Estonia’s top military commander said fresh intelligence on Russia’s ability to produce ammunition and recruit troops has prompted a re-evaluation among NATO allies and a spate of warnings to prepare for a long-term conflict.
Martin Herem, the commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, said predictions that Russian forces would reach the limits of their resources haven’t come true. President Vladimir Putin’s military has the capacity to produce several million artillery shells a year, far outstripping European efforts, and can recruit hundreds of thousands of new troops, he said.
The general from Estonia, which shares a nearly 300-kilometer (186-mile) border with Russia, joins a growing number of North Atlantic Treaty Organization military chiefs who have warned over the past month that the alliance should prepare for a war footing with the Kremlin. Herem referenced an earlier estimate that Russia could produce a million artillery shells a year.
“A lot of people thought they couldn’t go beyond that — today, the facts tell us otherwise,” Herem said in an interview in Tallinn. “They can produce even more — many times more — ammunition.”
I was thinking the same thing.
If we were to actually get involved, kick it off with an A-10 singing the song of it’s people, and eliminate all russian forces in Ukraine in no greater than 24 hours.
If you’re not willing to do that then just stay home, we’ve seen how the ‘slow war’ style goes.
The A10 has a track record of friendly fire.
I don’t think it’s a wise use of resources to give the Ukrainians a bunch of tanks, only to send a tank killer aircraft that’s known for killing friendly vehicles because of old ass targeting systems.
I’m reminded of a WWII slogan.
The Americans particularly have a checkered history of joint operations. They seem to have a shoot first, identify the target later mentality.
Now we understand all the police violence. They’re just terrible at it
British armed response officers are highly trained, and closely monitored (mental health wise). They’ll use precisely the amount of force needed, and very little more. Even then, every bullet fired in the field is a sign of a failure. It’s analysed to see what could be improved, in future.
American police seem to replace this all with volume of fire. Maybe also a few shots of whisky afterwards, to cover mental health.
I definitely see similarities between the police mentalities and the matching army mentalities.
Heck, it was a tradition that british officers didn’t carry firearms with them, and only special units had them (not sure whether it still is a tradition).
Normal British police officers carry a Tazer at most. Even that requires additional training, including being on the receiving end of it. The UK generally uses “police by consent” rather than “police by force”.
The armed officers are part of the armed response units, roughly the equivalent of SWAT. Outside of emergency response, they often work in airports or high profile events. An armed officer, out on patrol would be seen as an extremely heavy handed response to something. While it does happen, I’ve never personally seen it happen.