NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Yes, because a threat has to be obvious and credible for the democracies to act, even then it's damn hard. And in the back of heads of Western decision makers was:

- well, they do have nukes, so what can we really do about who they (s)elected?
- what if the threat is exaggerated?
- what if we manage to take him down only for him to be replaced by some Soviet hardliner/ultranationalist (like Zhirik)/open believer in the 'Russian imperial mission' with Dugin in his ear?

If you really saw that as early as 2000 then chapeau bas, so did this guy around the same time:

 "I'm watching Putin; he already has superpower tendencies. He's still weak, but with the West's help, he'll get back on his feet and then he'll show them. That's how the West is; it bred Hitler, Stalin, and now it's breeding Putin. This is very, very bad for Poland."

- Ryszard Kukliński

But Kukliński had a real handicap as a messegner as we all from around here did - we were just 'Eastern russophobes', a bunch of paranoids whose concerns were to be dismissed. The attitudes of the West (and even our own shitlibs, marching in lockstep with Western ones) was like that and there was no power to change it. Only Putin himself changed it and for most it didn't work until after 24 Feb 2022, most were willfully blind to everything before that. Most of what we (well, some of us) were saying between 2014 and 2022 was still dismissed as the ramblings of 'Polish russophobes', who were 'bad for business' and all that. 

And you can't persuade the willfully blind, neither could Biden. It would have worked exactly as Snake said and I absolutely agree with him here. Btw. IIRC Biden as VP was rather unhappy with how Obama handled the Ukrainian issue, including Crimea, but he wasn't the boss then. 

And going back to the beginning of your post, hindsight is always 20/20. For example the West in general and the US in particular could have probably dramatically slowed the growth of China using e.g. the Tienanmen as an excuse to stop investing there and even divesting, especially that USSR was imploding by then and the rationale for the rapprochment with China was pretty much lost. It would be a very realpolitik thing to do, but on the other hand there was so much money to be made for their donors on the backs of Chinese cheap labor, at the expense of their general populations and their countries, guess what won. 

Still, little use in crying over the spilt milk. 

Is it hindsight if I saw it happening in realtime? 

If  damn fool like me could see what was happening, then what conceivable excuse could our politicians, on both side of the atlantic, have for not seeing it? So no, I do not accept this was an unforeseeable war. And if it was foreseeable, it was possible to deflect. Even now as Ukraine is starting to lose, and its possible to see the consequences, we are still dithering. Because there is no leadership, and the country we were always determined to follow, even if we disagreed, is fully absent in its interest.

Edited December 15, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[Roman Alymov]

51 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is it hindsight if I saw it happening in realtime? 

If  damn fool like me could see what was happening, then what conceivable excuse could our politicians, on both side of the atlantic, have for not seeing it? So no, I do not accept this was an unforeseeable war. And if it was foreseeable, it was possible to deflect. Even now as Ukraine is starting to lose, and its possible to see the consequences, we are still dithering. Because there is no leadership, and the country we were always determined to follow, even if we disagreed, is fully absent in its interest.

Wait a minute, isn't Ukraine winning?

[Stuart Galbraith]

25 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Wait a minute, isn't Ukraine winning?

And im not allowed to change my mind, right? 

In fact I already have. I thought Ukraine was going to lose in the first few months of the war after giving your country a bloody nose. I changed my mind when I saw how utterly inept the Russian armed forces fought, how hollowed out by corruption they were. I had hope because I thought Biden would dump arms on Ukraine like its going to go out of style. Another thing that silly old bastard disappointed me about.

So yes, baring a miracle, and they do sometimes happen im told, barring JD and Trump dying in a horrific firey automobile accident, baring Putin dying of the terminal clap and Medvedev turning out to be an alcoholic pacifist, yes, I think Russia is now going to win.

Congratulations. I hope its worth the cost, and I hope you reflect that its just the first step in another unending series of wars where you find enemies under every paving slab. Rejoice, for the true struggle has yet to begin.

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is it hindsight if I saw it happening in realtime? 

If  damn fool like me could see what was happening, then what conceivable excuse could our politicians, on both side of the atlantic, have for not seeing it? So no, I do not accept this was an unforeseeable war. And if it was foreseeable, it was possible to deflect. Even now as Ukraine is starting to lose, and its possible to see the consequences, we are still dithering. Because there is no leadership, and the country we were always determined to follow, even if we disagreed, is fully absent in its interest.

Let me assure you that far, far more people in my region have seen the writing on the wall as far back as even two decades ago, including important people with some clout, not us internet anons. As I told you they were being dismissed as 'paranoids', who were 'seeing things'. Even by many here, so what can you expect from countries which are a lot further away from the potential danger?

Even if your politicians had some misgivings about how things are handled, they knew that was not the view shared by most of the society, so in effect there was no social approval to change the approach. That would have been costly. Uncomfortable. Costly and uncomfortable loses elections and the primary goal of the politician is to win elections. And the shit may hit the fan, yes, but it can also maybe go away somehow and even if it does hit it may be... years down the road when some other asshole is in charge. Changing approach requires social approval and for the society to approve... they often need to be hit with the two-by-four. Only the 2022 invasion of Ukraine has been that two-by-four, even 2014 wasn't - It was contained relatively quickly, so there was still a chance it would go away, eh?

And yeah, 'hindsight' might have been a wrong word here. In an even clearer case of China anyone interested in the topic could see the likely upcoming confrontation from a mile away, papers were written and published, some talking heads were... well, talking and  even 'pivots' were announced. At the same time mostly fuck all has been done to reduce trade dependency, including of critical minerals which are quite the bottleneck despite their relatively laughable value, because it would have been... costly and uncomfortable. And costly and uncomfortable loses elections. Also requires quite a bit of work to address.

[Roman Alymov]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And im not allowed to change my mind, right? 

In fact I already have. I thought Ukraine was going to lose in the first few months of the war after giving your country a bloody nose. I changed my mind when I saw how utterly inept the Russian armed forces fought, how hollowed out by corruption they were. I had hope because I thought Biden would dump arms on Ukraine like its going to go out of style. Another thing that silly old bastard disappointed me about.

So yes, baring a miracle, and they do sometimes happen im told, barring JD and Trump dying in a horrific firey automobile accident, baring Putin dying of the terminal clap and Medvedev turning out to be an alcoholic pacifist, yes, I think Russia is now going to win.

Congratulations. I hope its worth the cost, and I hope you reflect that its just the first step in another unending series of wars where you find enemies under every paving slab. Rejoice, for the true struggle has yet to begin.

I just wanted to make this change of your mind recorded. It doesn't mean you can't change it again if you like to.

    And on factual side, your opinion "Russia is now going to win" is as distant from reality as when you claimed "Russia allready lost" years ago. Note i am not blaming you for that - as you are only reflecting what your media echo chamber you are ambient to is telling. Now for own political purposes they use "Ukraine is starting to lose" narrative  - the same way as they have used "Russia have allready lost" before that. Reality is far more complex.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, urbanoid said:

Let me assure you that far, far more people in my region have seen the writing on the wall as far back as even two decades ago, including important people with some clout, not us internet anons. As I told you they were being dismissed as 'paranoids', who were 'seeing things'. Even by many here, so what can you expect from countries which are a lot further away from the potential danger?

Even if your politicians had some misgivings about how things are handled, they knew that was not the view shared by most of the society, so in effect there was no social approval to change the approach. That would have been costly. Uncomfortable. Costly and uncomfortable loses elections and the primary goal of the politician is to win elections. And the shit may hit the fan, yes, but it can also maybe go away somehow and even if it does hit it may be... years down the road when some other asshole is in charge. Changing approach requires social approval and for the society to approve... they often need to be hit with the two-by-four. Only the 2022 invasion of Ukraine has been that two-by-four, even 2014 wasn't - It was contained relatively quickly, so there was still a chance it would go away, eh?

And yeah, 'hindsight' might have been a wrong word here. In an even clearer case of China anyone interested in the topic could see the likely upcoming confrontation from a mile away, papers were written and published, some talking heads were... well, talking and  even 'pivots' were announced. At the same time mostly fuck all has been done to reduce trade dependency, including of critical minerals which are quite the bottleneck despite their relatively laughable value, because it would have been... costly and uncomfortable. And costly and uncomfortable loses elections. Also requires quite a bit of work to address.

I saw it in 2000. Honestly I did. Cant say WHY I felt it when I saw Putin, but I knew he was going to be trouble. Its more of a surprise he waited till 2007 before he started the buildup, but there were signs even before that where he overdeployed the navy. But as far as being trouble, perhaps because of the 'bombings', perhaps because it almost seemed like Yeltsins last address was an apology to the world as much to the Russian people, yes, I felt it.

No,   I think you misunderstand Britain. Britain LIKES its armed forces. Henry Kissinger said that Britain was the last country that liked war, and looking at the result of the Falklands, he was probably right. But politicians dont like paying for it much. They like deploying military units around the world like a 21st century churchill, but filling the jar with change to replace what was used afterwards? Not so much. Because that means taxing the people that are their bankrollers. So we have seen a steady denudation of military power since the end of the cold war, even as its been overused. People like military shows, they like tanks, they like ruddy great aircraft carriers visiting their towns. But rather than do the honest thing, such as cutting the welfare bill and telling the public, honestly 'you are in danger' so we need to spend more on defence, they just prefer to cut behind the scenes. Logistics, support, technical services. So we end up with a facade of military power, without any to send. Even now, Im not entirely certainly the corner has been turned.

That COULD have been avoided. And I know it could, because from 1938 to the outbreak of war, Chamberlain, for all his huge flaws, spent money on war like a bastard. We could do the same. We got notice in 2018 that inevitably we would at some point be at war with Russia. And still there is no urgency, not even now. Either because our middle managers are not as skilled as they once were, or leadership at the top is deficient. Its all very well to say 'spend 5 percent of gdp.' We could do that. But would we spend it on the right things, or quickly enough? Are we really working to expand our military industrial capacity I have my doubts. In some niche areas, yes. Broadly? Not really.

Completely agree on your last paragraph. Arguably a Pacific NATO needs to be setup. But again, where is the leadership? Neither the US, the Europeans, nor the pacific rim want to be the first do it. America  says 'ourselves alone' but wants to confront China which it can hardly do without allies. 

Leadership means telling the people uncomfortable truths. See Churchill with 'I can only offer you blood, sweat and tears.' People actually like the truth. The problem is politicians have become exceptionally able at not telling it.

[Roman Alymov]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I saw it in 2000. Honestly I did. Cant say WHY I felt it when I saw Putin, but I knew he was going to be trouble.

ANY person/group of persons in charge of Russia (or even big enough part of Russia, like RF) is seen by West as "trouble" if he/they are not constantly drunk (like Yeltsin) or just acting of crazy ideals of "unlimited international friendship" like Gorbachev. See recent article by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs on that Jeffrey Sachs: Warum Feindschaft mit Russland Europa immer ins Unglück gestürzt hat

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its more of a surprise he waited till 2007 before he started the buildup, but there were signs even before that where he overdeployed the navy. But as far as being trouble, perhaps be

Actually he (on behalf of "Russian elite" he was acting as champion of) was begging West to be allowed to join as junior parthner, as othervice sooner or later their colonial administration was to be hanged on lammposts by grateful Russians. Back in late 1990th when i started my career in media research in McCann Erickson, CIA World Factbook was mentioning "Putin's prudent rule", and nothing about anti-Western moods. Just prudent colonial boss. But, due to West political elite incompetence and arrogance, he/they was not allowed to join West - moreover, he/they was kicked away in most humiliating way..... Probably, we Russians owe West some sort of memorial for that.

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Completely agree on your last paragraph. Arguably a Pacific NATO needs to be setup. But again, where is the leadership? Neither the US, the Europeans, nor the pacific rim want to be the first do it. America  says 'ourselves alone' but wants to confront China which it can hardly do without allies. 

Leadership means telling the people uncomfortable truths. See Churchill with 'I can only offer you blood, sweat and tears.' People actually like the truth. The problem is politicians have become exceptionally able at not telling it.

I'm afraid you might be saying that based on what I consider to be a... rather malicious interpretation of the NSS. At least I hope I'm proven right in the end.

Churchill offered the people blood, sweat and tears not only after some war has broken out, but when his country was already at war. That was the truth that nobody could have denied by then and call him a 'warmongering paranoid who is seeing things'. I don't think that 'a Churchill' was possible in, let's say, 1935 or 1936. Maybe 'a Chamberlain' (not the one getting the 'peace for our time', but the one realizing that shit is going to hit the fan and pouring substantial sums into rearmament) was, not sure.

The elites are also the reflection of the society they come from, they're not some beings from the outer space. My take is that our societies are... not of the quality they used to be either. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, urbanoid said:

I'm afraid you might be saying that based on what I consider to be a... rather malicious interpretation of the NSS. At least I hope I'm proven right in the end.

Churchill offered the people blood, sweat and tears not only after some war has broken out, but when his country was already at war. That was the truth that nobody could have denied by then and call him a 'warmongering paranoid who is seeing things'. I don't think that 'a Churchill' was possible in, let's say, 1935 or 1936. Maybe 'a Chamberlain' (not the one getting the 'peace for our time', but the one realizing that shit is going to hit the fan and pouring substantial sums into rearmament) was, not sure.

The elites are also the reflection of the society they come from, they're not some beings from the outer space. My take is that our societies are... not of the quality they used to be either. 

Certainly now, but he certainly WAS possible post March 1939 when Germany occupied Czechoslovakia. We are arguably at that point now, have been at least since 2022. And still the politicians dither, because they hope they were wrong, and wont have to put their political survival on winning a war. As usual they are probably wrong.

Yes, and your last paragraph I dont remotely disagree. But its still no excuse for not telling the people what they need to hear. They have been deficient in that for nearly 10 years now, on both sides of the Atlantic.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Certainly now, but he certainly WAS possible post March 1939 when Germany occupied Czechoslovakia. We are arguably at that point now, have been at least since 2022.

I agree.  The minute the Russians try to occupy Prague, it's on....

[Stuart Galbraith]

You know, maybe you ought to read up on what the occupation of Czechoslovakia was like before you decide to turn your high powered comedy act on us? 

Just a thought.

[seahawk]

Seems like Leopard 3 is a go: 

https://www.hartpunkt.de/psm-soll-kampfpanzernachfolger-fuer-die-bundeswehr-entwickeln/

[Sinistar]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

Seems like Leopard 3 is a go: 

https://www.hartpunkt.de/psm-soll-kampfpanzernachfolger-fuer-die-bundeswehr-entwickeln/

 

i have not been following this closely but it looks like another multi-national design is the real objective with leopard 3 probably just filling the space for a few years before then

 

i would infer it is still mostly leopard 2 with some enhancements and the marketing campaign calls it a leopard 3 instead of leopard 2A2000 

otherwise why bother with so much effort to develop a next generation solution with it if in a few years the real project goes into production with the french

 

given the often tumultuous or dead end projects and cost overruns with next generation systems and especially with joint multi-national projects all of this is still likely pending with big ifs and speculation baked into it

Edited December 15, 2025 by Sinistar

[seahawk]

MGCS is now seen as 2045 at the earliest and this tank gives Germany a modernised tank, whatever happens to MGCS. MGCS still has many hurdles to take, like getting the French Army and German Army to agree on a gun or requirements. 

[Sinistar]

that is certainly a possibility with MGCS

if indigenous programs have problems with costs or bureaucratic wrangling or systems and components becoming obsolete or not working the way they are conceived or events changing while it is underway

 

imagine at least two nations now attempting to do it where there are different design goals or priorities or conceptions or methods and capabilities 

 

in the end you may really just have both countries going their own way on their own national designs maybe borrowing from MGCS while all of this looks like a lot of good intentions 

 

 

[Jaroslav]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

Seems like Leopard 3 is a go: 

https://www.hartpunkt.de/psm-soll-kampfpanzernachfolger-fuer-die-bundeswehr-entwickeln/

Leopard 3 MBT Advanced Technology Demonstrator
Main Ground Combat System (MGCS)

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/leopard3.htm

[Jaroslav]

Leopard 3 sounds better then Leopard 2A9

Edited December 15, 2025 by Jaroslav

[RETAC21]

7 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Churchill offered the people blood, sweat and tears not only after some war has broken out, but when his country was already at war. That was the truth that nobody could have denied by then and call him a 'warmongering paranoid who is seeing things'. I don't think that 'a Churchill' was possible in, let's say, 1935 or 1936. Maybe 'a Chamberlain' (not the one getting the 'peace for our time', but the one realizing that shit is going to hit the fan and pouring substantial sums into rearmament) was, not sure.

Churchill offered that after Chamberlain had maneuvered the French into declaring a war they didn't want, with minimal commitment by the UK. And when the French were being beaten he witheld aid in the form of fighters because they may be needed later for home defence.

Of course, the French were unready because they had spent a lot of effort in disestablishing the Army that won WW1, including its air force...

All of which can be seen as paralleling the Ukraine situation, with the exception that the Russians weren't the Germans of 1940.

[seahawk]

19 minutes ago, Jaroslav said:

Leopard 3 MBT Advanced Technology Demonstrator
Main Ground Combat System (MGCS)

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/leopard3.htm

No, what has been signed is more, as it seems like the 130mm gun is set and that means a new turret with autoloader, which means the ammo storage in the hull will go, with probably mean a re-designed hull, a new engine as well. 

Think like an even further improved KF-51U. 

[Sinistar]

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

No, what has been signed is more, as it seems like the 130mm gun is set and that means a new turret with autoloader, which means the ammo storage in the hull will go, with probably mean a re-designed hull, a new engine as well. 

Think like an even further improved KF-51U. 

 

what is in a name- 

 

a t-90 is really an upgraded t-72 

 

or is it a new vehicle

 

at some point there is a transition to the new name because someone makes the arbitrary decision that it is warranted where that point occurs

 

if it is true that the plan is to procure leopard 3 in the low three digits as the article claims then taking all of this together it sounds as if this really is an interim thing- or at least that is the stated plan- which implies that the germans regard even the leopard 3 or whatever you might call it a dead end since they are preparing to go crewless and / or with AI systems in a few years 

 

which is to say leopard 3 sounds 'next generation' but it is not- autoloader is not new or next generation technology

it is a change however from the leopard 2 four man crew but not in itself (r)evolutionary

it may be the means to begin testing and working with autoloaders until the next phase begins with MGCS

 

so is it warranted to call it leopard 3

they could call it a leopard 2AXXXX and it is still the same situation with tank they plan to largely get away from

 

[urbanoid]

Early T-90s had cast turrets like the 72s and 840 hp engine originally designed for 1980s versions T-72s. Later iterations got welded turrets and new 1000 (later 1100+) hp engines, so in a sense they were 'more deserving' of a new designation. 

[Sinistar]

42 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

All of which can be seen as paralleling the Ukraine situation, with the exception that the Russians weren't the Germans of 1940.

 

i do not think it parallels he ukraine situation from 1940 though the behaviors are a continuation of it 

there are obviously bad feelings and resentments left over from the cold war and the soviet union which is what comes out of world war 2 which comes out of world war 1 which comes out of centuries of problems with the various empires and populations over the ages

 

but what is happening is that events are showing everyone that new situations are coming out of all of this based on old patterns

 

anyone who does not detect the way alliances or cooperations are breaking up or shifting has their heads buried in the sand which i do not presume here as all of you likely see this in some way or another

 

in particular the general trends of spheres of influence and national goals and objectives (re)aligning with all of this

 

europe and the united states increasingly looking at one another as an impediment to their own goals rather than working from the same basis 

 

the united states is reverting to a kind of monroe doctrine 2.0 where it regards the americas inlcuding latin america as its own territory or off limits for china or russia - which is what venezuela is about

 

while europe / eu / european nato and russia view ukraine as within their own backyard and are more interested in what happens there which has virtually no economic or security benefit for the united states

where the rhetoric coming out europe for years has been openly hostile and critical to the united states where the united states is increasingly more behaving in a reciprocal way (the us media and political discourse in the us however has yet to match this and is nowhere near as hostile as you see in much of europe)

 

additionally the us eyes more benefit in penetrating asia because honestly there is less in common with europe nor need to cooperate with things like resources and energy where all of that is going to be more the focus of interventionism in africa or asia or latin america

 

in this sense that too is a continuation of older patterns where european patterns are setting up colonies and trade routes over the ages only there are new actors in town- chiefly the united states and china competing to penetrate these regions or markets

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2025 by Sinistar

[Sinistar]

7 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Early T-90s had cast turrets like the 72s and 840 hp engine originally designed for 1980s versions T-72s. Later iterations got welded turrets and new 1000 (later 1100+) hp engines, so in a sense they were 'more deserving' of a new designation. 

 

sure

at the same time detractors of the basic t-72 design often point at this derisively as just putting lipstick on a pig whether it deserves that reputation or not

 

if you believe that it does not then t-90 makes sense

 

[Sinistar]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 America  says 'ourselves alone' but wants to confront China which it can hardly do without allies. 

 

 

'allies' are changing to mean taiwan or japan or whatever puppet regimes the united states can work with in the americas or in africa

 

it looks like the united states and western europe at least are not the same allies from the 20th century or their first decade or so in the 21st century

 

when you have repeatedly and almost daily the politicians and the media coming out of europe increasingly calling the united states an adversary or saying things to the effect of trump is a disaster for 'democracy, women's rights, trans rights, immigrants' rights and finally is a putin stooge' then you see the underpinnings of where this is probably going

 

if you think this is an overstament look at the difference between the mainstream press from the united states and it generally does not sound like that

 

you can do a youtube search and look for channels which do interviews on what do europeans think of america versus what do americans think of europe and the general pattern overwhelmingly is the europeans are more likely to have a negative view than you see going the other way- everywhere once again that they perceive that in the united states there are no women's rights or freedom of speech under trump or that it is armed to teeth and too dangerous to vist

 

only recently do you see the united states catching up here with more scrutiny applied say on the increasing clamp down on political speech or political parties in europe

 

so i do not think any of all of this is mere chance but it is percolating and you see it across multiple dimensions in public discourse or coming out virtually as the official narrative from governments

[sunday]

3 hours ago, Sinistar said:

 

i have not been following this closely but it looks like another multi-national design is the real objective with leopard 3 probably just filling the space for a few years before then

 

i would infer it is still mostly leopard 2 with some enhancements and the marketing campaign calls it a leopard 3 instead of leopard 2A2000 

otherwise why bother with so much effort to develop a next generation solution with it if in a few years the real project goes into production with the french

 

given the often tumultuous or dead end projects and cost overruns with next generation systems and especially with joint multi-national projects all of this is still likely pending with big ifs and speculation baked into it

Bad name. Nowadays a Tiger Drei is required!