Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Janiz

Senior Member
and a very effective one at that. We'd have seen NATO soldiers directly fighting Russians in Ukraine had it not been for those ICBMs .Russia's ability to wipe them off the map keeps them in check.
Well, I don't know. German, Italian, British and French munitions is killing Russian soldiers in Ukraine so I would argue about effectiveness. And they aren't fighting in Ukraine themselves as it's not a part of NATO. The deterrence didn't work the other way around so it's pretty much meaningless in this case.
 

Janiz

Senior Member
Russia is already deeply focusing on the Northern Sea route with massive construction of icebreakers and the like. That will be their main sea lane for trade with China.
It's not a trade route but import route for Russia. More than half of Russia's exports to PRC is oil, gas, coal and metal ores which are mostly transported through the land routes. And remember that while Russia's biggest trade partner is already China and from Chinese perspective it's as big as Australia for example Russia is in the group of 'important but not essential' economic partners. Treating PRC as the single vector(that you and many here are fans of) can have it's positives if done properly (like making the people in Russia better over time, and it depends on the other side's intentions) but has gigantic tradeoffs like economic and political vassalisation over time. China opened this week a rail line connecting it with Europe bypassing Russia entirely for example.
And as China improves rail links to Southeast Asia the sea routes there will become less relevant as well.
I think that you don't understand why ships always win compared to rail. It consists of three simple words: volume, time and money. Those factors makes your predictions useless unless you can make another revolution in trade on this planet.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
It's not a trade route but import route for Russia. More than half of Russia's exports to PRC is oil, gas, coal and metal ores which are mostly transported through the land routes. And remember that while Russia's biggest trade partner is already China and from Chinese perspective it's as big as Australia for example Russia is in the group of 'important but not essential' economic partners. Treating PRC as the single vector(that you and many here are fans of) can have it's positives if done properly (like making the people in Russia better over time, and it depends on the other side's intentions) but has gigantic tradeoffs like economic and political vassalisation over time. China opened this week a rail line connecting it with Europe bypassing Russia entirely for example.

I think that you don't understand why ships always win compared to rail. It consists of three simple words: volume, time and money. Those factors makes your predictions useless unless you can make another revolution in trade on this planet.
Vassalization. Interesting choice of words. I noticed nobody used that term for extremely German dependent European economies whose money is printed by Germany and Germans get to impose austerity on them. I noticed that's never used for the US who can now legally dictate the foreign trade policy of Canada and Mexico with the USMCA treaty replacing NAFTA.

It's only used for China and Russia conducting mutual and legal trade in slightly higher volumes.
 

escobar

Brigadier
Vassalization. Interesting choice of words. I noticed nobody used that term for extremely German dependent European economies whose money is printed by Germany and Germans get to impose austerity on them. I noticed that's never used for the US who can now legally dictate the foreign trade policy of Canada and Mexico with the USMCA treaty replacing NAFTA.

It's only used for China and Russia conducting mutual and legal trade in slightly higher volumes.
You forget the most vassalized : Japan
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Well, I don't know. German, Italian, British and French munitions is killing Russian soldiers in Ukraine so I would argue about effectiveness. And they aren't fighting in Ukraine themselves as it's not a part of NATO. The deterrence didn't work the other way around so it's pretty much meaningless in this case.
Nope it's still holding. By your logic US had no deterrence in the Cold War because not only were Russian munitions in Vietnam, Chinese troops were in Vietnam. yet US not only didn't attack China or Russia, they didn't even attack North Vietnam.

This would be like US not only giving Ukraine ATGMs but giving them M1A2S, manning Patriot batteries and flying F-15s painted in Ukrainian colors. And Russia was too scared to attack Lviv.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
The steel plant in Mariupol has lots of underground networks meant to withstand nuclear blast so Putin has ordered the military not to storm it. They will wait them out.
He called the assault unreasonable and that they will either surrender or starve to death.
That frees up most troops. A few machine gun nests and mines at checkpoints with a few patrols to cover the perimeter should prevent breakouts.
 

Kich

Junior Member
Registered Member
That frees up most troops. A few machine gun nests and mines at checkpoints with a few patrols to cover the perimeter should prevent breakouts.
The assault groups are already being relocated out of Mariupol. They are calling it a victory. Police and some Russian army units probably the national guards will take over in Mariupol.
 
Top