| Rather grim Hive Mind question: 13:26 - Mar 20 with 10026 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
I am just wondering what the mood is on this question, which for years would have been practically unthinkable:
What do you think are the chances of a deliberate Russian (or Belarusian or Wagner Group etc) military strike on a target in NATO territory within the next 12 months?
Please give your answer as a percentage, ranged from 0.1 to 99.9%.
If I get a few answers it will give us a Hive Mind average. |  | | |  |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 14:12 - Mar 29 with 1712 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
0.001%. They don't need to if they can win information wars that they have proved very successful with so far.
EDIT: Just read the OP's summary reply on the second page and it does depend on what you describe as a military strike. It is clear Russia have used radioisotope poisoning in the UK on more than one occasion. I read the OP as a strike that is against a nation rather than an individual in such a manner that it would be difficult for it not to provoke a military response. [Post edited 29 Mar 2024 14:17]
|  |
| |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 14:25 - Mar 29 with 1689 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 12:55 - Mar 29 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“ I think most of mainland Europe would be very grateful for cheap Russian gas again and trade with a market of 150million people. I think the sanctions have hurt us more than them.”
I don’t think this argument really holds up. Certainly the Russians were well prepared for sanctions, building up their surplus and cash reserves. However, the Russian economy contracted a massive 10pc - comparible to the impact of COVID on the western economies. No economies in the West have been impacted to anywhere near that level since the invasion. The Rouble was decimated when sanctions were ramped up and as a result the Russian central bank has had to raise the base rate upto 20pc.
mports have become incredibly expensive and western FDI is now non existent. In order to prop up their economy they’ve effectively moved to a total war footing. Western retail and financial services jobs in Russia have been replaced by low skilled jobs churning out shells. Whilst some oil and gas exports have moved to China and India, it’s well below the pre war levels. The pipeline infrastructure to move natural gas to China does not exist (as it did to Western Europe), and even were it to be constructed it would take years. Russian fossil fuel exports are not projected to reach pre war levels until 2030.
I also view the China-Russia relationship more of a shark circling a wounded prey - China are more interested in hoovering up cheap infrastructure and fossil fuels than helping Russia. Like Putin, Xi does what is to China’s benefit, and a weakened Russia is in their interest, especially with longstanding territorial disputes. |
I agree with your analysis here, particularly with regard to the "alliance" between China and Russia.
Russia has hugely overstretched, is using "meat grinder" tactics, and whilst it won't run out of men, they have run out of machinery.
China has chosen not to resupply those losses, in the main, as the threat on their Northern border is hugely reduced, allowing them to pursue their expansionist goals to their East. | | | |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 14:43 - Mar 29 with 1674 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 14:12 - Mar 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
0.001%. They don't need to if they can win information wars that they have proved very successful with so far.
EDIT: Just read the OP's summary reply on the second page and it does depend on what you describe as a military strike. It is clear Russia have used radioisotope poisoning in the UK on more than one occasion. I read the OP as a strike that is against a nation rather than an individual in such a manner that it would be difficult for it not to provoke a military response. [Post edited 29 Mar 2024 14:17]
|
I meant an unambiguous military action against a military target.
The assassination of the defected pilot in Spain is arguable, but an assassination of Ukrainian pilots, or a sabotage bomb on an air base, or a missile attack on NATO territory wouldn't be. | | | |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 15:00 - Mar 29 with 1670 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 14:43 - Mar 29 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I meant an unambiguous military action against a military target.
The assassination of the defected pilot in Spain is arguable, but an assassination of Ukrainian pilots, or a sabotage bomb on an air base, or a missile attack on NATO territory wouldn't be. |
"an assassination of Ukrainian pilots ... on NATO territory" would be no different to the attacks they have carried out on other individuals in the UK (a NATO territory). | |
| |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 16:06 - Mar 29 with 1645 views | DJR |
The following shows the overwhelming military superiority of NATO as of 2023.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/
When it comes to Europe, in 2021, Russia spent around $66 billion on its military. NATO’s European members alone spent more than four times that. I haven't been able to find more up-to-date figures, but Europe would have the advantage in any conflict (if it were to go it alone without US support) of not being bogged down in a war (in Ukraine).
And the following from a recent article in the usually gung-ho Telegraph indicates that Putin couldn't win a war against Europe.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/06/russia-war-europe-nato-eu-ukraine-ec
"Russia simply can’t win a war against Europe. The mathematics are inexorable
Even if the US pulls out, Putin would be crazy to start something
There is much talk at present about how we need to prepare for war with Russia. How there might be conscription. There are articles in the press about how in the event of war parts of our industrial base might be converted to military production.
To an observer unfamiliar with atavistic Western concerns going back to the Soviet threat during the Cold War, equipped only with an understanding of the mathematics and economics of military power, this concern would probably seem surprising. Russia’s economy is fairly small, only around 85 per cent of the size of Italy’s. Its population of about 140 million is less than that of Germany plus France combined. It has been unable to defeat Ukraine – a country that when Russia invaded was the world’s 53rd largest economy, below New Zealand and Peru. Even if a future United States lost all interest in protecting Europe, should we really fear Russia could defeat the combined forces of the EU, such that it could reach Britain?
The relationship between military power and economic growth is complex and two-way. I have written before on these pages about how having a stronger military can boost long-term economic growth. Here I want to focus on the other direction: the extent to which having a higher GDP does or does not imply being more militarily powerful and what that means for the Russian threat and the Russian economy.
The classical startpoint for analysis of the relationship between military and economic power has usually been that military power is, other things being equal, a reflection of the resources available to the military. Obviously other things, such as geography, alliances, technology, military skill and experience, or morale, are typically not equal, and we shall return to that point shortly. But for now let us concentrate on this dimension.
The resources available to the military consist of those that have already been mobilised as military forces and those that could be mobilised rapidly, in the timescale required to be relevant, if they were required. Let us for now think of military forces as having two components: personnel numbers and equipment. (Other factors, such as the force balance – air/sea/land – obviously potentially matter as well. But let’s keep things simple.)
Consider two opposed countries. One has a larger population; the other has higher GDP. To create matching militaries, in terms of personnel and equipment, the country with the larger population need only devote a smaller percentage of its population to the military, but must devote a higher share of its GDP.
Suppose, instead, that the two countries devoted equal shares of personnel and GDP, and thus the more populous country had more personnel but they were less well-equipped, so each soldier is less effective – eg in killing opponents. In that case we can gain insight from an ingenious piece of military mathematics worked out during World War I: the “square law”. This tells us that, in pure attrition terms, if one military force is more numerous than another but less effective, then in order to win, the ratio of the smaller military’s effectiveness advantages needs to be greater than the square of the ratio of its numerical disadvantage. So, for example, that means that if you have 10 percent fewer troops, your troops need to be more than 21 percent more effective to win an attrition-based war.
The proportion of the population that different countries can mobilise to fight might differ. An authoritarian state might be able to conscript more of its population to fight. But an authoritarian state might also have what we might term a “morale” disadvantage – its forces might become unable or unwilling to fight at a lower loss rate than would be the case for forces fighting for what they regard as a more noble cause. On the other side there are those that would argue that some democratic liberal countries have become sufficiently self-hating or decadent that they do not regard their own cause as noble enough to fight for.
Let’s apply some of these insights to a consideration of Russia’s medium-term threat to the EU. The Russian economy is about 10 percent of the size of the EU’s. The EU spends about 1.3 percent of GDP on its military and the Russians have recently raised their spending to about 6 percent. So EU military spending will be about twice that of Russia. If we assume spending more produces greater troop effectiveness, then by the square law, to compensate for spending half as much, Russia would need to mobilise more than 40 percent more troops than the EU that it was able to devote to battle, if Russian forces continued to be able to fight at the same loss percentages that EU troops were. The EU’s combined militaries have about 1.4 million troops. So Russia would need to have around 2 million troops available in an attrition war. If we assume Russia would be attacking, and apply the classical rule of thumb that attacking forces need a 1.5:1 advantage across a theatre, Russia would need about three million. Russia has around 1.2 million troops at present, but notionally around 2 million reservists.
If the above analysis is correct, then, in the medium term, even setting aside any “morale” differences, in order to have a chance against a combined EU (and thus be in any position to threaten Britain) Russia would need either to double or triple its current military forces or roughly double or triple its military spending relative to GDP. A doubling of its expenditure relative to GDP would put it in the 12-15 percent range of the late Soviet Union – the level that caused the Soviet economy to collapse in the 1980s. A tripling would be even more crippling.
The Russian economy continues to be subject to Western sanctions. The oil embargo alone is costing it hundreds of billions of dollars. Doubling or tripling its military spending again would bankrupt it withing a few years. Russia can posture, and it can threaten or even invade its small, poor, neighbours. But the maths say that when it comes to threatening the EU, let alone Britain, if we in the West continue to believe in our causes enough to fight if it comes to it, Russia simply lacks sufficient economic resources to constitute a serious medium-term threat at all."
EDIT: the following indicates that the US doesn't really want the European members of NATO to go it alone.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/30/nato-europe-eu-defense-united-states [Post edited 29 Mar 2024 16:17]
|  | | |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 13:51 - Apr 19 with 1419 views | giant_stow |
Wonder if this helps knock the fondness for Russia out of a few more of the German elite. |  |
| |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 22:38 - Mar 21 with 1056 views | SimonBatfordITFC |
0% unnecessary scaremongering | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 22:41 - Mar 21 with 1029 views | Kievthegreat |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 22:38 - Mar 21 by SimonBatfordITFC |
0% unnecessary scaremongering |
I think it's cheating to answer 12 months after the fact. |  | | |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 23:23 - Mar 21 with 955 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 22:38 - Mar 21 by SimonBatfordITFC |
0% unnecessary scaremongering |
Not only are you a year late, but the people of the Baltic States are in full preparations for an attack at some point in the near future.
There were suspected Russian attacks on NATO territory during the past year, anyway, as well as the direct action against power and communications cabling on the seabed. | | | |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 23:33 - Mar 21 with 939 views | Bigalhunter |
I’ve always thought Putin might be mad enough to chance it, if it doesn’t all play out as he wants.
Much like Trump, he’s seen his best days out and won’t have any concerns as to the long term consequences
I imagine there would be younger, smarter individuals who would intervene if either of these lunatics showed the slightest inclination to go nuclear, but I’m not as confident about anything regarding world affairs as I was ten years ago.
I’ll go 8%, which is 7.9% more than I’d have said in 2015. |  |
| |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 23:43 - Mar 21 with 924 views | mellowblue |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 10:03 - Mar 29 by Churchman |
My musings were to promote discussion. Nothing more. My understanding of military capability has waned with age.
An interesting article on European defence. Accuracy? No idea. What is interesting is how disjointed the European effort is. It also makes the point that is say Portugal going to be willing to send troops to Latvia? Er can’t see it.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/21/europe-military-trump-nato-eu-autonomy/
The countries bordering Russia are terrified. They should be. You can see that in the attached Wiki summary of Poland’s military
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Armed_Forces
But given the current strength of Poland at this moment, now might be Putin’s opportunity for an easy Polish meal. Let’s face it, he’s mad enough and cares nothing for human life. The aim of Poland is 3% GDP. The scared Baltic states are all pushing up spending.
Most of the rest are under the 2% threshold though have promised more. The U.K.? 2.2% but I suspect further cuts will get it down to 2% or less. The army, which doesn’t even have the capability to move itself around, is set to reduce to 62,000 by the end of the year.
In economic terms, Europe dwarfs Russia. If its potential capability was harnessed, there would be no threat whatsoever. But will it be? Is there the energy and the will with so many other things to deal with? I hope so. I actually do believe Russia’s opportunity is now - if Putin is crazy and determined enough. Well, we know he is the former and we know dictators live in fear and deal with it by thrashing out. As for killing people, I suspect Putin actually enjoys it. Plenty of people do I’m afraid.
This is just devils advocate speculation so please don’t read too much into it. |
Poland is pushing along quite nicely and it is hitting 4.7% GDP on defence spending this year. a figure we could only dream of. | | | |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 07:38 - Mar 22 with 760 views | Steve_M |
An unambiguous Russia-badged invasion is still quite low but maybe 10%
Grey zone attacks on infrastructure is 100%. |  |
| |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 13:52 - Mar 22 with 661 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 22:38 - Mar 21 by SimonBatfordITFC |
0% unnecessary scaremongering |
Someone doesn't understand odds.
The odds of Newcastle winning the League Cup were not 100% at the start of the season simply because they ended up winning it. | |
| |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 14:54 - Mar 22 with 624 views | mellowblue |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 13:52 - Mar 22 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Someone doesn't understand odds.
The odds of Newcastle winning the League Cup were not 100% at the start of the season simply because they ended up winning it. |
Disagree, you can't compare a situation where one club out of 96 or whatever is going to win the league cup to something like the OP suggests that might not happen this year, or this decade. In the first scenario everyone has a chance, hence odds. The second scenario might well be 0% if someone thinks it is impossible to happen as it might possibly never happen. Whereas we all know someone will definitely win the cup. Different scenarios. | | | |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 15:13 - Mar 22 with 601 views | bournemouthblue |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 07:38 - Mar 22 by Steve_M |
An unambiguous Russia-badged invasion is still quite low but maybe 10%
Grey zone attacks on infrastructure is 100%. |
I wouldn't be surprised if the boat at Yarmouth, this collision up near Hull was it and this fire near Heathrow are Russia
It's probably them that attacked Nordstream was it as well, they have been trying to map our North Sea cables
We have had various Cyber Attacks going on for years
Putin has a term for it, I can't remember the name but it's something like Multispectral war, someone will know what I mean
He said they were in a 'multispectral' war with NATO when the invasion was going on which suggests to me he considers himself at war with NATO by proxy and has looked to poke the bear at times
I'm not really concerned who causes the problems, I question why we don't have solutions to it
Heathrow is a private entity but I wouldn't be surprised if the Torie's austerity programme and Brexit blindness will have led to failures such as this major incident yesterday
I'm certain the incompetence with Covid came as a direct result of this for example [Post edited 22 Mar 15:18]
|  |
| |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 15:21 - Mar 22 with 591 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 14:54 - Mar 22 by mellowblue |
Disagree, you can't compare a situation where one club out of 96 or whatever is going to win the league cup to something like the OP suggests that might not happen this year, or this decade. In the first scenario everyone has a chance, hence odds. The second scenario might well be 0% if someone thinks it is impossible to happen as it might possibly never happen. Whereas we all know someone will definitely win the cup. Different scenarios. |
What are the odds that you will reply to this post?
Is that a better comparison then?
Either way, to go back to an event that didn't happen to then claim the odds were zero because it didn't happen is nonsense. The odds may have been very low or they may even have been very high, but the eventuality was that it didn't occur.
Try it another way. What are the odds that there will be a radiation leak from a nuclear power station somewhere in the world in the next 6 months? If there isn't one, it doesn't change the fact there was a chance there would have been one. | |
| |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 15:28 - Mar 22 with 585 views | mellowblue |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 15:21 - Mar 22 by Nthsuffolkblue |
What are the odds that you will reply to this post?
Is that a better comparison then?
Either way, to go back to an event that didn't happen to then claim the odds were zero because it didn't happen is nonsense. The odds may have been very low or they may even have been very high, but the eventuality was that it didn't occur.
Try it another way. What are the odds that there will be a radiation leak from a nuclear power station somewhere in the world in the next 6 months? If there isn't one, it doesn't change the fact there was a chance there would have been one. |
It is such a topsy turvy world that any opinion is only a hunch or guesswork. So much could change in the next 12 months. I hope the odds are extremelty low, but I would say about 3%. Still does not change my opinion that if someone thinks it is impossible they are entitled to say 0%. | | | |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 15:33 - Mar 22 with 582 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 15:28 - Mar 22 by mellowblue |
It is such a topsy turvy world that any opinion is only a hunch or guesswork. So much could change in the next 12 months. I hope the odds are extremelty low, but I would say about 3%. Still does not change my opinion that if someone thinks it is impossible they are entitled to say 0%. |
You miss the point entirely. You could say now that the odds of you replying were 100%. However, you could have not replied. If you hadn't done were the odds 0%? No the odds were high but never really 100%.
To apply Simon Batford's logic to your 3% odds (I think scientifically they are much lower by the way - and they could be calculated scientifically from historic data), if in 6 months none has been reported, your odds were wrong and should have been 0%. That is to completely misunderstand odds.
Rommers could probably explain it a lot better than I have done but hopefully you can get it from my explanation. [Post edited 22 Mar 15:35]
| |
| |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 16:48 - Mar 22 with 553 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 15:33 - Mar 22 by Nthsuffolkblue |
You miss the point entirely. You could say now that the odds of you replying were 100%. However, you could have not replied. If you hadn't done were the odds 0%? No the odds were high but never really 100%.
To apply Simon Batford's logic to your 3% odds (I think scientifically they are much lower by the way - and they could be calculated scientifically from historic data), if in 6 months none has been reported, your odds were wrong and should have been 0%. That is to completely misunderstand odds.
Rommers could probably explain it a lot better than I have done but hopefully you can get it from my explanation. [Post edited 22 Mar 15:35]
|
At the time I made the original post, about a year ago, Western media weren't really addressing the possibility, so I was interested in getting people's "hunches" on the issue.
I have followed the Ukraine war more closely than the average UK citizen, including reading most of the Independent Ukrainian media, which have a stronger emphasis on military developments and Russian pronouncements than Western European media.
The possibility of attacks on the F16 training programme was what I considered the most likely at the time, as some Russian figureheads had declared them legitimate targets.
Putin, Medvedev, and a few other key Russian figures, don't tend to be over-specific, but neither do they make cryptic threats without there being something backing them up in a near time-frame.
Putin wearing combat uniform a week or so ago was a very clear signal that the Russians were ready to intensify their counter-attack in Kursk, and were confident that they would bring it to fruition. Every element of playing Trump (getting him to turn off satellite intelligence and to stop resupply of key weaponry) was achieved within the window prior to the Kursk recapture.
The connection between the "Starmer threatens Putin" newspaper headline and the fire at Heathrow is also unlikely to be coincidental, in my opinion. | | | |
| Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 17:23 - Mar 22 with 547 views | brogansnose |
I'd put my money on Putin wanting to get whatever he can from any Ukraine peace settlement and then consolidate his gains letting things calm down as he did post the Crimea takeover. He can always subvert and disrupt things where there are pockets where people consider themselves Russian in Estonia and Moldova / Transnistria to forment issues further down the line. He can also carry on with disrupting Western pipelines and undersea cables and generally being an ass.
Wagner will continue to get fingers in developing nations for economic gain.
Belarussia will try to keep out of things as I suspect that Lukashenko might find it difficult to retain his authoritarian control if he overtly helped Putin thus weakening Putins South Eastern border and being an awkward distraction.
In short, I don't think he or any of his proxies have to do anything drastic like a military strike at least while the West if it ever does, get its act together. He can just keep chipping away and sowing seeds.
0.1 % [Post edited 22 Mar 17:24]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
