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.”

Non-paywall link

  • Zron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I’m reminded of a WWII slogan.

      When the English bomb, the Germans run.

      When the Germans bomb, the English run.

      When the Americans bomb, Everybody runs!

      The Americans particularly have a checkered history of joint operations. They seem to have a shoot first, identify the target later mentality.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            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).

            • cynar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.