Arctic combat in northern Sweden and Finland and the part of Norway reaching Russia would be combat without any cover from terrain, as was evidenced in WW2 when thousands of swedish volunteers joined the finns in holding off the northern Soviet advance which was aimed at Kiruna (the mines) and Narvik (the harbour, to stop german or british landings). Conditions were pure Hell, with Arctic winds dropping outdoor temperatures to below -40C without adding wind shear. At such low temperatures, many metals become brittle, batteries die, rubber freezes and cracks, and diesel/petrol if diluted the way the EU demands separate into their different parts (it's a common problem in the North every winter and destroys engine components).
Meaning you need machines and gear specifically designed for such environs, or older gear from WW2 (such as the old Mosin-Nagant or Kar 98k).
However, NATO forces could conceivably dominate the air completely almostimmediately gven that the US alone has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the planet. Russia has one barely operational (the Admiral Kuznetsov, currently docked in Murmansk and undergoing repairs since 2018).
With total air superiority, Mumansk could be isolated and taken which would deprive Russia of one of its three ports in the West, crippling its entire navy in one swoop. Because in such a state of war, Russia would be unable to use the Öresund passage - danish, german, polish and swedish naval units as well as Sweden's Amphibious Corps (inheritor of the old coastal artillery corps).
And as the only remaining dock would be on Krim...
Russia/China's strategy maybe to bleed us white financially, but Russia is already severly over-stretched and is starting to feel it. Not to mention something our globalist leaders and political opposition both have overlooked.
Giving the people (us) an external Enemy creates unity among the people. But that unity is as a people, not as citizens, consumers or voters. They've planted true Dragon's teeth with the "slava ukraini"-stance I think. If I was a non-white migrant, I'd think long and hard what will happen when the leaders in Europe need a new enemy after Russia.
It would be-oh-so-easy to suddenly start publishing costs, identities of criminals, and data about ethnicity/crime, all of a sudden. After all, the germans didn't attack german jews until tenyears of propaganda to hate whom the state points at had done its job.
re Arctic warfare: I doubt that, a few hardened 'special ops' guys aside, that the regular forces of any of the European or North American fair-weather militaries will actually be able to withstand conditions in the North.
re the air superiority of Western airforces: sure, it may be, but given the lack of serviced airfields, close air support will be limited, if only due to logistical problems. I do agree that combat will quite likely resemble WW2 rather than, say, Iraq or Afghanistan (ask, e.g., western soldiers about their high-tech assault rifles that frequently jammed in either, which led units to replace them with AK-47s and the like; oh, the irony).
re a push towards Murmansk: a surprise attack with light/mobile infantry might be possible, but given the lack of proper roads, distances, and the lingering issues of Russian AA defences, esp. around its northern naval hub, I doubt this will fly (pun intended). In addition, I doubt that the locals would take such an attack lightly, and I'd add that the Russian locals might put up more of a resistance to such an attack than, say, the Afghans or Iraqis. Bottom line: lots of lost equipment, fallen troops, and low odds of continuous supply would render such an operation suicidal.
Sure, the Russian Navy would be 'crippled', but Russia is a land power that can 'afford' to do so; aircraft carriers have no defence against hypersonic missiles and I doubt that Russia's SSNs would be 'trapped'.
Your point about the looming unrest due to our multicultural societies is very well taken, esp. since there's almost no Western country whose immigrant population is less than 20%. This is a much, much higher share of possible 'enemies' than the German Jews you mention.
Problems everywhere, to say nothing about supply chain issues, food disruptions, and civil unrest in the West, whether led by the citizenry or the immigrant population.
If I'd have to guess, I suppose that social cohesion is higher in Russia than in the West, too.
No, on several points. The regular swedish, norwegian, finnish and danish militaries have equipment for arctic combat and regularly practice such too. This includes logistical support, engineering corops and vehicles. We do not rely on the mythology of "special forces", simply put. The danes even practice combat operations on northern Greenland on occasion.
Air support would not be a huge problem; all nations involved have aircraft capable of utilising existing airfields - the swedish defence was based on using roads as airfields, and many major roads were originally built with that in mind. Plus with Russia unable to touch aircraft carriers at all, the logistics of supplying the aircrafts would resemble Desert Storm I more than anything else.
Desert Storm is probably the closest modern analogue of what it would look like - if you remember the hyperbolic fears of western journalists, they thought that Saddam outnumbering the coalition/US forces 5:1 in armour mattered. It doesn't when your crews are crap and your tanks are from the 1970s or even older. 20:1 infantry doesn't matter either if you can't make contact with the enemy on your own terms.
The russian locals would offer zero resistance - they have no real love forPutin's KGB-cronies, nor have they anything to gain from resisting, and they know full well that western occupation would be temporary and possibly quite lucrative for them. Thinking that russian civilians would organise as were they partisans of The Great Patriotic War is unrealistic: they know the invader does not in any way resemble the german warmachine 80 years ago (starting a war with the outspoken objective that the defeated people was to be exterminated is a real good way to create resistance-fighters).
Roads is not an issue either - if the terrain is frozen, which is most of the year, the road is where you drive so to speak. And all nordic nations have bridgelayer companies as part of their engineering corps.
We've been drilling and training for fighting Russia since 1950; our militaries are 100% geared with that in mind, and Sweden has "invisible" submarines, stealth armour units and stealth helicopters in the pipeline, not to mention the Archer system which is to be field tested in the Ukraine.
What is the unknown decider, is the nuclear option.
I don't doubt the Nordic militaries' capabilities.
But they's be integrated into = commanded by the Americans: what can go wrong?
I doubt the strategic depth (no chance to shoot down hypersonic missiles, no matter if they're 'conventionally' armed or with nukes).
Long-range stand-off weaponry will prevent much movement absent air superiority, which will be costly to establish.
Similarly, I doubt that our decadent societies can endure levels of hardship most Russians have lived through during their lifetime (1990s). Determination of the few is simply not good enough, apart from: what would the Russians want? More territory?
I agree with the unworthiness of many cities as targets.
I do consider the mere prospect--or possibility--of imminent destruction visited upon Westerners as panic-inducing alone. I doubt that many will keep their cool, esp. compared to, say, the Palestinians, Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, and the like.
Talk about the Nietzschean 'gazing into the abyss'.
Scattered musings:
Arctic combat in northern Sweden and Finland and the part of Norway reaching Russia would be combat without any cover from terrain, as was evidenced in WW2 when thousands of swedish volunteers joined the finns in holding off the northern Soviet advance which was aimed at Kiruna (the mines) and Narvik (the harbour, to stop german or british landings). Conditions were pure Hell, with Arctic winds dropping outdoor temperatures to below -40C without adding wind shear. At such low temperatures, many metals become brittle, batteries die, rubber freezes and cracks, and diesel/petrol if diluted the way the EU demands separate into their different parts (it's a common problem in the North every winter and destroys engine components).
Meaning you need machines and gear specifically designed for such environs, or older gear from WW2 (such as the old Mosin-Nagant or Kar 98k).
However, NATO forces could conceivably dominate the air completely almostimmediately gven that the US alone has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the planet. Russia has one barely operational (the Admiral Kuznetsov, currently docked in Murmansk and undergoing repairs since 2018).
With total air superiority, Mumansk could be isolated and taken which would deprive Russia of one of its three ports in the West, crippling its entire navy in one swoop. Because in such a state of war, Russia would be unable to use the Öresund passage - danish, german, polish and swedish naval units as well as Sweden's Amphibious Corps (inheritor of the old coastal artillery corps).
And as the only remaining dock would be on Krim...
Russia/China's strategy maybe to bleed us white financially, but Russia is already severly over-stretched and is starting to feel it. Not to mention something our globalist leaders and political opposition both have overlooked.
Giving the people (us) an external Enemy creates unity among the people. But that unity is as a people, not as citizens, consumers or voters. They've planted true Dragon's teeth with the "slava ukraini"-stance I think. If I was a non-white migrant, I'd think long and hard what will happen when the leaders in Europe need a new enemy after Russia.
It would be-oh-so-easy to suddenly start publishing costs, identities of criminals, and data about ethnicity/crime, all of a sudden. After all, the germans didn't attack german jews until tenyears of propaganda to hate whom the state points at had done its job.
A few thoughts in response:
re Arctic warfare: I doubt that, a few hardened 'special ops' guys aside, that the regular forces of any of the European or North American fair-weather militaries will actually be able to withstand conditions in the North.
re the air superiority of Western airforces: sure, it may be, but given the lack of serviced airfields, close air support will be limited, if only due to logistical problems. I do agree that combat will quite likely resemble WW2 rather than, say, Iraq or Afghanistan (ask, e.g., western soldiers about their high-tech assault rifles that frequently jammed in either, which led units to replace them with AK-47s and the like; oh, the irony).
re a push towards Murmansk: a surprise attack with light/mobile infantry might be possible, but given the lack of proper roads, distances, and the lingering issues of Russian AA defences, esp. around its northern naval hub, I doubt this will fly (pun intended). In addition, I doubt that the locals would take such an attack lightly, and I'd add that the Russian locals might put up more of a resistance to such an attack than, say, the Afghans or Iraqis. Bottom line: lots of lost equipment, fallen troops, and low odds of continuous supply would render such an operation suicidal.
Sure, the Russian Navy would be 'crippled', but Russia is a land power that can 'afford' to do so; aircraft carriers have no defence against hypersonic missiles and I doubt that Russia's SSNs would be 'trapped'.
Your point about the looming unrest due to our multicultural societies is very well taken, esp. since there's almost no Western country whose immigrant population is less than 20%. This is a much, much higher share of possible 'enemies' than the German Jews you mention.
Problems everywhere, to say nothing about supply chain issues, food disruptions, and civil unrest in the West, whether led by the citizenry or the immigrant population.
If I'd have to guess, I suppose that social cohesion is higher in Russia than in the West, too.
No, on several points. The regular swedish, norwegian, finnish and danish militaries have equipment for arctic combat and regularly practice such too. This includes logistical support, engineering corops and vehicles. We do not rely on the mythology of "special forces", simply put. The danes even practice combat operations on northern Greenland on occasion.
Air support would not be a huge problem; all nations involved have aircraft capable of utilising existing airfields - the swedish defence was based on using roads as airfields, and many major roads were originally built with that in mind. Plus with Russia unable to touch aircraft carriers at all, the logistics of supplying the aircrafts would resemble Desert Storm I more than anything else.
Desert Storm is probably the closest modern analogue of what it would look like - if you remember the hyperbolic fears of western journalists, they thought that Saddam outnumbering the coalition/US forces 5:1 in armour mattered. It doesn't when your crews are crap and your tanks are from the 1970s or even older. 20:1 infantry doesn't matter either if you can't make contact with the enemy on your own terms.
The russian locals would offer zero resistance - they have no real love forPutin's KGB-cronies, nor have they anything to gain from resisting, and they know full well that western occupation would be temporary and possibly quite lucrative for them. Thinking that russian civilians would organise as were they partisans of The Great Patriotic War is unrealistic: they know the invader does not in any way resemble the german warmachine 80 years ago (starting a war with the outspoken objective that the defeated people was to be exterminated is a real good way to create resistance-fighters).
Roads is not an issue either - if the terrain is frozen, which is most of the year, the road is where you drive so to speak. And all nordic nations have bridgelayer companies as part of their engineering corps.
We've been drilling and training for fighting Russia since 1950; our militaries are 100% geared with that in mind, and Sweden has "invisible" submarines, stealth armour units and stealth helicopters in the pipeline, not to mention the Archer system which is to be field tested in the Ukraine.
What is the unknown decider, is the nuclear option.
I don't doubt the Nordic militaries' capabilities.
But they's be integrated into = commanded by the Americans: what can go wrong?
I doubt the strategic depth (no chance to shoot down hypersonic missiles, no matter if they're 'conventionally' armed or with nukes).
Long-range stand-off weaponry will prevent much movement absent air superiority, which will be costly to establish.
Similarly, I doubt that our decadent societies can endure levels of hardship most Russians have lived through during their lifetime (1990s). Determination of the few is simply not good enough, apart from: what would the Russians want? More territory?
Population is an important distinction to consider. Even then, some large cities aren't worth being a target either. Fighting over nothing! Hahaha!
I agree with the unworthiness of many cities as targets.
I do consider the mere prospect--or possibility--of imminent destruction visited upon Westerners as panic-inducing alone. I doubt that many will keep their cool, esp. compared to, say, the Palestinians, Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, and the like.
Talk about the Nietzschean 'gazing into the abyss'.