Cold War, The Reimagined Series

[BansheeOne]

Ukraine crisis: Nato plans east European bases to counter Russia

Nato chief announces move in response to Ukraine crisis and says alliance is dealing with a new Russian military approach

Ian Traynor in Brussels

The Guardian, Wednesday 27 August 2014

Nato is to deploy its forces at new bases in eastern Europe for the first time, in response to the Ukraine crisis and in an attempt to deter Vladimir Putin from causing trouble in the former Soviet Baltic republics, according to its secretary general.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the organisations's summit in Cardiff next week would overcome divisions within the alliance and agree to new deployments on Russia's borders – a move certain to trigger a strong reaction from Moscow.

He also outlined moves to boost Ukraine's security, "modernise" its armed forces and help the country counter the threat from Russia.

Rasmussen said: "We will adopt what we call a readiness action plan with the aim to be able to act swiftly in this completely new security environment in Europe. We have something already called the Nato response force, whose purpose is to be able to be deployed rapidly if needed. Now it's our intention to develop what I would call a spearhead within that response force at very, very high readiness.

"In order to be able to provide such rapid reinforcements you also need some reception facilities in host nations. So it will involve the pre-positioning of supplies, of equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters. The bottom line is you will in the future see a more visible Nato presence in the east."

Poland and the three Baltic states have been alarmed at the perceived threat from Russia and have been clamouring for a stronger Nato presence in the region. They have criticised what they see as tokenism in the alliance's response so far.

But the issue of permanent Nato bases in east Europe is divisive. The French, Italians and Spanish are opposed while the Americans and British are supportive of the eastern European demands. The Germans, said a Nato official, were sitting on the fence, wary of provoking Russia.

The Cardiff summit is likely to come up with a formula, alliance sources said, which would avoid the term "permanent" for the new bases. But the impact will be to have constantly manned Nato facilities east of what used to be the iron curtain.

"It can be on a rotation basis, with a very high frequency. The point is that any potential aggressor should know that if they were to even think of an attack against a Nato ally they will meet not only soldiers from that specific country but they will meet Nato troops. This is what is important," said Rasmussen.

The only Nato headquarters east of the old cold war frontier is at Szczecin, on Poland's Baltic coast. Sources said this was likely to be the hub for the new deployments. Air and naval plans had been completed, but the issue of international land forces in the east was proving trickier to agree upon.

Asked whether there would be permanent international deployments under a Nato flag in east Europe, Rasmussen said: "The brief answer is yes. To prevent misunderstanding I use the phrase 'for as long as necessary'. Our eastern allies will be satisfied when they see what is actually in the readiness action plan."

Rasmussen said the forces could be deployed within hours.

Nato has clearly been caught napping by the Russian president's well prepared advances in Ukraine since February and is scrambling to come up with strategies for a new era in which Russia has gone from being a "strategic partner" of the alliance to a hostile actor perfecting what the alliance terms "hybrid warfare".

Rasmussen, whose term as Nato chief is coming to an end, said: "We have to face the reality that Russia does not consider Nato a partner. Russia is a nation that unfortunately for the first time since the second world war has grabbed land by force. Obviously we have to adapt to that." In an interview with the Guardian and five other European newspapers, he said: "It is safe to say that nobody had expected Russia to grab land by force. We also saw a remarkable change in the Russian military approach and capability since, for instance, the Georgian war in 2008.

"We have seen the Russians improve their ability to act swiftly. They can within a very, very, short time convert a major military exercise into an offensive military operation."

[...]

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/nato-east-european-bases-counter-russian-threat

[urbanoid]

Angie didn't seem too happy about NATO (read: US) bases in Poland and the Baltics, same for some other Western European leaders. Which is astounding, because it's not about their armed forces stationing here.

 

We already heard all this stupid shit about 'provoking Russia', by now it should be clear tp everyone* that what provokes Russia is weakness, not strength and resolve.

 

*everyone in Western Europe, we on NATO's eastern flank never had any doubts about Russia's character, which only brought accusations of 'paranoia' and 'sensationalism'.

 

 

PS. Don't read the comments below the article if you want to preserve your sanity, I did yesterday and can't help but wonder what a weird bunch the Guardian readers are.

Edited August 27, 2014 by urbanoid

[urbanoid]

There is a solution to quick deployment of armored forces - prepositioning hardware in Poland (Baltic states are too vulnerable, the depots can be quickly overrun by invading forces), and deploying only the combat personnel by air if needed. The Baltic states need some forces to station in their territory, IMHO Poland should also contribute here (but not alone), the Latvians and Estonians would probably welcome it, while Lithuanians would go apeshit.

 

Airpower is nice, but it's easy to deploy anytime, land forces not so much.

 

The plans to be discussed at the NATO summit involve 'permanent rotational presence', because some people think it's still very important to abide by 1997 NATO-Russia treaty, no matter how many treaties were violated by Russia recently.

[BansheeOne]

How does Germany feel about this, presumably attitudes will harden if Angela Merkel cant make any progress on these talks?

 

German policy so far has been reactive and headlined "don't make it worse". As Urbanoid states, it has become worse regardless. With developments over the last days making direct Russian engagement in Ukraine all but obvious, bases with rotating personnel to abide by the letter of the NATO-Russia Act are actually a minor issue. I expect the real debate will soon be about combat troops in the Baltic States and what good the act is at all anymore.

[urbanoid]

I think the Russians have much less vehicles in service than the CFE allows them in ALL of Russia, not just European part.

 

Also in 2007 Putin issued a decree that suspended Russia's CFE obligations.

[BansheeOne]

Finland, Sweden Increase Ties to NATO

HELSINKI — Aug 27, 2014, 6:20 AM ET

Finland and Sweden say they will work more closely with NATO by signing a pact that allows assistance from alliance troops in the Nordic countries in emergency situations.

The Finnish government says the Host Nation Support agreement applies to situations which include "disasters, disruptions and threats to security."

It also enables joint training exercises and military cooperation.

Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said Wednesday that the pact does not mean Finland, which already trains and works closely with NATO in international operations, is joining the alliance.

Opinion polls in neighboring Finland and Sweden show majority opposition to NATO membership. Finland shares a 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) border with Russia.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/finland-sweden-increase-ties-nato-25140882

 

Goverment keen on Nato forces in Sweden

Published: 27 Aug 2014 10:50 GMT+02:00

Updated: 27 Aug 2014 10:50 GMT+02:00

Nato will soon be able to deploy military forces to Sweden with the government likely to sign an agreement with the military alliance this week, but an expert told The Local that full membership remains unlikely.

Defence Minister Karin Enström told the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper that the decision could be approved on Thursday. The move follows months of speculation after the Swedish military requested the government to discuss the matter with Nato last autumn.

Talks are believed to now be complete with both Sweden and Nordic neighbours Finland set to sign up to the deal.

Under the 'host country agreement' Nato would be able to carry out military training in Sweden. The agreement would also allow a guarantee that transportation of troops by land, air or sea could be carried out safely.

"We have come very far and it may be a government decision on Thursday," Enström told the newspaper.

Enström said that the agreement would mean that Nato would not be able to deploy in Sweden against the government's wishes.

The decision is unlikely to be a precursor to Sweden signing up to become a fully-fledged member of the alliance according to the National Defence College (Försvarshögskolan).

"This is really a case of Sweden wanting to show that they have done their homework and have something to show at the Nato summit in Wales next month," Magnus Christensson, military strategist at the defence college told The Local.

He added; "Sweden is part of a frontrunner group discussing enhanced opportunities within Nato and this agreement is a part of that. I don't think we can say this is the latest step to full membership but Sweden is certainly becoming closer to Nato."

Election favourites the Social Democrats have long been opposed to joining the military alliance. Christensson said Nato wouldn't be an election issue as he felt none of the parties had anything to gain by making it a topic at the polls.

"In order for Sweden to become a full member of Nato there would need to be a serious threat and right now Russia is making a case for that. Being outside would also need to come at a cost and the Social Democrats would need to change their attitude on the matter completely."

Sweden has participated in Nato operations since the Bosnian war in the early nineties. In March The Local reported that over a thousand Swedish troops participated in a Nato training exercise close to the Russian border.

In a recent survey one in three Swedes support the prospect of the country joining Nato. Sweden is currently a Nato partner, not a member, will full membership long a bone of contention between the major political parties.

 

http://www.thelocal.se/20140827/swedish-government-to-allow-nato-to-deploy-troops

[swerve]

Ooooh! Proper Arctic training grounds! Snowy forests, frozen lakes! And that bloody great big range at Vidsel!

Edited August 27, 2014 by swerve

[mnm]

Who of you borrowed my Pershing III plans and forgot to return them?

[BansheeOne]

Sorry.

[wendist]

As far as Sweden, its not quite the sea change it appears. I gather in the 1950s there was an agreement with Sweden to allow emergency use of bases for recovery by strategic bombers attacking the USSR, and some bases were lengthened with this in mind. Also, I gather that Dakota spyplane that was shot down (and rediscovered and recovered only a few years ago) may have had some British made electronic surveillance equipment on board, which to my mind suggests some British involvement in the intelligence take. So there were clearly some pretty close ties at the early stages of the cold war.

 

That said, actually training in Sweden IS new. Im sure the Commandos will just love to do that. Ditto Finland. Suddenly even the Baltic states look more secure, simply because there is somewhere reasonably out of reach Nato airpower can stage out of.

 

Suddenly it looks like overflying the Vikings airspace looks very, very counter productive.

There were very close ties throughout the cold war.

 

NATO knew this, obviously.

 

The Russians knew it,through their spies.

 

A select few among Swedens political and military elite knew, since they were the contact link.

 

The only ones who didn´t know where the ordinary Swedes, because they weren´t trusted.

 

From a democracy point of view, not our finest moment.

 

As for training British troops in Sweden, that´s not new.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmUvI1-R0U

[mnm]

Sorry.

 

Damn!

[BansheeOne]

Seven NATO allies to create new rapid reaction force-report

 

BRUSSELS Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:41pm EDT

 

Aug 29 (Reuters) - Seven NATO allies plan to create a new rapid reaction force of at least 10,000 soldiers as part of plans to boost NATO defences in response to Russia's intervention in Ukraine, the Financial Times reported on Friday.

 

The aim is to create a division-sized joint expeditionary force for rapid deployment and regular exercises. The British-led force would include air and naval units as well as ground troops, the newspaper said.

 

Countries involved include Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway and the Netherlands. Canada has also expressed an interest in taking part, it said.

 

British Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to announce the creation of the force next week, coinciding with the Sept. 4-5 NATO summit in Wales.

 

Since Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea region in March, NATO members have taken a number of short-term steps to reinforce the security of allies in eastern Europe that are worried by Russia's new assertiveness.

 

At the Wales summit next week, U.S. President Barack Obama and other NATO leaders are expected to agree on a longer-term plan for boosting NATO's eastern defences.

 

One element of the plan will be shaking up NATO's existing rapid reaction force so that some units of it are capable of responding to a crisis in a few days, NATO diplomats say.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/29/ukraine-crisis-nato-military-idUSL5N0QZ5KE20140829

[Simon Tan]

It's all going to plan. Obama will not need to leave office in ignominy. He will go out in thermonuclear fire!

[bd1]

 

It's all going to plan. Obama will not need to leave office in ignominy. He will go out in thermonuclear fire!

Well at least there wont be any time to ask for the Nobel Prize back.

 

 

Seven NATO allies to create new rapid reaction force-report

 

 

Countries involved include Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway and the Netherlands. Canada has also expressed an interest in taking part, it said.

 

 

I like it! All ex Viking nations. Putin is screwed.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

while all others could claim some sort of viking connection*, i´m bit doubtful about netherlands and lithuania

 

also, will this multinational division called Wiking? i´m sure mother russia´s favourite lilliputin will have a stroke on this

 

 

 

* pre-conquest estonian and livonian/latvian tribes had long sea piracy/raiding traditions, amongst them burning down the first capital of sweden

Edited August 30, 2014 by bd1

[Colin]

It's all going to plan. Obama will not need to leave office in ignominy. He will go out in thermonuclear fire!

The first Black President to launch a Tactical Nuclear strike?

[BansheeOne]

With developments over the last days making direct Russian engagement in Ukraine all but obvious, bases with rotating personnel to abide by the letter of the NATO-Russia Act are actually a minor issue. I expect the real debate will soon be about combat troops in the Baltic States and what good the act is at all anymore.

 

Spiegel Online reports that Poland, the Baltic States and Canada want NATO to revoke the NATO-Russia Founding Act since Putin isn't adhering to any treaties anyway. Germany is against this so far, but government sources acknowledge that this position gets harder to maintain with every new Russian move. At the same time Germany is offering to contribute a Bundeswehr company to the second rotation replacing the current US battalion group (currently from 173rd Airborne Brigade, to be replaced by 1st Brigade 1st Cavalry Division troops from October) spread throughout Poland and the Baltic States.

 

As for the British-led quick reaction force, the participation of the Dutch indicates to me that this will involve the UK/NL Landing Force, which would make sense. Not sure about Denmark since Danish Division has so far been assigned to MN Corps Northeast on what would be a parallel mission, but the Danes have voiced interest in particpating in ARRC instead before. But in a tri-service force of 10,000, I would expect the ground element to maybe constitute two thirds, so it's possible the "Vikings" contribute mostly air and naval assets; for far-off Canada, I guess aircraft would make the most sense for quick reaction anyway, unless they want to return to permanent basing of troops in Europe.

[Simon Tan]

Oh....what would RusAms do.....holidaying Jaegerbattalions......

[wendist]

 

 

As far as Sweden, its not quite the sea change it appears. I gather in the 1950s there was an agreement with Sweden to allow emergency use of bases for recovery by strategic bombers attacking the USSR, and some bases were lengthened with this in mind. Also, I gather that Dakota spyplane that was shot down (and rediscovered and recovered only a few years ago) may have had some British made electronic surveillance equipment on board, which to my mind suggests some British involvement in the intelligence take. So there were clearly some pretty close ties at the early stages of the cold war.

 

That said, actually training in Sweden IS new. Im sure the Commandos will just love to do that. Ditto Finland. Suddenly even the Baltic states look more secure, simply because there is somewhere reasonably out of reach Nato airpower can stage out of.

 

Suddenly it looks like overflying the Vikings airspace looks very, very counter productive.

There were very close ties throughout the cold war.

 

NATO knew this, obviously.

 

The Russians knew it,through their spies.

 

A select few among Swedens political and military elite knew, since they were the contact link.

 

The only ones who didn´t know where the ordinary Swedes, because they weren´t trusted.

 

From a democracy point of view, not our finest moment.

 

As for training British troops in Sweden, that´s not new.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmUvI1-R0U

 

Thats fascinating, Id not heard of that before. Nice boats too.

 

Re close ties, well Im in two minds whether that was still true in the 1980s. There was a LOT of evidence that it was NATO submarines infringing Swedish neturality, presumably to try and spur either some military investment, or try and stir some discontent with the USSR. There was something about this discussed on the PHP website as I recall.

 

That said, it wasnt like the Swedish really needed much stirring, as we saw with the Whiskey on the rocks incident.....

 

Well Stuart, you aren´t the only one to speculate about those "subs"! It has been analyzed ad nausea over here and we will most probably never know the full truth.

 

I believe the three most popular theories are

 

1. Actual submarines (NATO or WP)

 

2. Various animals

 

3. Poltergeists/Aliens

 

Take your pick.

 

The strongest argument against NATO subs is, I believe, that it would have been a PR disaster if they had been found out. The Soviets were apparently reckless enough, or incompetent enough, to get caught and they paid the price for that.

[wendist]

Well, looked at from another perspective, the Swedish navy may have known nato boats would be going through, raised a ruckus without actually intending catching them, and fufilled 2 aims. Firstly Nato discredits the USSR (and its not like they didnt infringe Swedish territory anyway). And the Swedish get more money for ASW. Everyone wins, except the Swedish taxpayer.

 

Although I do like the idea of aliens trying to start WW3. It dovetails nicely with the Ghost Rockets of '47. D

 

Be interesting to see if the fun and games start again. Its pretty clear they are trying to intimidate Sweden. Which is pretty clueless, all they are doing is pushing it closer to Nato.

Yeah that kind of conspiracy theories have been raised. I have two problems with that.

 

1. The idea that high ranking swedish officers were conspiring with foreign powers in order to change Swedish policy (AKA treason) is not something I look kindly upon. It doesn´t matter that the cause was good or the foreign powers were ever so friendly.

 

2. By doing this the Swedish navy might do more harm than good. Increased ASW capabilities, to fight a partially illusory threat, might not be what Sweden needed most at that time.

 

In all honesty I don´t believe it was NATO subs. Soviet subs or swedish sea otters are the most likely culprits.

 

Todays Swedish defense politics is both fun and depressing to watch, with a general election coming up and the Russians reemerging as the great boogeyman. We have a room full of elephants and a bunch of politicians tap dancing around terrified that they might bump into one of them.

[BansheeOne]

UK Proposes Joint NATO Expeditionary Force

Sep. 2, 2014 - 06:10PM | By PIERRE TRAN

PARIS — Britain expects to sign at the upcoming NATO summit meeting a letter of intent with six partner nations to form a joint expeditionary force, separate from the alliance’s plan to forge a very high readiness force to act as spearhead for the NATO response force, British officials said Sept. 1.

Both projects stem from the deepening Ukraine crisis, as NATO members and partner nations in Eastern Europe and the Nordic states seek to counter a rise in the perceived military threat from Russia.

Leaders of the 28 NATO members and partner states are due to meet on Sept. 4 and 5 in the Welsh city Newport, the first summit to be held in Britain since 1990, just as the Cold War ended and Margaret Thatcher was the UK prime minister.

Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko will be at the summit, but Russian leader Vladimir Putin will not, a British official said.

The British plan runs in parallel to a German framework nation initiative, in which Berlin will work with some 10 East European partner nations to boost their capabilities, the officials said.

The British-led joint expeditionary force would work with the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and with the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. Britain would focus on operations and train small units, drawing on its experience with France in forming a joint expeditionary force.

The British-led force would be separate but complementary to the NATO very high readiness force outlined Sept. 1 by alliance chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

The alliance plans to set up a “spearhead” to the NATO rapid force, led under a six-month country rotation and consisting of several thousand troops, with air, sea and special forces support, Rasmussen said. The plan would establish reception facilities, prepositioned equipment and supplies, command and control, and logistics exports, Rasmussen said.

“The aim is to travel light, but strike hard if needed,” he said. “We must face the reality that Russia does not consider NATO a partner. We can see in Russian military documents, we can listen to statements from Russian political leaders that they consider NATO an adversary. …We will adapt to that situation,” he said.

The issue of the French sale of the two Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia is not on the summit agenda, a British official said.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140902/DEFREG01/309020023/UK-Proposes-Joint-NATO-Expeditionary-Force

 

NATO Endorses Rapid-Response Force to Tackle Russia in Eastern Europe

In a move that comes amid Cold War fears and references to World War II, NATO allies this week are expected to back the use of a rapid-reaction force that can swoop into hot spots in Eastern Europe. At a moment’s notice, 4,000 troops would be deployed within 48 hours into these troubled territories — a military maneuver supported by the former Soviet states feeling threatened by Russia.

“We have to make sure the deterrence is strong enough so it will become unthinkable for Russia to go beyond (Ukraine),” Estonian Prime Minister Taavi Roivas told Reuters on Tuesday, referring to Moscow’s actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

The troops would come from NATO’s 28-member countries, and weapons and equipment would be stockpiled in Eastern Europe for easy access, officials first announced Monday. NATO is trying to preempt potential Russian aggression against former Soviet states, including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — all countries that President Barack Obama will meet with ahead of the NATO summit this Thursday and Friday.

[...]

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/nato-endorses-rapid-response-force-tackle-russia-eastern-europe-n193921

[BansheeOne]

While this is nothing final, I'm actually slightly surprised.

 

France suspends delivery of first Mistral helicopter carrier to Russia

 

Latest update : 2014-09-03

 

The French government can not go ahead with the planned delivery of a first of two Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia, the president’s office said in a statement on Wednesday, citing Moscow’s recent actions in eastern Ukraine.

 

“The president of the Republic has concluded that despite the prospect of ceasefire, which has yet to be confirmed and put in place, the conditions under which France could authorise the delivery of the first helicopter carrier are not in place,” President François Hollande’s office said.

 

http://www.france24.com/en/20140903-france-suspends-plans-deliver-first-mistral-helicopter-carrier-russia/

[urbanoid]

Too sensible, no chance.

[bd1]

4000 troops? They better make sure they have a LOT of airpower to back them up.

 

 

at tallinn obama talked about nato-nordic regional air training center at Ämari afb, estonia . sorry, no closer details now

[bojan]

If French kill a Mistral deal who will be mad to order anything from them in future*?

Most of their staff is overpriced (even if top class), and only thing that kept France in arms market is a fact they did not ask lot of questions, so "questionable" countries could order from them and expect kit delivered w/o much politics involved.

*5$ Indians cancel Raphale deal if Mistrals get canceled. Pity.

Edited September 3, 2014 by bojan

[Gregory]

If French kill a Mistral deal who will be mad to order anything from them in future*?

Most of their staff is overpriced (even if top class), and only thing that kept France in arms market is a fact they did not ask lot of questions, so "questionable" countries could order from them and expect kit delivered w/o much politics involved.

*5$ Indians cancel Raphale deal if Mistrals get canceled. Pity.

You mean if French act like US (Pakistani F-16s) or Russia (Iranian S-300s), nobody will buy from them any more? Last I checked, US and Russia were #1 and #2 in arms exports.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Gregory