Posted on 02/17/2024 9:04:35 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
Russian forces are likely planning to double their forces on borders with members of the Western security alliance NATO, the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service said in a new report.
The report says that Russia is planning to create a new corps, which can include up to 45,000 troops, at NATO’s borders in northern Europe. As of 2022, Russia had about 19,000 troops at the northern border.
The 44th Army Corps would likely be based in the northwestern Russian city of Petrozavodsk near the border with Finland, according to the report.
The Estonian intelligence assessment said the new Russian unit would involve two or three maneuver units and around a dozen fire support and combat support units.
The report also indicates Moscow is undergoing a significant military reform overall, the ultimate outcome of which would be determined by the war in Ukraine.
“If Russia manages to implement the reform, NATO could face a Soviet-style mass army in the next decade,” they wrote.
While the Russian force would not be as technologically advanced as NATO, the buildup would pose a major concern to the alliance, the report warns.
“Defending against a possible conventional attack from such an army would require allied defense forces and defense industries to be significantly more prepared, capable and better-stocked with ammunition and materiel than they currently are,” officials warned.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Send your sons and daughters to die for globohomo!
Where are they going to get their military personnel from? With over 300,000 dead and injured, they don’t have the forces to do as Estonia warns.
But, the U.S. can help out the Russians by sending them the 10 million or so illegal immigrants that invaded the U.S. All NATO countries get be surrounded by the ‘new Russians’.
The history of Russian military reform since the USSR collapsed shows Russian elites and their cronies bank accounts benefiting at the expense of their military.
Putting along NATO borders more soldiers and equipment of what Russia has in Ukraine, is not particularly promising to the Russian point of view.
The Soviets lost in Afghanistan. So for much of their history, they were a paper tiger. The only time that they dominated was during WWII, even then, it took them a while to get their act together.
Lots of laugh, take out Russias logistical hubs and their army grinds to a halt.
It took Russia a YEAR to take Avdiika.
Where are they going to get their military personnel from? With over 300,000 dead and injured, they don’t have the forces to do as Estonia warns.
Exactly! Headline could have read "Russia my increase forces TEN-FOLD," and some readers would have still decried this and begun shaking in their boots.
Regards,
It looks like this is a response to Finland joining NATO.
I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in a Russian unit trying to attack SE Finland. Most of the terrain is a freaking death trap.
Nobody else wanted it!
Prime real estate in Siberia was not exactly in high demand.
Regards,
Reminds me of the punchline to my favorite Russia joke:
Sole surviving Russian infantryman: "They lied! There were two of them!"
Regards,
BS report. You’d basically create this 45,000 man force out of conscripts with 6 weeks of training...with what remains of tanks/APCs...mostly from the 1980s/1970s depot (majority of everything from past thirty years either destroyed or lost)?
My humble bet...Putin might create 45,000 billets, of which 80-percent will never be filled. Half of them would have the job of keeping the 30-to-40 year old T-72 tanks operating with marginal parts.
Soviets were able to win against the Germans because they had enormous advantage in manpower and production capacity over the Germans who were fighting a multi-front war, but that is not the whole picture
towards the end the German industry was being pounded by American and British bombers, even with that German war production rose through 1944.
The first big strike against German war effort was the choking of oil supplies, but even more of a problem was when allied ground attack aircraft were able to hit targets like trains and other infrastructure as well as individual pieces of equipment. Doesn’t matter how much you produce if you can’t get it to the front and there is no fuel once there.
The Germans lost over 3000 pieces of equipment when the pocket was attacked by air forces outside Normandy, the Germans had built over 1200 me-262s, but barely 100 made it into service and always suffered from fuel and pilot as well as maintenance issues.
Why am I saying all this? Soviets in WW2 did produce a ton of equipment, but the massive aid sent by mostly American (barely mentioned in soviet “history”) made that largely possible. Food, fuel, aircraft, trucks, even lumber was sent.
The strategic bombing of Germany, often said to be ineffective, had an effect esp in what I already mentioned(soviet industry had no such issues), imagine German war production with no effects from bombings and fuel constraints, or for that matter not expending troops and equipment on the western front.
To the present Ukraine is dependent on western aid that is for sure, much like the Soviets were, but Russia is also not the Soviet Union. Their manufacturing capacity is nothing like the Soviets, and their industry is being damaged by Ukrainian targeting. To a level that I think is being underplayed.
As to manpower advantage, this is true, but not to the extend again the Soviet Union held, additionally the patriotic furvor to fight for mother Russia does not seem to be anywhere near the level of the great patriotic war. Putin is consciously trying to keep ethic “Russians” out of the fight, but if the war goes on for several more years that will become harder and harder to do.
Conclusion, Ukraine is in a tough spot, made tougher by political wrangling over weapons support, but Russia is not this entity that can keep these kind of loses up forever.
If aid in the form of aircraft and long range weapons appear in quantity, the situation on the ground may change dramatically
Exactly how is this different from every other war ever fought?
lol a few weeks, that is some quality reporting there.
Taking bakmut in 6-8 months or more at great cost, and avdiivka at a greater time and loss of equipment proved one thing, if you don’t give a crap about loses in equipment and manpower anything is possible.
Even with that I blame lack of adequate weapons supplies for both bakmut avdiivka. Air defense, , cluster, aircraft, long range weapons earlier in would have been devastating to Russians. Imagine atacms when Russians had aircraft staged closer to the front.
Taking two relatively small cities that they razed to the ground, yup huge success, the Wehrmacht would have been giddy with such Soviet “success”
As a side note I think that Andrew reported 4 T-90ms destroyed
You mean like the Vietnam War?
You mean like the Vietnam War?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.