Conscription at home due to war in Ukraine, what is the likelihood?

[Trenchcoat]

So recent news story in UK is the outgoing head of the British Army is saying that mobilisation of the civilian population will be needed to head off the Russian threat. Pretty much a call for the return of Conscription/Military Service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68097048

Usually the way it works here is that the Government get someone to float such controversial ideas out there, refute them (as has been the case here) and then later bring it forward as Government Policy a number of weeks to months later with the media often getting the heads up in advance to pre break it to the population. Basically all done that way to acclimatise the population to some sort of mobilisation/conscription to avoid mass hysterica, panic and kickback.

Suffice to say even if that method is in play the country's young are pissing their panties, particularly the frail pink & blue haired gender queer soy boy crowd and the mental health Emo's, etc. As someone now too old for call up (now post 45) I am laughing my arse off

My guess is that there is reason behind such a move beyond it just being a deterrent. Ukraine only has so many men/population to go through before they start having to pull population from the economy and the economy starts to slide meaning Ukraine's economy and government finances start to collapse. I think they say it takes about 5 or 6 people to be working in the economy to support 1 soldier at the front and we are apparently near that knife edge now in Ukraine. Hence all the deliberation around Christmas in Ukraine with Zelensky and the Parliament over whether to call up another 400-500,000 aside from the ongoing rolling call up of men.

From an economic stand point it makes no sense to fund the Ukraine War AND pay for a larger Army just in case. The government has it's back to the wall with it's finances as it is with a bigger debt to GDP ratio than ever.

So what are the chances that once Ukraine has depleted itself of it's Armed Forces personnel that Forces from the UK, the EU and possibly the US may be called upon to take over? Other NATO figures have also mooted out the need for possible Conscription/Mobilisation and a NATO war with Russia.

Ukraine in a way was a bit silly letting any of it's population leave as they lost nearly a quarter of it's population (about 10 million) some of which could have been working in the economy supporting the war effort. I'm not complaining as for me it's kind of worked in my favour but from a war effort point of view it's not great of course. A bit like how women were called into the workforce in Britain during WWII to support the war effort, i.e all hands to the pump.

My guess is that projections have been made of military personnel losses in Ukraine, how many more people Ukraine can take out of the economy and it doesn't make for good reading. Hence the need for foreign countries to chip in with some more cannon fodder for the front. As of course the West fears too greatly a Russian victory as that's an outcome that Russia will have it over the barrel with.

So what do you reckon the chances of Conscription are where you are?

[Bee Farmer]

Suffice to say even if that method is in play the country's young are pissing their panties, particularly the frail pink & blue haired gender queer soy boy crowd and the mental health Emo's, etc. As someone now too old for call up (now post 45) I am laughing my arse off

You're not too old to be conscripted into the Russian army.  And you may have to rely on the frail pink and blue haired gender queer soy boy crowd and the mental health Emo's to make sure you don't get conscripted into the Russian army.

So what are the chances that once Ukraine has depleted itself of it's Armed Forces personnel that Forces from the UK, the EU and possibly the US may be called upon to take over?

Zero.

The ONLY way the UK, the EU, and the US would be called to fight Russia directly is if Russia attacks a NATO member country.  Even if Russia takes control of Ukraine and Moldova, the only way the UK, EU, and the US will have to fight is if Russia then moves on Romania or Poland, or the Baltic states...which Russia intends to do.

Ukraine in a way was a bit silly letting any of it's population leave as they lost nearly a quarter of it's population (about 10 million) some of which could have been working in the economy supporting the war effort.

Maybe, maybe not.  How many citizens would have died last winter due to infrastructure damage or in Russian attacks?

Hence the need for foreign countries to chip in with some more cannon fodder for the front.

The only way foreign countries are going to ship cannon fodder to the front to fight the Russians is if the front is on NATO territory.

Win, lose, or draw, Ukraine is screwed.  Their demographics were horrible before the war.  They are even worse now.  The economy was horrible before the war, and so much infrastructure has been destroyed that it will take decades to rebuild...and by the time they rebuild, almost everyone will be retired or dead from old age, and no working age adults or young folks to enter the workforce.

The conscription argument is nonsense.  The western countries don't need conscription, and won't need conscription in the future.
With the present military forces western countries have, they would slaughter the Russian army.  That means the only way Russia could fight a war against the west is with nukes.  You don't need to conscript soldiers to be able to shoot nukes at each other.

If Russia wins in Ukraine, they are coming for NATO countries so they can have a border they can defend.  That results in nuclear war.
If Russia loses in Ukraine, the only way for Ukraine to stop Russia from rebuilding and attacking again is to take control of Rostov and Belgorod, because those are logistical hubs.  Russia can't fight a war against Ukraine without having Belgorod and Rostov.  But if Ukraine attacks Belgorod and Rostov, Russia will retaliate with nukes.

Western countries realize the way to prevent a nuclear war with Russia is to have a stalemate in Ukraine.

[Trenchcoat]

Some of what you say may be true Beefarmer. It could be possible that the west believe that Russia could likely win in Ukraine, Moldova then attack countries of the EU/NATO. Hence the need for a larger standing army. In the past I believed that they wouldn't likely do this because France, the UK and the US had Nukes. However, it probably is still possible as with any Nuclear enemy the question is, 'how far can you attack before they actually fire their Nukes?'

None of the former Eastern Bloc countries have Nukes so is the US, UK and France really going to be bothered about firing off Nukes for territory lost in Finland, Poland, Romania, etc? The question with Nukes and when to fire usually comes down to the total loss scenario - only when a country with Nukes is on the verge of total loss of the war, it's territory will it (possibly/probably) fire it's Nukes. Before then both Nuclear Powers are unlikely to fire it's Nukes knowing that the other side will do the same amounting in MAD which is pointless when the conventional war is ongoing and they might win through by that means.

It looks like the scenario being looked at them is Russia winning in Ukraine, then probably Moldova. Then probably waiting 10 years or so before possibly attacking or becoming a threat to the Eastern side of the EU/NATO. Those ten years of course of rapid and constant rearming of its military. The West seeing that it must do the same to avoid a war by looking too weak as the argument was the other day. In other words a second Cold War period likely if we rearm and bolster are Armed Forces across Europe. If we do so Russia may see that they are not strong enough. If we don't then Russia may try it on.

At the moment Russian forces aren't all that good, they are becoming depleted in Armaments. However, over time that can be turned around especially if they become stronger by taking Ukraine. One thing Russia is able to do is bring large numbers of soldiers to bear and that has always been their winning hand and a hand we shouldn't underestimate. It remains a threat in Ukraine that Russia will keep piling the men in there knowing if they bleed Ukraine white then they May eventually overpower Ukraine. Ukraine I think is still a possibility for the West to stop Putler in his tracks. It's a large country with a fairly large population that could still potentially have the numbers to hold off against such a strategy. Ukraine will have to hope to defend as best they can over the longer term inflicting greater casualties on Russia in Ukraine then they sustain. Hoping that in the end Russia will tire, it's economy start to seriously break up under the strain of it all, dissent in it's Republics and in its Government start to rise, it's Army run out of Armaments, it's Army start to waver and possibly revolt and it's menfolk of military capability start to dwindle. So I wouldn't say it is necessarily game over in Ukraine however Ukraine was always fighting against the odds, at the beginning of all this as I said in here I expected Russia to unfortunately be the winner. I've been surprised so far by how far and how well Ukraine has done against Russia.

The regions of Belgorod & Rostov may indeed be important regional hubs but I think even in an unlikely scenario of Ukraine capturing them Russia will just build new regional hubs. Look at what they are doing in Mariupol just literally rebuilding the whole city. So they will just start over building a city from scratch anywhere if it were so needed.

[Bee Farmer]

It could be possible that the west believe that Russia could likely win in Ukraine, Moldova then attack countries of the EU/NATO. Hence the need for a larger standing army.

Why would they need a larger army?  The west does not need a larger army to fight Russia.  The present army will massacre present Russian forces.  That is why Russia will use nukes.  That is their ONLY chance of achieving victory.

In the past I believed that they wouldn't likely do this because France, the UK and the US had Nukes. However, it probably is still possible as with any Nuclear enemy the question is, 'how far can you attack before they actually fire their Nukes?'

Russia believes they are facing an existential threat.  They know they can't fight a conventional war.  So the question the Russians are asking themselves is, "Can we beat them with a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike?"

The question with Nukes and when to fire usually comes down to the total loss scenario - only when a country with Nukes is on the verge of total loss of the war, it's territory will it (possibly/probably) fire it's Nukes.

And that is the situation Russia is in right now.  They have been invaded 50+ times.  Invaders came in through 9 gaps in geographic barriers.  Russia has never been able to stop an invader once they got through those gaps - Russian winters have stopped invaders.  Russia knows they can't protect the heartland if they don't control those gaps and forward position their remaining troops there.

Before then both Nuclear Powers are unlikely to fire it's Nukes knowing that the other side will do the same amounting in MAD which is pointless when the conventional war is ongoing and they might win through by that means.

But the Russians know they are dead if they don't.  If they launch an overwhelming nuclear attack, they "might" be able to blitzkreig the west and limit any returning fire.  The Russians believe they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.  Someone backed into a corner does not act rationally.

Then probably waiting 10 years or so before possibly attacking or becoming a threat to the Eastern side of the EU/NATO. Those ten years of course of rapid and constant rearming of its military.

That's absolute nonsense.  If they wanted to rebuild their army, in 10 years, they needed to have a lot of male babies born 15-25 years ago.  If you want a lot of 20-25 year old soldiers, you have to start making them 20-25 years ago.  Russia didn't.  Their birth rate fell off a cliff in the early 90's when the Soviet Union fell apart, and it has never recovered.  Russia doesn't have the necessary men to rebuild its military in 10 years.

It is now or never for Russia.

The West seeing that it must do the same to avoid a war by looking too weak as the argument was the other day.

The demographics are almost as bad in western countries too.  The US, Sweden, France, and Turkey still have tolerable demographics.  Countries like Germany and Italy are dying of old age.

In other words a second Cold War period likely if we rearm and bolster are Armed Forces across Europe.

There is no chance of a Cold War period again.  None, and it is absolute nonsense to suggest that.  Neither side has the demographics.

At the moment Russian forces aren't all that good, they are becoming depleted in Armaments. However, over time that can be turned around especially if they become stronger by taking Ukraine.

How can Russia's military strength be turned around if they conquer Ukraine?  Ukraine's demographics was almost as bad as Russia's.  What resources does Ukraine have that is going to make a difference to Russian military capacity?

One thing Russia is able to do is bring large numbers of soldiers to bear and that has always been their winning hand and a hand we shouldn't underestimate.

Where are they going to get them from?  3D printing?  Russia doesn't have very many young people under the age of 30.

I think is still a possibility for the West to stop Putler in his tracks. It's a large country with a fairly large population that could still potentially have the numbers to hold off against such a strategy.

In order to stop Russia, Ukraine has to take Belgorod and Rostov.  Russia has already said that would trigger a nuclear response.

Ukraine is already running out of men.  Zaluzhny now says he made a mistake trying to bleed Russia.  He thought Russia would quit by now with the losses they have. (He ignored past history, where Russia never backed down without first taking 500,000 in casualties.)

In a war where Ukraine inflicts 3 to 1 casualties against Russia, Ukraine loses that fight.  In order for Ukraine to win, they need to inflict 10 to 1 casualties.

The regions of Belgorod & Rostov may indeed be important regional hubs but I think even in an unlikely scenario of Ukraine capturing them Russia will just build new regional hubs.

You can't just decide to build a new logistics hub wherever you want.  Quit talking nonsense.  There are specific reasons cities develop where they are.

Look at what they are doing in Mariupol just literally rebuilding the whole city. So they will just start over building a city from scratch anywhere if it were so needed.

They are not rebuilding the whole city of Mariupol.  You can't just build a city from scratch wherever you want.

[ML]

So the question the Russians are asking themselves is, "Can we beat them with a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike?"

And that is the situation Russia is in right now.  They have been invaded 50+ times.  Invaders came in through 9 gaps in geographic barriers.  Russia has never been able to stop an invader once they got through those gaps - Russian winters have stopped invaders.  Russia knows they can't protect the heartland if they don't control those gaps and forward position their remaining troops there.

No country or group of countries can totally beat the other side with massive pre-emptive strikes.
There are just too many nukes spread around on land and under the sea.

And, are these 'gaps' all that important in today's world with modern warfare involving sophisticated airplanes, missiles, etc.?

Massive amounts of troops moving through gaps is probably no longer needed; except as peacekeeping force if one side surrenders.

[Bee Farmer]

No country or group of countries can totally beat the other side with massive pre-emptive strikes.
There are just too many nukes spread around on land and under the sea.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  If you launch a massive pre-emptive strike, you could do enormous damage.  The questions are, can you get overwhelm the air defenses during your pre-emptive strike, and can your air defenses withstand the retaliatory strike?

It was not the Japanese military command that decided to surrender.  They were opposed to it, and tried a coup when the emperor made the decision to surrender.

The US has some very questionable political leadership.

And, are these 'gaps' all that important in today's world with modern warfare involving sophisticated airplanes, missiles, etc.?

Russia thinks so.

And what is "today's world?"  Are you talking about pre-WWII where countries were mercantilist and piracy was common, and countries constantly fought each other to get access to resources?
Are you talking about post-WWII, where the US used its navy to patrol the oceans so that all countries could trade with each other, and this has resulted in globalism?  But the US did this as a security measure to counter the Soviet Union.  We allowed countries to trade freely, as long as we got to set their security policy, and could use them as cannon fodder in the event we went to war with the Soviet Union.  But the need for this died when the Soviet Union fell apart, and every US president since then has been more and more nationalistic.  But the US no longer has a naval force of enough destroyers to patrol the oceans anymore, and we are energy sufficient due to shale oil and we don't need energy and resources from other parts of the globe.
Or are you talking about a return to pre-WWII conditions, where countries have to fight and claw to get limited resources in their near geographic region, because of a breakdown in global trade?  Just look at the problems the Houthis are causing.  They have already won the economic war.  The military aspects are a moot point - ships can't get insurance to go through the Red Sea.  Container prices have went from $1500 to over $4000 per container.  Soon, marginal profit items won't ship anymore.

Massive amounts of troops moving through gaps is probably no longer needed; except as peacekeeping force if one side surrenders.

 

Peacekeeping troops, just like the Russians are peacekeeping troops in Ukraine, right?

Turkey has invaded Russia several times through the Bessarabian Gap.  Turkey is going to become a very dominant regional power int he very near future.  What's going to stop Turkey from invading Russia again?
How many times has Iran invaded Russia?  What's going to stop Iran from invading Russia again?
How many times has China invaded Russia?  The only thing holding China back right now is the Russian promise that if China makes any move against Russia, Russia will immediately nuke China.
How many times has Sweden invaded Russia?  And they always came through the Baltic states.  Sweden is a very strong regional power.  What's going to stop Sweden from doing it again?
How many times has Germany invaded Russia through the Polish Gap?  Germany is dying, and they are desperate for natural gas.  What's going to stop Germany from invading Russia again, as a Hail Mary last ditch effort to keep from dying as fast?  Germany is already ramping up military strength.

NATO and the EU security agreements are a paper tiger without US involvement.  All the countries joined the security agreements so that everyone else would protect them, and they wouldn't have to protect themselves.  Everyone is expecting everyone else's small military to protect them.  It's a paper tiger.

[ML]

No country in the world is going to be invading Russia.

Russia has an absolute deterent now that they didn't have before in all the previous invasions you noted.

[Bee Farmer]

No country in the world is going to be invading Russia.

Russia has an absolute deterent now that they didn't have before in all the previous invasions you noted.

I don't believe that, and Russia doesn't believe that.

As things stand today, maybe no country would invade Russia.  But things are going to change.

What deterrent does Russia have today that it did not have before? Nukes? China has nukes too.
If anything happens to shipping and cuts flows of oil to China, China is can either de-industrialize and have economic collapse within 6 months, or they can use their military to go after other resources. 

What deterrent did Russia have before, that they will not have in the future?  Manpower.  Don't forget what Stalin said.  "Quantity has a quality all of its own."  But the Russian birth rate dropped when the Soviet Union started going downhill.

Let's not forget that Armenia is a Russian puppet, with security guarantees from Russia.  Azerbaijan attacked Armenia.  Russia stood by and did nothing. 
The Caucus region hates Russia.  The only reason Chechnya isn't at war with Russia is because Russia pays off Kadyrov to quell any dissent.  If Kadyrov overdoses, or something happens to him, are you telling me we won't see another Chechen war with Russia?  Everyone is seeing how weak Russia is, whether in Ukraine or with Armenia.  I'm surprised Moldova hasn't attacked Transnistria while Russia is busy with Ukraine.

Japan has suddenly gotten a lot more boisterous over their claims to the Kirill islands with Russia.  Are you telling me that Japan would never try to take control of the disputed islands with Russia?

[Trenchcoat]

I don't believe that, and Russia doesn't believe that.

As things stand today, maybe no country would invade Russia.  But things are going to change.

What deterrent does Russia have today that it did not have before? Nukes? China has nukes too.
If anything happens to shipping and cuts flows of oil to China, China is can either de-industrialize and have economic collapse within 6 months, or they can use their military to go after other resources. 

What deterrent did Russia have before, that they will not have in the future?  Manpower.  Don't forget what Stalin said.  "Quantity has a quality all of its own."  But the Russian birth rate dropped when the Soviet Union started going downhill.

Let's not forget that Armenia is a Russian puppet, with security guarantees from Russia.  Azerbaijan attacked Armenia.  Russia stood by and did nothing. 
The Caucus region hates Russia.  The only reason Chechnya isn't at war with Russia is because Russia pays off Kadyrov to quell any dissent.  If Kadyrov overdoses, or something happens to him, are you telling me we won't see another Chechen war with Russia?  Everyone is seeing how weak Russia is, whether in Ukraine or with Armenia.  I'm surprised Moldova hasn't attacked Transnistria while Russia is busy with Ukraine.

Japan has suddenly gotten a lot more boisterous over their claims to the Kirill islands with Russia.  Are you telling me that Japan would never try to take control of the disputed islands with Russia?

Japan does not have nukes and Japan knows better than any other country how it goes waging war against a country that has/gets nukes. Think Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Unless Japan gets nukes or something equivalent then there is no way they are going to attack Russia. It would give Russia easy reason to use Nukes, Neutron bombs etc against Japan that is not what Japan would wish to invite.

Countries attacking other countries where both have Nukes, etc have some scope for attacking into each others territory. At some point though the Cuban Missile Crises scenario will be put forward, i.e if you take another step towards us and cross this line then we will fire our nukes.

That is a scenario either side rarely relish as it means the advancing side backing down (at least staying put) or trying to call their bluff and hope the other side is bluffing. In the face if a total defeat though there is a high chance the other side isn't bluffing and let the nukes fly, etc.

That's why it is questionable whether NATO/Russia would end up at war as realistically there is only a certain amount to gain and at what high stakes risk. However, the west will likely increase their troop numbers just in case the eventuality unfolds as low troop numbers look weak and invite attack.

[Trenchcoat]

I think the funniest thing was when are head of the armed forces said about wanting to mobilize a civilian army was thag he saud it was needed in order to save Western Culture lol

Many people in the UK myself included thought he must be joking. The last thing we want to see saved is Western Culture it's literally the worst! I would be quite happy to see the back of all the gender queers, illegal asylum crowd, the ethnic lot, the social housing nutters and all the bad family values & feminism, etc. In fact losing a war may indeed much help us seeing as winning a war hasn't seemed to of landed us in a good place.