW2 - just because the German doctrine and technology were updated while the French relied on old methods of thought. We have seen the evolution of warfare in the current war - and now the old army will have to face the evolved one. The new methods appear exactly because they are superior to the old ones.
I only mentioned tanks because you did.
I just disagree with so many of your beliefs, Denys.
Tanks are not useless. In a war of attrition the firepower they bring isn't worth their rate of loss. They still have a role to play in an offensive. It is not a crazy concept that NATO forces could break through on a sector and then exploit the breakthrough. We saw how the Russians reacted to the Kharkiv offensive. They didn't stop Ukraine, Ukraine's logisitics did. Drones are a very effective tool in all operations but they are stronger in attritional warfare. If NATO ever conducted a breakthrough and exploitation operation, drones alone would not be able to stop it.
You think Russia can quickly send troops for a theoretical offensive but doubt Ukraine can send three battalions of drones quickly. And then you downplay it by claiming logistical lines are too long. Logistics are a NATO strength, and drone units have a very light logistical footprint.
Ukraine was so ill-prepared that Russian armor and other vehicles moved 100 km. On roads. They never left the roads. There were traffic jams. Generals were dying at the front trying to unjam them. They were sitting ducks for artillery. Small Ukrainian units were moving parallel to them and hitting them in their flanks. Repeatedly. For all of Ukraine's issues, Russian command and control, logistics and ability to execute their own doctrine was pretty underwhelming.
When I was in Germany we'd conduct 100 km road marches after breakfast and be back in the afternoon. NATO excels at logistics.
With regards to production, if Russia isn't breaking through, and they wouldn't, then time is on NATO's side. Not only would they be able to hold their ground tactically, they just might be able to conduct their own strikes on targets inside Russia. And their production base is slowly growing even now.
I'll make this wild and crazy prediction: I believe Poland's army of 200k can easily handle the 12k Russian troops in Kaliningrad while defending against the very unlikely attacks from the 50k troops in Belarus, and they'd still be able to send a couple brigades to the Baltic States, not to mention 95% of the troops they used to take Kaliningrad after a couple of weeks.
If Ukraine is shooting down over 75% of the Shahed drones and nearly 100% with the Iris-T, I'm pretty sure NATO could cope with them.
Understand that only about a third of Ukraine's brigades perform at a high level. Because of Syrsky and the suppression of the new generation, the other brigades suffer from command and control and training issues. And this is the army that is holding back the numerically superior Russian army for over three years now.
You're free to have your opinions, of course, we share those values, but I simply don't share your concerns on this issue.
I need only to remind you that NATO did not have plans to defend Estonia. Instead, they planned to liberate the country after 180 days, according to Kaja Kallas https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/30/nato-will-stick-with-ukraine-as-long-as-it-takes-says-joe-biden
Meanwhile, NATO believes in its invulnerability and superiority, just like the French did at the start of WW2.
S400 is good in theory, prax in ua has shown it is not as good. West has all infos about war. Ua deliver every info and west weapons are tested in ua. Every big city is a perfect fortification, so no quick victory is posible for russia. Russia has not enough air defence to protect attacks from ua, now it will need to protect at least 3-4 times more front.
Why would Russia go to the Baltics? Îs there anything of value.? The Baltic Sea was and îs a NATO lake due to Danish control of Skagerak.
I think that you should take into account the North Korea and Laos troops arriving soon. That way, Russia avoids the thorny conscription issue, and gains more manpower, which could be applied on a second front
You keep saying this in your intros posts about these 15 guys that are behind the polititians , and that they control them and want to have their outcome of the war ...umderstand there always lobbying in politics , but is there some proof about this , are there books/articles/whatever where one can look deeper.into this ? Because how you present it it sounds just like a conspiracy theory , assumptions etc. ..thx
Absolutely no proof for anything I say. Especially when one is looking away from the 'phenomena' called 'Political Corruption', endemic for all the major countries ('powers') of 'the West'.
Unless the SCALP-EG contracted is paid by the EU, it is unlikely to materialized.
France is near bankrupted. We dont have a proper budget for this year and it seems we arent likely to get one for 2026 either.
The situation could be salvaged if Macron and his buddies paused their kleptocracy for a few months. I emphasis it : pause, not stop. But they wont anyway. So we have unfinanced budget hole of around 50 billions. This is not the yearly deficit (+160 Billions).
For the past month, the government has talked about doing a "White Year" (année blanche). In essence, all social spending would be froze rather than slightly increased to match the inflation (actually it grossly under-estimate inflation to not match it but that is an other subject). This would help the government to save ... 5 Billions of euros. In a context of exploding poverty.
For the context, Macron is spending well over 220 Billions of euros in public aide to compagnies (last week the government has been incapable to provide an exact number to the parliament). A large part of it is done to subsize salaries below the official minimal wage (and in fact below poverty line). This has to be a rare case in economic history where a government subside to bankruptcy its economy to crash it done and throw the majority of population into poverty.
Back to MoD procurement, While Macron announced a 6 Billions increased through the next 2 years in the MoD budget, the same MoD had to stop all its procurement as it has an accumulated debt of around 10 Billions of debt for equipment already delivered to it. This was discovered a few weeks ago when the parliament discovered the MoD was not signing new deliveries despite Macron's rhetoric.
On a side note, its the national day here in France. Which means military parade and a lot of media coverage on the armed forces. The way both media and military officers talked about drone was ... unimpressive. Afaik the army only managed to bring a single Chinese FPV drone for the parade. And they talked about it as if it was a massive industrial investment ...
Well at least we now have our own slightly different licensed MultiCam camo and our licensed M4.
Also, it sort of comical to see the French Army has now repainted all its vehicle in sand/brown ("Brun de terre" is the official name). Just when France has been fully expelled from the Sahel for which it was designed.
Oh dear... that's worse than I've thought....
...but also a 'major success' for Moron & Co: one really has to screw up really bad to bring France into this condition...
It's not so bad. French "poverty" is a good life in e.g. Ukraine and French social benefits from government are something unbelievable for U.S. workers. French economy has a good base. All it needs it to do reforms: pensions, labour law etc. Macron tried some, but unfortunately, left and right populists block everything, like in other countries. So, it's the same song in other E.U. countries - people are too comfortable, hence unwilling to support Ukraine and even they own defence. (Just Nordic states do better.).
You are clearly unfamiliar with life in France.
For your information, the near totality of Macron's reform which have caused this situation had been voted with the right-wing support while Macron himself has repeatedly stated core French right wing ideological pillars. Among them his royalist convictions and his admiration for Vichy France leaders (Petain, Mauras, etc).
BTW Poverty threshold is calculated based on local cost of life rather than a flat income indicator. The latter are completely meaningless.
Ukraine is a country ravaged by war. Of course, the situation is worse there. But for instance, France poverty threshold is higher than in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia or Slovenia.
According to our national statistics bureau INSEE, over 9 billion French people lived under the poverty threshold in 2023. Aka +15% of the population. That was before the current recession dramatically aggravated. In the past month, private company bankruptcy reached record high level. Whereas In 2023 and most of 2024, they were high already but mostly concerned disguised employment enabled by Macron "reforms".
BTW, the majority of the population here support Ukraine in voice but dont want any direct participation to the war. While the right and the right wing which are now Macron's voter base are pro Russia. That is to say; the people who want the same "reforms" as you are the only French political group to support Putin.
I have written "right populists" i.e. not counting "classic" right parties like The Republicans. Yes, Reconquête has supported the pension reform, but they are not important. The main "right populists" party is National Rally and allies and AFAIK they haven't supported the reforms.
About the poverty - yes, that's the "comfortability" I have written about. Ok, let's not compare with Ukraine. What about to take "poverty threshold" from Romania? They are in EU, too. Omgsh, we are in war. Not only Ukraine, Russia is waging war against the whole "west" and democracy.
French retirement age is gradually going to be 64 (and with a lot of exceptions to be lower). While Danish retirement age is 67 gradually going to be 70. France - standard work week is 35 hours, Denmark 37 hours. Etc. I have made similar talks with French citizens in the past. Always the same - blaming their politicians, unwilling to change anything, unwilling to lower their comfortability just a bit. (Similar other EU countries.)
You do well to put AFAIK in your post. Because precisely, you dont know.
The near totality of Macron's reforms of the past decade have been approved by the Rassemblement National.
Indeed since the 2024 summer swap election, the Rassemblement National (RN) alone is the biggest parliament group, followed by the wide left coalition NUPES. Since then Macron choose to govern with the earlier, giving it a veto to all its laws project. The RN used this veto once over the 2025 budget prepared by the Barnier cabinet leading to PM Barnier resignation. More precisely the Rassemblement National opposed the preprepared taxes raises.
Generally speaking, RN position is fairly simple : they validate all Macron's reforms on the condition of no taxes increase. While it criticises all about "immigration" and its usual racists program, it is worth mentioning it never uses its legislative veto to threaten the government over it and impose the "immigration" laws of its liking.
The background is RN full embrace of the dominant so called liberal economic agenda in the run up to the 2022 presidential election. Including RN renouncing its long held anti EU posture.
I dont even know why you are talking about Reconquête. This party never had any parliament seat. And so never had any sway on reform projects. Its leader, Zemmour, never talk about anything other than Clash of Civilizations level racism. And its voter base was almost exclusively top 10% income aka the dominant economical class shaping France economic policies of the past decades (or more).
Also, surely you dont consider Phillipe de Villier, Patrick Buisson and their like "populists". Likewise, you cant make a distinction on the political spectrum between RN and "classic" right parties Les Républicains (LR) in a world where people like Eric Ciotti and Laurent Wauquiez are leading LR.
Lastly, I find it incredibly ignorant your suggestion that France and broadly speaking EU countries, are heading this way because of people opposing self styled "reformists" parties due to their "unwillingness to change anything" while in the real world, those "reformists" are leading EU countries since at least the 80s and doing all the reforms they ever want.
In France, the various top ministers have all been personally around since the 90s. The older ones were already in ministries cabinet in the 80s. Macron himself is personally leading all of France economy policies since 2014 aka more than a decade.
Soon you are going to blame some imaginary communist government for France collapsing economy. Fun fact : the post WW2 economic boom ended in France precisely when the local communist party ceased to be powerful enough to influence state policies. While the basis of our Trente Glorieuses were precisely lay when post WW2 French right agreed to a policy of state investment and état providence.
You guys do great work with donations. But the sarcasm thing is tedious and not funny at all. Also, on EU politicians preparing for Ukraine defeat, you clearly have no idea whats happening beyond what u read in the news. I live and work in brussels and have friends working in both commission and as diplomats for several countries. You can accuse several countries (like bloody Spain) of not really caring that much, but no one here is prepping for defeat. Its just usual EU, slow and ponderous.
Yup, sarcasm on a blog named Sarcastosaurus, is entirely wrong in place...
As for what's going on in Brussels: good we are so heavily dependent on the mainstream media to find out, and not at all read, nor contacted, by people working there...
Sarcasm is a way to deal with overwhelming stupidity, corruption, etc. It ws never ment to be funny, it is just a sort of last ditch defence to keep one's own mental sanity and preventing one from exploding.
> no one here is prepping for defeat
And no one there is working towards victory.
(E.g. Russia gets more arty shells from North Korea than Ukraine from EU. Big shame.)
Thank you for analysis, you give great point of view outside of mainstream Western, Ukrainian and obviously Russian infobubles. Therefore, I have a few questions:
1. Can Ukraine F 16 use APKWS as it would maximise the potential of planes, but I personally hasn't seen any information
2. Osint and satelite photos show decrease of UMPK usage(fall to 104 average this month), as well as seemingly increasing accuracy against frontline fortifications? Could it be the confirmation of antijamming development, although the reduced activity is still mysterious?
3. Why don't Russians use other planes(like Su 24) to boost UMPK usage?
4. In context of Russian shelter building on Airfields, does short range missiles with concrete busting warheads exist? Theoretically, ATACAMS warhead would carry from 2 to 5 GBU 39-like submunitions, that could penetrate aconcrete shelters, at least according to life tests
5. Is there any info about effectiveness and development of Russian Link 16 analogue, as there is some info of S 400 guidance from Su 35?
6. What is state of Ukraine frontline drone air defense? There are plenty of video of recoinassance drones destruction as well as Molniya 2 and Lancets, but does it have noticable effect for Ukraine frontline rear?
7. Fighterbomber in last post talked about the modernisation of command structure, in particular allowing Russian pilots to engage in close aerial combat? As a result, I wonder what would be theoretical advantage to do it, as they would give up their range superiority for nothing
1) yes, as far as I know. That's why there were plans to send 20.000 of these to Ukraine, but these were diverted to Middle East
3) are there any Su-24 or similar available to Russian air force? I guess not
Excellent questions. Inspiring too: think I'll address them in a separate feature.
"Sigh… now how to finish this intro?" SIMPLE:
".......and now for something completely different."
1971 Monty Python's Flying Circus
Man I think you are spot on right, and I don't understand why competent and well informed analysts like Tom or Don don't see it the way we see it. That is they don't see what is crystal clear by now: Russia is going to invade a small portion of the EU in the next 12-24 months. Maybe the baltics, maybe the svalbard. The US won't help, they stated it clear. The EU won't even try to respond 1) because they are less capable than ukraine is to hold off russia and they know, mostly thanks to all those people (politicians, enterprise people, opinionist, media analysts etc..) who decided AGAINST rearmament over the last 20 years and 2) because russia already won the hybrid war in the EU media and the public opinion in some of the biggest EU countries (like France and Italy) will not accept any move against the beloved russian oligarchy. The EU will crumble and our nations will be bought by oligarchs. That has been the plan for a long time, which they have tried so many times to accomplish using gentlmen manners... now they are rolling up their sleeves.