/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 21382
698 kB, 1800 × 1097
You are gifted by God and become the monarch of the country. While you are intially successful something comes up and the only way you can get yourself out of the situation is to successfully invade Russia and conquer its territories. How would you go about invading Russia and how would you do it throughout the entire campaign. Is it even possible?
>>
No. 21384 Kontra
Depends on the era, honestly.

If it was with Napoleonic era tech and armies, I'd probably try to blockade St.Petersburg's ports (while also shelling the city itself and the Bosporus), but that'd imply that Great Britain doesn't intervene in this conflict (directly at least), and that we can also gain a naval upper hand.
The the goal would be to get the Russians to wage a decisive battle maybe in the area of Poland, so that we have better supply. After that, it'd be a race to both Moscow and Petersburg, because if both are really big cities, and can act interchangeably as capitals.
I'd say it would be better to march along the Baltic sea, because that way, ships can be used to supply the troops.

The key is to avoid Napoleon's situation where the French Army got exhausted and depleted by the time the battle of Borodino took place, and while they won it, it was too much of a Pyrrhic victory, and wasn't enough to subdue the Russians.

Modern era?
The major industrial centres would need to be bombed to smithereens, before moving in with actual ground forces. If we can gain the upper hand in the air, we can then mop up the remnants of their army which can no longer procure armaments, ammunition or supplies, because of the damaged industrial base.
It's basically decided by the air force, first and foremost, I think.
>>
No. 21385
>>21384
I was thinking of modern times. You sound like you have some experience in this type of area
>>
No. 21386
>>21385
Yes. This Hungarian on EC has led numerous successful campaigns invading Russia. He is a well experienced general.
>>
No. 21389 Kontra
>>21385
It's literally just
plays_600hrs_of_grand_strategy_and_reads_war_and_peace_once.txt

Whenever someone tried to invade Russia, they usually faced two problems:
>Britain keeps taking the piss out of the naval game
>They severely underestimate Russia's willingness to fight and it's industrial and human resource base
The German High Command thought that with Marshal Tukhachevsky out of the way, and with a measly ~5000 tanks, the USSR is easy picking.
In reality, the Soviets had 20k tanks, a gigantic country, propaganda so effective that Goebbels would wet himself, and a population twice the size of Germany. (Not to mention that a frontline that's more than a 1000kms wide is a logistical nightmare in itself, let alone having to use the Russian "roads".)
And of course, Britain did what Britain does best,
being a pain in the continentals' ass.

Napoleon thought that he can win in Russia if he can get a decisive battle and capture Moscow, but Kutuzov kept running away, and by the time the battle at Borodino took place, Napoleon was knee deep in supply problems, while the Russians had a relatively fresh army, itching to take "revenge" for Napoleon making them run this far home.

In a cold war scenario, the whole ordeal would be decided by the time Nato forces reach the Oder, or Soviet forces reach the Rhein.
>>
No. 21394
>>21389
Thanks for giving a quick overview.
>>
No. 21397
>How would you go about invading Russia and how would you do it throughout the entire campaign. Is it even possible?

Sure. Either by being
A) Stronger than Russia
B) Have allies stronger than Russia
>>
No. 21403 Kontra
>>21386
Don't forget the fact that I went on numerous raids against Al-Qaeda and I have over 300 confirmed kills as the tops sniper in the Honvédség.
>>
No. 21413
99 kB, 892 × 900
>>21382
you will need Rammsteintech
>>
No. 21415 Kontra
>>21382
Modern russia don't stand a second against real threat.
Historical - it's typical "alternative history", better disscus something really historical in history thread.
>>
No. 21419
3,4 MB, 480 × 360, 2:34
Seems like a relatively simple job to punch through Ukraine and the Baltics toward Moscow. Once the capital falls and Putin is apprehended the rest will descend into general disorder and various fiefdoms. You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down!

In more serious terms, Russian doctrine is all about a small number of extremely well equipped and mobile brigades without much staying power. The trick will be in coordinating with other nations (Georgia etc.) to cause trouble everywhere at once and keep it sustained so where Russia is deployed at strength the advantages in artillery etc. run-down.

Obviously this doesn't account the masses of outdated equipment but NATO has been preparing for that war since the 1940s.

>become the monarch of the country

Er, which? This thread seem moronic. Like, just wait around for Russia to collapse of its own accord if you must and if you're playing Ukraine then the bite-and-hold strategy seems to be working.

>>21384
I think it would depend on the time-frame of a Napoleonic battle. After the Finnish War the Gulf of Finland would be a hellish place to try and control while Russia would be the only power with a competent navy in the region unless it's Great Britain sailing in.
>>
No. 21421
>>21403
>and I have over 300 confirmed kills as the tops sniper in the Honvédség
Oh you

>>21397
>>21415
OP said not just "invade Russia" but also "successfully conquer its territories" by which I'm assuming he meant "also grab clay East of the Urals." I do not think such a thing is possible. It's such a logistical nightmare that even the most well oiled war machine would turn into a complete clusterfuck east of the Urals. The main thing would be taking Moscow and a few other cities, which is totally doable, and holding them, which is.....theoretically doable. The main problem is you're basically going to have several months to do it because all of Russia is either a swamp or frozen shithole the rest of the time and those are some incredibly long supply lines. Considering the US experience in Iraq and Vietnam and the Russian experience in Afghanistan I think it's been proven that actually holding hostile territory in a modern war is hard as all fuck even on a tiny country. But for something the size of Russia? And with their climate and infrastructure? Lol

>>21419
Many people have assumed this. Russia is incurable. I don't know why non-Russians always get this retarded idea, and by non-Russians I mean you retarded as fuck Europeans. Perhaps this is side effect of not having such clay of your own? Again, I point to Iraq. They too immediately descended into a bunch of squabbling warlords. You will notice that this makes your job in pacification harder, not easier, because now you have to negotiate with dozens or hundreds of individual pidorans each thinking every night only how to force you to sit on the bottle.

You can beat Russian conventional forces but an actual conquest is laughable. The only way to deal with Russia militarily is to back them as far from your own borders as possible and damage enough infrastructure they'll have a hard time pouring back towards you. The only worthwhile military doctrine against Russia is against da orks. They will just regenerate from Siberian fungus and choice someone even more of a pidor than Putin.

And ask Georgia? Are you fucking crazy? Georgia only put as much fight up as they did because Ukrainians assisted. You can crash their military strength eventually but let me tell you the secret you Europeans never figured out: Russia is a constantly paranoid and ready for war country. What they cannot do is outcompete your media and economy. I don't believe even WWIII could permanently destroy Russia. Something will always creep out of their interior eventually, something shielded far from human civilizations' squabbles. Conquest of Moscow and conquest of all of Russia are two very different things. For some reason there is something very Polish about your thinking.
>>
No. 21424 Kontra
>>21421
>also grab clay
>retarded as fuck Europeans
This more and more looks like /pol-tier honestely.

I'll only add that real world is not paradox stategy videogames, same as real wars, politics and conflicts. Idea of thread not very smart too.
>>
No. 21434
You perhaps miss that I directly quoted Hitler on the eve of Barbarossa :DDDD

>Again, I point to Iraq. They too immediately descended into a bunch of squabbling warlords. You will notice that this makes your job in pacification harder, not easier, because now you have to negotiate with dozens or hundreds of individual pidorans each thinking every night only how to force you to sit on the bottle.

Good sir! Britain built an empire on pitting warlords against one-another. We just need to sit them down with some lovely cups of tea and set them all against one-another like we always do. Yes, that's gone south of late.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE
>>
No. 21435 Kontra
But actually better close this thread. I recently feel increace of stupidity - this frog posting thread, this childish thread about "wat if go war I'd be hitla it's history lol" - better not allow it or we end like late Krautchan.
>>
No. 21436
>>21424
Yes, Europeans are indeed retarded as fuck to keep thinking "invade Russia" is ever a great idea. All we need to do is make sure Russia is economically isolated and make some new Rambo movie.
>>
No. 21439 Kontra
>>21436
Well, holywood currently in deep shit and not very powerfull "weapon". Rambo 2-3 movies was absolute crap, and they more insult people, if anyone wanted to watch them as some serious things, with ork-tier soviet soldiers and holy warriors of taliban, but most people will just laugh about it's stupidity.

This thread is sadly historically and politically is not far from kindergarden games "I won I not won", and majority of arguments ending be same tier "short random meme facts". I don't even say that to disscus this problem should be more complex analysis, since "problem" itself is basicly "hi hi ha ha" and nothing more.
>>
No. 21440
>>21439
>Well, holywood currently in deep shit
lolwut no it isn't

> and not very powerfull "weapon"
Is miss, is very

> Rambo 2-3 movies was absolute crap, and they more insult people, if anyone wanted to watch them as some serious things, with ork-tier soviet soldiers and holy warriors of taliban, but most people will just laugh about it's stupidity.
This is true but people are stupid. You will notice how most people in the world at least are aware what those movies are. The Russian films, not so much.

>This thread is sadly historically and politically is not far from kindergarden games "I won I not won", and majority of arguments ending be same tier "short random meme facts". I don't even say that to disscus this problem should be more complex analysis, since "problem" itself is basicly "hi hi ha ha" and nothing more.
You're the one getting mad here. It is like problem of the philosopher and the grain of sand. No matter how dumb the OP we can still have serious discussion about it, but if you have the dumbest people it doesn't matter how good the topic because they'll turn it to shit. You're right, it's a completely moronic topic because only the dumbest Paradox fag could actually think world works this way, in that you can simply storm in and occupy Russia somehow. That being stated I showed exactly how one can beat Russia quite easily, and that's relying on them having a weak as shit economy historically and poor media presence in modern age.
>>
No. 21441 Kontra
>>21440
Actually wait historically too because all the Russian monarchs were French boos and took awhile for Russian literature to develop
>>
No. 21442 Kontra
>>21440
>You're the one getting mad here.
I dislike idiotic projection on real things that should be disscused complexly. When real science simplified towards some random facts, which then combine in historical mypth, that then transform in so called "memes". This leads to misunderstanding of thematic. With histpry and politics this is most dangerous things, since we all - society - depend on it. When it's end be just some random short jokes and stereotypes insteads of real learning of problems, it give opportunity for bad politicans to use social misunderstanding and infantilism as their instrument of power and manipulation.

Addditionaly, such stupidity is dangerous for communities, because such "meme-think" is what in the end making in our case imageboards into shitpost heaven.
>>
No. 21443 Kontra
>>21441
Short answer you are not right - longer, I'll give tommorow - I want make proper answers, not one-line posts.
>>
No. 21444 Kontra
>>21421
>>21436
>you Europeans
Since when is Great Britain synonymous with "Europe"? Last time i checked they don't even consider themselves European.

Also KC-tier thread.
>>
No. 21446
58 kB, 421 × 600
It does not make much sense without cutting off nuclear weaponry which could balance out ousted areas by way of launching off from far far away.
Apart from that, you would gain little to no territorial advantage from the peripheral regions as they contain a small fraction of strategic resources for a long-term shooting war aimed at a conquest.
This is the first.

Secondly, one cannot dismiss the fact forces opposed to violence most likely would show up
making it a difficult job to take control of the objective in addition to long-distance firing up I mentioned before. When chances are rounded to almost zero, there tends to be a "mission" like Crimea or the Golan Heights. Otherwise, you would have to actively suppress it by means of gunning to an extent of bombarding and bombing which is undoubtedly ineffective in terms of acquiring something. That's why propoganda whose main purpose is to demonize your fellow neighbor is heavily around in a lot of countries. It's also a variable to nix the positive outcome of such actions, a sort of armory as well.

Economic-wise, there is a large impulse to speeding up your economics which goes by the name of oil. Everything ranging from means of production to an end-product is transported via oil burning. This means it's a huge increase in time if you have more than enough oil. Respectively, it's a huge decline if you have it deficiently. Therefore, there is a huge demand for oil in each functioning economy. Hence, it's a good way to establish your dominance and control by supplying oil to somebody.

The current conjecture is the Far East naval forces are extremely defeated by collective power of the american fleet. Although a conflict does not break out, nor will it in the near future. Because, as it was pointed out before, it is not productive. Oil resources cannot be harnessed into american use, once they are grabbed. It's a heavy task given the complexity Russian oil is exploted with and the absence of logistics even in its infancy to american market.

As a result, it's less necessary to invade it, more to assure it does not provide anything. Although, to win Russia is not a hard task at all.
>>
No. 21453
>>21440
>lolwut no it isn't
It is. Current big sales of some movies and commercial success don't make it real success on cultural field. And current trends goes that holywood, at least outside USA more and more associating with anti-culture. Therm is kind of incorrect, but I don't want to to spend too much time on this topic.
>This is true but people are stupid. You will notice how most people in the world at least are aware what those movies are. The Russian films, not so much.
Western cultural impact worked on USSR because combination of forced isolation, which at the end of USSR become less and less quality isolation, since "glasnost'" more and more foreign stuff become allowed, combined with socialistic goverment capitalism monopoly economy that can't manage to produce any valuable goods, and when wester mass culture was overall better than today - yes, this worked as one of the factors of fall of USSR. Nowdays - when almost all people, or at least absolute majority have acces to internet, all movies allowed, nobody really cares that much about western media production. All people aware of it, but nobody consider this as some sort of guide to action. We have very terrible, but capitalism too, and while we still poor, trade centers, supermarts, malls give more than requred kind of cheap goods that people can afford more or less, espessialu crap from china, same as everyone can afford infinity ammount of video games and movies from internet because there not much dumb people who will pay for something they can get for free. And in the end, this don't play role anymore. Espessialy when absolute majority of top-holywood movies are films for childrend and teenager audience with caricature superheroes that has no connections to reality.
Russian, or more to say - Soviet movies had same problems that overall planned economy have. When you have Гостелерадио СССР which give resourses to make movies only for prooven directors and scenarios. To make it proven you need pass censurship, and even more absolute bureaucracy. In the end, espessialy to 70s-80s, movies in SU had no such budgets to compete with holywood ones, but more important - absolute majority of them had no even goal to be international and aimed directly at local audience and not on world-wide audience. They was not considered as "product", more like iternal thing for propoganda or entertaiment of masses of soviet population, sometimes maybe for soviet block countries and vice versa. After SU fail, since we become just third world country, with cinema happend same thing - remnats of soviet studios produce products for internal use, and they become not so great. Hovever overall, you don't give to account cultural impact of soviet and russian movies inside russia at all.
>No matter how dumb the OP we can still have serious discussion about it,
This is kind of question and kind of theme, that will not bring serious answer. Question itselft put the way it may only generate same tier answer - very basic pseudo-political analysis based on primitive stereotypes. As I aleady said, it just ends like kindergarden. To properly have disscution, you at least need ro-formulate question to something "Do you see any possibilities of major military conflict involving russia in near future?" or something like this, hovever this question have too clear answers to make really big and separate thread from it.
>Actually wait historically too because all the Russian monarchs were French boos and took awhile for Russian literature to develop
I don't know how it connected to current disscution, hovever this is not correct statement. France had cultural impact on Russia in XVIII/early XIX centuries, since France was one of big and major powers of the world, and French language overall was used much more outside of france than it happened now, when it shifted towards Eglish. Probably most famous of western-boo emperors of Russia, Peter I, during his travels visited mostly Ntherlands, england, austria and cities in central europe. Cultural impact at that times was mostly affected by this countries. Russian have many words taked from german language since than. Peter III was even born and rised as Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, and managed to go into russia only much more late. Peter III, who was Prussia-boo in 7-years war just gived fallen eastern Prussia back to them just because. Romanovs have very strong connection with german lines, even romanov flag have very close to german/prussian colors.
Adittionaly, in mid-late XIX centuray was rise of Russian self-identity and it become popular to make back many russain things from times before Peter reforms, but this even more complex thematic of "serach of ways" in russia in second half of XIX centuary.
>>
No. 21456 Kontra
>>21442
I don't think any of us had any illusions that this thread will give "serious" or "realistic" answers.
>>
No. 21465 Kontra
>>> kohlchan.net