CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[suffolkowner]

The real deciding factor would be the planes and the ships. Russia stands no chance in the air and the Russian Navy would be made reefs in days by the likes of the French or Royal Navy. I wonder how many serviceable land vehicles the Russian Army actually has left.

out of 7342 prewar tank stocks last OSINT has 279 decent ones left total
out of 7536 prewar IFC stocks last OSINT has 990 decent ones left
out of 10407 prewar APC stocks last OSINT has 1576 decent ones left

Stored equipment by @jonpy99, @highmarsed, @waffentraeger, @CovertCabal, @Vishun_military, @Ath3neN0ctu4

docs.google.com

original active was some

3000 MBT
5200 IFV
6000 APC

3000 + 7342 = 10342 MBT
5200 + 7536 = 12736 IFV
6000 + 10407 = 16407 APC

confirmed losses by warspotting

3300 MBT
7100 IFV/APC

10342- 3300 =7042 MBT
29143 - 7100 = 22043 IFV/APC

left in storage

MBT = 3517
IFV = 3910
APC = 4704

7042 - 3517 = 3525 MBT
22043 - (3910 + 4704) = 13429 IFV/APC

so a maximum 3525 MBT with probably 279 replacements left and
a maximum of 13429 IFV/APC with probably 2566 replacements left

the 13429 IFV/APC number seems extremely unlikely considering the use of donkeys and bikes

Ukraines claims are way higher of course

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892102661253599357

 

[Czech_pivo]

Siding against the west? They are the west.

He has spoken a number of times with Zelensky, now he speaks with the Russians.

You don't go into a negotiation or a mediation with everyone at the table. You just don't. You feel out both sides, see what they want, what they'll give up and what they won't accept. Once you have a basis and a general consensus, THEN you bring the two sides together so all they need to do is hammer out the finer points and sign the agreement. Mediation/ negotiation 101 for Dummies.

That's how these things work. Zelensky got his back up because he's a comedian that doesn't know how things work. He's never had to deal with a ceasefire or peace agreement. He's a pseudo dictator without a real government or diplomats to make him understand these things. He has to learn on the fly and he just had his first lesson.

Are you sure you're not talking about Trump, right?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Can NATO stand on its own against Russia without the US?

Can Russian mount another war against anyone right now ?

My elementary understanding is they have been bled almost dry of people and equipment.

 

[KevinB]

Can Russian mount another war against anyone right now ?

My elementary understanding is they have been bled almost dry of people and equipment.

They have a lot of North Koreans still available, plus "some" Chinese.

The bigger issue isn't what Russia can do right now, it is what will they do in 5, 10, 20 years.

 

[Halifax Tar]

They have a lot of North Koreans still available, plus "some" Chinese.

The bigger issue isn't what Russia can do right now, it is what will they do in 5, 10, 20 years.

That also gives us time to spool up.

And if we don't learn from this we get what we deserve.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Are you sure you're not talking about Trump, right?

The USA, which includes the Commander in Chief.

YMMV. Opinions and all that.

 

[MrWhyt]

You feel out both sides, see what they want, what they'll give up and what they won't accept.

what russia wants: to keep the ukrainian territory it has stolen and to keep ukraine out of NATO
what Trump has offered: To allow russia to keep the territory it has stolen and to keep ukraine out of NATO.

yeah he's such a great negotiator. So wise, much stable genius dismissive wanking motion

 

[suffolkowner]

what russia wants: to keep the ukrainian territory it has stolen and to keep ukraine out of NATO
what Trump has offered: To allow russia to keep the territory it has stolen and to keep ukraine out of NATO.

yeah he's such a great negotiator. So wise, much stable genius dismissive wanking motion

its like cutting a deal with NAZI germany after Normandy and allowing them to keep what they had. Because so many Germans had died

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My opinion again. Not long winded, but here it is.

Trump is being hard on Canada, I think we can all agree. But why?

Ego wise, he hates trudeau and his government as childish, backstabbing, talking behind his back and not following through on promises.

Will we see a change when PP takes over? I think so. Right now, he is trolling and humiliating trudeau.

Look at his overall direction. He wants to isolate China. Both tradewise and militarily.

He's trying to get Canada to do the same. Cut off trade, get them out of North America and stop their influence.

Perhaps he sees what people are finally waking up too. China is an existential threat to freedom and every country where they gain a foothold.

He needs Canada to smarten up and be, not a good ally, but a great one. Militarily and trade wise.

I think his end game is a Fortress North America. CANUSA. He will never allow China on his northern border, he needs them gone from Canada.

It may have the spin off of protecting the continent if Russia gets cranky also.

 

[PrairieFella]

Except it was all around the Pentagon - as was the massive cuts planned for DoD.

Make China and Russia GREAT...

DoD cuts?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

My opinion again. Not long winded, but here it is.

Trump is being hard on Canada, I think we can all agree. But why?

Ego wise, he hates trudeau and his government as childish, backstabbing, talking behind his back and not following through on promises.

This level of pettiness still doesnt explain him cutting his nose to spite his face. Especially in the form of putting pressure on his own economy, and then with the expected retaliatory tariffs...

Will we see a change when PP takes over? I think so. Right now, he is trolling and humiliating trudeau.

Trudeau is no longer going to be PM. He can no longer hurt you. Trudeau managed to humiliate himself more than Trump ever could.

Additionally, PP taking over is looking to be a less likely CoA as the days pass. Canada didn't warm to PP; they were sick of Trudeau. Now that he’s gone, that leverage is dwindling.

Look at his overall direction. He wants to isolate China. Both tradewise and militarily.

He's trying to get Canada to do the same. Cut off trade, get them out of North America and stop their influence.

By isolating a reputable and reliable trading partner and pushing away from trading with the U.S. ? That's some "stupid as a fox" logic right there....

Perhaps he sees what people are finally waking up too. China is an existential threat to freedom and every country where they gain a foothold.

I will fully agree with you here. This is also the MO of Russia, who he seems to have no issue cozying up to so I have to ask why he thinks the Bear won't want to eat us any more than the Dragon will....

He needs Canada to smarten up and be, not a good ally, but a great one. Militarily and trade wise.

By making us question their reliability and dependability in thr alliances they set up and we committed to post- War? Again, "stupid as a fox" logic and reasoning...

I think his end game is a Fortress North America. CANUSA. He will never allow China on his northern border, he needs them gone from Canada.

We need to rid ourselves of China for sure. I will not for a second think we as a country have been duped/infiltrated by Bejing for the last 20 years.

That said, the U.S. beating us over the head in the process has only dug our heels in further to stand up to this bullying. Demand avoidance becomes a factor and I don't think Trump has ever been told "Well now I don't want to" by anyone (maybe Melania, but who knows...maybe he's into that...).

He may have the best of intentions IRT keeping North America safe from China. His execution of those intentions have been nothing but dogshit take after dogshit take since he took office.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Except for he is overrunning his headlights as he doesn't have a mandate to eliminate things Congress has mandated. If the Supreme Court had a pair they would kick him back down to the actual Constitutional powers of the Office.

His popularity is in freefall, as he is cutting a lot of things Americans depend on, and not making our lives any easier. His Oligarch buddy Musk is busy moving a lot of money towards his own companies, and reducing any oversight on his companies.
Politics and the Global Economy and Global Security Situation have MASSIVE effects on business. Trump works for himself - and Musk (as Musk has dug himself in like a tic). His promises mean shit, and he has set America back at least a decade in his short second stint in office to-date.
America is the ONE country in NATO that invoked Article 5 (After 9/11 for those not following history) - Non Member Partner Nations stepped up as well as members, and now 47 wants to fuck all that off and sell out to China and Russia.

Vance spoke at a Neo-Nazi rally (yes go look at the AfD platform). Then decided to lecture President Zelensky about not insulting 47's ego and how Ukraine was going to pay.

Embarrassing time to be an American.

I don't think he is. Not just the supreme court sees nothing wrong, but neither does congress or the senate. Or the majority of the population. Democrat and Republican. The only ones upset are the government cockroaches he's shining the light on. The ones that have been stripping trillions of tax dollars from your pockets, for their own use and gain.

His popularity is rising as a matter of fact. 57% of those polled totally agree with the direction and action he's taking.

Vance spoke at the 61st Munich Security Conference. Hardly a bunch of neo Nazis

Attendees of the conference included:[3][full citation needed]

European Union Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission[4]
European Union Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament
European Union Kaja Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission
NATO Mark Rutte, Secretary General
United States JD Vance, Vice President
United States Marco Rubio, Secretary of State
United States Lindsey Graham, Senator
United States Jeanne Shaheen, Senator
United States Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator
United States John Cornyn, Senator
Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President
Georgia (country) Salome Zourabichvili, 5th President
Belarusian Democratic Republic Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus
Germany Olaf Scholz, Chancellor
Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier, President
Germany Annalena Baerbock, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs
Germany Jörg Kukies, Federal Minister for Finance
Poland Radosław Sikorski, Minister of Foreign Affairs
France Jean-Noël Barrot, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs
China Wang Yi, Chinese Communist Party Politburo foreign chief and Foreign Minister[5]
South Korea Cho Tae-yul, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Japan Takeshi Iwaya, Minister of Foreign Affairs
United Kingdom John Healey, Defence Secretary
United Kingdom David Lammy, Foreign Secretary
Latvia Evika Siliņa, Prime Minister
Ghana John Mahama, President
Democratic Republic of the Congo Félix Tshisekedi, President
Pakistan Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Former Foreign Minister
Ivory Coast Téné Birahima Ouattara, Minister of Defense
Israel Gideon Sa‘ar, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Lithuania Gitanas Nausėda, President
Estonia Alar Karis, President
Norway Jonas Gahr Støre, Prime Minister
Czech Republic Petr Pavel, President
Sweden Maria Malmer Stenergard, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Finland Alexander Stubb, President
Finland Elina Valtonen, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Croatia Andrej Plenković, Prime Minister
Iceland Kristrún Frostadóttir, Prime Minister
Albania Edi Rama, Prime Minister
North Macedonia Hristijan Mickoski, Prime Minister

The rest of your stuff is just emotional opinion.

 

[FJAG]

Sorry I was busy this morning, and I hate to get back to this after the thread has moved on . . . but . .

At least you're not shy of letting your RCAS anchoring bias show. Is there an advantage to teaching people one complete set of skills (indirect fires) and then teaching them a completely different set of skills (uncrewed system operations) and then having them try to retain both in a career path? If the jobs and tasks between the two are discrete enough, and viable, specialized units and sub-units are required, then the argument for a separate occupation to manage is valid.

I didn't mean for that effect. I meant an infantryman or crewman should first master their infantry and armour skills before becoming a drone operator in the forward area so that they understand their own TTPs before employing UAVs forward. Gunners should learn drone skills when operating forward as FOOs/FOO Techs and should coordinate fires of all types. For launchers I see infantry platoon weapons platoons, combat support companies as well as artillery launcher batteries - all depending on the type of engagement and logistics system they already use. I'm not looking at a gunner monopoly here at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

My position is simply that rather than inventing a whole new occupation, the CA should leverage existing organizations while having a central centre of excellence that develops doctrine and facilitates the integration of the systems.

From an operator and C2 perspective, the average UAS operation in Ukraine takes multiple teams conducting discrete tasks to accomplish a mission.

I don't disagree or argue otherwise. I simply don't think this demands its own organization.

Do we really want to take an artillery officer whose job is to determine how to apply weight of fires to suppress or neutralize the enemy and put this on his or her plate as a side gig?

Many armies do. I tend to believe our system works well where resources are allocated down to where the person on the ground can do his job, yet there is a higher level of organization that manages resources and, in certain circumstances, does exactly what you say - coordinates their use. Personally I come from the generation where fire support coordination at the battalion level was done by the mortar platoon commander at the battalion FSCC in cooperation with the battery commander if a CS battery was allocated which wasn't always the case. I still believe that the battalion should do its own fire support coordination and that artillery coordination should be an added-on and not dominant layer. Especially now when the organic resources available to a battalion are getting better and better.

Your example - mortars and ATGMs - aren't even things artillery regiments conduct replenishment on and could be used to justify the Infantry Corps taking on the task.

That's exactly what I am saying. The infantry looks after its own coordination, logistics etc within the weapon systems that it can manage just like it should be doing with its mortars and ATGMs while the artillery handles heavier and more numerous munitions through its structure and across the brigade. My viewpoint is simply to use existing organizations - infantry, armour, artillery - hell even engineers - to do what's within their existing level of capability rather than grafting on a whole new occupation.

I totally agree that there are additional considerations beyond the pure "munition" aspect and I'm not about to tell the infantry nor the armoured corps as to how best to structure themselves to make us of those tools. To me, however, it is blindingly obvious that fires come in two broad classes - masses and precision. One responds to a specific target with the appropriate projectile(s) to give the desired effect. It doesn't matter if it comes from a gun, a rocket or an aircraft or a loitering munition. A UAV-based "projectile" is simply another projectile that needs a launch capability and a guidance capability which in theory could be done by anyone, but IMHO, should be done by someone who is already well schooled in the doctrine of the unit or formation involved. Logistically artillery units are much more capable of carrying and resupplying larger munitions and delivering them from a stand-off distance.

In short, I think it's much easier and faster to teach experienced infantrymen, crewmen and gunners to be effective operators of UAV based munitions and their supporting systems.

 

[FJAG]

Vance spoke at the 61st Munich Security Conference. Hardly a bunch of neo Nazis

I think that you might have missed this other meeting Vance had while there.

Vance meets German far-right AfD leader amid election interference criticism​

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/berlin-says-vance-should-not-interfere-german-politics-2025-02-14/

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This level of pettiness still doesnt explain him cutting his nose to spite his face. Especially in the form of putting pressure on his own economy, and then with the expected retaliatory tariffs...


Trudeau is no longer going to be PM. He can no longer hurt you. Trudeau managed to humiliate himself more than Trump ever could.

Additionally, PP taking over is looking to be a less likely CoA as the days pass. Canada didn't warm to PP; they were sick of Trudeau. Now that he’s gone, that leverage is dwindling.


By isolating a reputable and reliable trading partner and pushing away from trading with the U.S. ? That's some "stupid as a fox" logic right there....


I will fully agree with you here. This is also the MO of Russia, who he seems to have no issue cozying up to so I have to ask why he thinks the Bear won't want to eat us any more than the Dragon will....


By making us question their reliability and dependability in thr alliances they set up and we committed to post- War? Again, "stupid as a fox" logic and reasoning...


We need to rid ourselves of China for sure. I will not for a second think we as a country have been duped/infiltrated by Bejing for the last 20 years.

That said, the U.S. beating us over the head in the process has only dug our heels in further to stand up to this bullying. Demand avoidance becomes a factor and I don't think Trump has ever been told "Well now I don't want to" by anyone (maybe Melania, but who knows...maybe he's into that...).

He may have the best of intentions IRT keeping North America safe from China. His execution of those intentions have been nothing but dogshit take after dogshit take since he took office.

He hasn't even been POTUS for a month. I'm willing to wait. He did the same bluster and poking before the last trade agreement and we came out OK.

I won't agree with you assessment of PP. He still has a commanding lead. He is not in freefall as his detractors say. If anything, it's Carney who is losing popularity. He's only a few points ahead of freeland now and dropping. People are getting their measure of him. Trudeau is still PM and is still doing his PM stuff. He won't be gone until the leadership vote is over. Still time to do more damage.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think that you might have missed this other meeting Vance had while there.

Seen, although a good diplomat speaks to everyone. That doesn't mean he's endorsing them.

After all Chamberland met with Hitler. Didn't turn out well, but he sat and spoke with him.

 

[KevinB]

I don't think he is. Not just the supreme court sees nothing wrong, but neither does congress or the senate.

The ones that Elon Musk has threatened he will put up 100 Million to back an opposition candidate if they dont play ball?
As for the USSC, well they have caved too -- so much for strict constitutionalists...

Or the majority of the population. Democrat and Republican. The only ones upset are the government cockroaches he's shining the light on. The ones that have been stripping trillions of tax dollars from your pockets, for their own use and gain.

His popularity is rising as a matter of fact. 57% of those polled totally agree with the direction and action he's taking.

Not sure what polls you are watching - but he's at 44% nationally as of today.

Throwing the established order to the wind to cowtow to dictators and encourage everyone to get nuclear weapons isn't exactly what I would think of a legacy. He is a bootlicking douchecanoe.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892316384375287872

 

[PrairieFella]

Seen, although a good diplomat speaks to everyone. That doesn't mean he's endorsing them.

After all Chamberland met with Hitler. Didn't turn out well, but he sat and spoke with him.

They spoke with him before he started a bloodthirsty war of aggression. After he started the war, there was no diplomacy, only the rope. You don't negotiate with tyrants while they're raping the innocent.

 

[KevinB]

They spoke with him before he started a bloodthirsty war of aggression. After he started the war, there was no diplomacy, only the rope. You don't negotiate with tyrants while they're raping the innocent.

110%

 

[FJAG]

Seen, although a good diplomat speaks to everyone. That doesn't mean he's endorsing them.

He kind of did:

U.S. Vice President JD Vance met on Friday in Munich with the leader of Germany's far-right AfD, his office confirmed, after endorsing the party as a political partner — a stance Berlin dismissed as unwelcome election interference.

So did Musk.

AfD’s Handbook for Breaking Down the Firewall — Written by Elon Musk

By voicing his support for AfD on his platform and challenging the taboo of German national guilt, Elon Musk has emerged as a key figure in the right-wing party's opportunity to dismantle the ‘firewall’ that mainstream parties have upheld against it for years. In this article, we explain...

www.hungarianconservative.com

The question that is an open one which I can't answer is whether the far-right AfD constitutes a "Nazi" movement. They are certainly embedded in the nationalist/anti-immigrant furor sweeping Europe and in that respect one has to ask the question at what point is the "Nazi" analogy appropriate.