Meanwhile In The Baltic Republics And Poland...

[Adam Peter]

I was reading an interesting article the other day that suggests that Crimea, when looked at the evidence, was not decided upon until maybe 2 days before it happened.

 

Really? Then how long is General Breedlove's decision cycle?

[Stuart Galbraith]

BTW, best way to stop Russian 'deescalatory strikes'. Contentious, but I think it might actually work. GIve the Polish dual Key nuclear weapons. They have the aircraft that can make it work, and its an appropriate response to parking nuclear tipped Iskanders in Kaliningrad and possibly Belarus.

 

Not sure NATO is quite ready for that, but its an appropriate response. Particularly if the yanks forward deployed a Squadron of Strike Eagles to back it up.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I was reading an interesting article the other day that suggests that Crimea, when looked at the evidence, was not decided upon until maybe 2 days before it happened.

 

Really? Then how long is General Breedlove's decision cycle?

 

Oh, that was the decision to actually undertake the operation. The actual military planning seemed already done and ready to go.

 

Really when you think about it, the best example of NATO political military decision making was the Yugoslav war. Which considering how long it took suggests that we might have problems doing better.

[Dark_Falcon]

BTW, best way to stop Russian 'deescalatory strikes'. Contentious, but I think it might actually work. GIve the Polish dual Key nuclear weapons. They have the aircraft that can make it work, and its an appropriate response to parking nuclear tipped Iskanders in Kaliningrad and possibly Belarus.

 

Not sure NATO is quite ready for that, but its an appropriate response. Particularly if the yanks forward deployed a Squadron of Strike Eagles to back it up.

 

I don't agree. Leaving aside the Non-Proliferation Treaty violation that would likely represent, moving nukes close to Russia like that would be seen by Russia as a major escalation and quite possibly a causus belli in and of itself. We'd have better luck stationing non-nuclear precision-strike weapons at airfields in Europe.

[Chris Werb]

Stuart, do you think the Estonian military and supporting NATO assets might have something to say about a Spetsnaz brigade driving down a number of very obvious routes (and presumably also doing so down railway lines Buster Keaton style in hand operated rail cars), let alone trying to hold multiple 100-200 km long roads and railway lines?

[carrierlost]

While we are discussing bridge droping. EDF is actually training pioneers for that. A soviet era 80 ton capacity bridge was dismanteled in Estonia this winter. There are many similar bridges in Estonia. Firstly the bridge was load tested on how much actual weigth it could take before it would have permanent deformations.

It apparently could take 290.

 

Then it was taken to bits and transported to army training area where it's beams will be used for practical bridge dropping training.

 

 

Video here: http://uudised.err.ee/v/eesti/addab794-beee-44ce-b470-aaea453d551f/sarevere-vana-silla-betoontalad-lahevad-ajateenijatele-oppematerjaliks

[BansheeOne]

I don't agree. Leaving aside the Non-Proliferation Treaty violation that would likely represent, moving nukes close to Russia like that would be seen by Russia as a major escalation and quite possibly a causus belli in and of itself. We'd have better luck stationing non-nuclear precision-strike weapons at airfields in Europe.

 

The NPT was never seen as a problem by either the US or USSR in providing nuclear warheads for potential wartime use for their respective allies, and Russia has only discovered the continued practice in NATO as a problem in that respect recently. However, the NATO-Russia Founding Act which NATO is skirting carefully by only basing non-substantial forces non-permanently in Eastern Europe also excludes nuclear weapons from being deployed there, with none such qualifications.

[glenn239]

Now you've scared him off -

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/where-is-vladimir-putin-russian-president-cancels-string-of-meetings-after-prolonged-public-absence/ar-BBu0S8c?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp

[JasonJ]

Now you've scared him off -

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/where-is-vladimir-putin-russian-president-cancels-string-of-meetings-after-prolonged-public-absence/ar-BBu0S8c?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp

Went to cry together with Xi. They both have been victimized.

[Chris Werb]

Or he's in a command bunker somewhere in the Western MD, supervising final preparations for the annexation of the Baltic Republics....

[Dark_Falcon]

Nothing's slowing down in Kaliningrad:

 

 

KALININGRAD, Russia (Reuters) - On the curbside outside the civilian airport in Kaliningrad, Russia's Baltic Sea outpost, a group of about 20 servicemen in Russian navy uniforms lined up earlier this month, waiting for a bus to take them to their base.

"We are an additional reinforcement," one of the young men, who said he and his colleagues had flown in that day, told Reuters as they waited on the rain-soaked tarmac. He gave no further details.

Russia and NATO are each building up their military capability across eastern Europe, spurred by the conflict in Ukraine which has prompted officials on both sides to talk of the risk of a new, Cold War-style confrontation.

For Russia, a strategic centerpiece is here in Kaliningrad. A relic of the Soviet Union, it is a small piece of Russian territory sandwiched between NATO members Poland and Lithuania, allowing the Kremlin to project its military power into the alliance's northern flank.

During a three-day visit by Reuters earlier this month, there was ample visible evidence of Russia enhancing its military presence.

Trucks moved military equipment from a port to locations inland, small groups of servicemen flew in, work was under way to boost security near one base and extensive construction was taking place at another base housing a military radar system.

Reuters was able to see only a glimpse of what the Russian military is doing in Kaliningrad. Much of the region is off-limits to foreigners without a special permit and at one point men in civilian clothes ordered photos of military infrastructure deleted. The Russian defense ministry did not respond to questions about its deployments in Kaliningrad.

But much of the activity tallied with what military analysts and Western diplomats say Russia is doing: preparing to station new missiles in Kaliningrad and build a web of anti-aircraft systems that could challenge NATO aircraft over the Baltic states and parts of Poland.

Russia's military build-up will be on the agenda when leaders of NATO member states meet in Warsaw on July 8 for an alliance summit. Russia says it has been forced to respond because NATO is drawing closer to its borders.

"When it comes to threats in the (Kaliningrad) area, indeed we can talk of an increase in the intensity of Russia's aggression in recent days," Poland's Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz told Reuters.

"These threats have a very important, dangerous role, always present in NATO's thinking – these are anti-access activities, which are a serious threat to the alliance.”

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

BTW, best way to stop Russian 'deescalatory strikes'. Contentious, but I think it might actually work. GIve the Polish dual Key nuclear weapons. They have the aircraft that can make it work, and its an appropriate response to parking nuclear tipped Iskanders in Kaliningrad and possibly Belarus.

 

Not sure NATO is quite ready for that, but its an appropriate response. Particularly if the yanks forward deployed a Squadron of Strike Eagles to back it up.

 

I don't agree. Leaving aside the Non-Proliferation Treaty violation that would likely represent, moving nukes close to Russia like that would be seen by Russia as a major escalation and quite possibly a causus belli in and of itself. We'd have better luck stationing non-nuclear precision-strike weapons at airfields in Europe.

 

Would it though? I mean we assigned dual key nuclear weapons to the West Germans in the cold war. We didnt essentially 'give' them, the USAF retained them until such a time as they would be necessary for use, and then it was to be used under NATO control systems. Same as USAF Hydrogen bombs for the V Force in the late 50s. Im not sure doing the same thing for the Poles would violate anything, unless you just 'gave' them the weapons to use as they saw fit.

 

Or has there been some modification to the treaty that im not aware of?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Stuart, do you think the Estonian military and supporting NATO assets might have something to say about a Spetsnaz brigade driving down a number of very obvious routes (and presumably also doing so down railway lines Buster Keaton style in hand operated rail cars), let alone trying to hold multiple 100-200 km long roads and railway lines?

Chris, I think you understand my logic. Im not saying they would, or indeed should, use railway lines in the Baltic states at all. Im talking about how they would maintain and keep them open on their side of the border. That is the most extensive sections of track after all.

 

As soon as a unit gets to Narva or Pskov, they will debus, either equipment or supplies. It makes no sense to use any of the track network in Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia. The distances are so short you can easily drive those distances, and they invite easy destruction whilst still embarked on the back of flatcars. I think the armies have adequate capablity for logistic supply, at least over short distances from Railhead to unit.

 

Spetsnaz would be good for fighting through heavily forested areas, and I think they have the equipment and training to perform a useful seizure of choke points and vital locations (which is pretty much what they did in Crimea after all). But equally, there is only 3 battalions to a brigade, they would need substantial reinforcement as they are going to be inferior in numbers to local forces.

 

I idly wonder if they just used Spetsnaz brigades whether they could make this work. In theory they could easily outnumber local forces if they brought in about 6 Brigades. That should be well within their capability, they are light after all.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I don't agree. Leaving aside the Non-Proliferation Treaty violation that would likely represent, moving nukes close to Russia like that would be seen by Russia as a major escalation and quite possibly a causus belli in and of itself. We'd have better luck stationing non-nuclear precision-strike weapons at airfields in Europe.

 

The NPT was never seen as a problem by either the US or USSR in providing nuclear warheads for potential wartime use for their respective allies, and Russia has only discovered the continued practice in NATO as a problem in that respect recently. However, the NATO-Russia Founding Act which NATO is skirting carefully by only basing non-substantial forces non-permanently in Eastern Europe also excludes nuclear weapons from being deployed there, with none such qualifications.

 

Yes thats right.

 

What if they put in a nuclear storage point in, for example, Denmark, and positioned a flight of Polish fighters there as a QRA? Alright its a clunky solution, and yet it demonstrates a direct linkage between 3 Nato nations, and provides a viable nuclear response in the event (God Forbid) it all goes Pete Tong.

 

Or if the danes dont like it, park them in the UK. It hardly matters where they get parked as long as you have a tanker force assigned ready to support it.

 

I cant help but think, if Russia does indeed deploy nuclear tipped Iskanders into Kaliningrad, the NATO-Russia founding act is being flushed down the toilet anyway. Making noises about just this kind of response might just be enough to stop them doing it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

While we are discussing bridge droping. EDF is actually training pioneers for that. A soviet era 80 ton capacity bridge was dismanteled in Estonia this winter. There are many similar bridges in Estonia. Firstly the bridge was load tested on how much actual weigth it could take before it would have permanent deformations.

It apparently could take 290.

 

Then it was taken to bits and transported to army training area where it's beams will be used for practical bridge dropping training.

 

 

Video here: http://uudised.err.ee/v/eesti/addab794-beee-44ce-b470-aaea453d551f/sarevere-vana-silla-betoontalad-lahevad-ajateenijatele-oppematerjaliks

Very practical.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Or he's in a command bunker somewhere in the Western MD, supervising final preparations for the annexation of the Baltic Republics....

Nah, I reckon if you checked the Belgravia Centre lists for a 'Max von Steirlitz' he would turn up.

http://www.belgraviacentre.com/

 

He does this from time to time. I idly wonder if he does it to see if anyone is going to make a move on him whilst he is absent.

[Roman Alymov]

Taking into consideration his age, stress and workload of his job – I think his health is far from perfect actually, and he need prolonged medical attention from time to time. It is normal.

 

Few days ago, at 20th anniversary of 1996 elections, it was long (>1hour) interview on Russia-24 TV with Zuganov. In addition to totaled explanation of his party actions following election fraud (that seems to be officially recognized in Russia now) and plans for parliamentary elections this summer, in last sentence of the interview, he pointed out that we are to expect early presidential elections.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Roman Alymov

[Stuart Galbraith]

Taking into consideration his age, stress and workload of his job – I think his health is far from perfect actually, and he need prolonged medical attention from time to time. It is normal.

 

Few days ago, at 20th anniversary of 1996 elections, it was long (>1hour) interview on Russia-24 TV with Zuganov. In addition to totaled explanation of his party actions following election fraud (that seems to be officially recognized in Russia now) and plans for parliamentary elections this summer, in last sentence of the interview, he pointed out that we are to expect early presidential elections.

Really? Thats very interesting. I think he can hold off to 2018 if he chooses cant he?

[Roman Alymov]

 

Taking into consideration his age, stress and workload of his job – I think his health is far from perfect actually, and he need prolonged medical attention from time to time. It is normal.

 

Few days ago, at 20th anniversary of 1996 elections, it was long (>1hour) interview on Russia-24 TV with Zuganov. In addition to totaled explanation of his party actions following election fraud (that seems to be officially recognized in Russia now) and plans for parliamentary elections this summer, in last sentence of the interview, he pointed out that we are to expect early presidential elections.

Really? Thats very interesting. I think he can hold off to 2018 if he chooses cant he?

 

He is old man now, and (as he allowed himself to be thrown out from 1996 election) he is hardly man able to control Russia even when he was 20 years younger. We need new people. Personally I would like to see somebody like Chaly as Russian President, but it is not realistic, and Chaly is not bureaucratic enough.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Roman Alymov

[Stuart Galbraith]

Most likely Medvedev do you think?

[Chris Werb]

Stuart, seizing choke points is a means of preventing enemy movement. It doesn't help your own movement as, however secure that node is it won't prevent the enemy interdicting the hundreds of km of road or rail between them. Even if the Russians stuck to roads to resupply, they would have a several to four hundred km round trip to get supplies from a railhead that itself woukd be under attack at the end of an easily interdicted rail route. If you look at aap of Lithuania you'll see roads are pretty scarce there too. If they want to waste a spetsnaz brigade hunting elusive defenders in gigantic forests, so much the better.

[BansheeOne]

What if they put in a nuclear storage point in, for example, Denmark, and positioned a flight of Polish fighters there as a QRA? Alright its a clunky solution, and yet it demonstrates a direct linkage between 3 Nato nations, and provides a viable nuclear response in the event (God Forbid) it all goes Pete Tong.

 

Or if the danes dont like it, park them in the UK. It hardly matters where they get parked as long as you have a tanker force assigned ready to support it.

 

In fact I thought of such a solution. East Germany is also a nuclear weapons-free zone under the 2+4 Treaty, but all other Western alliance territory would be good (ETA: The Danish island of Bornholm is really close, but it only has a small civilian airport). The nearest actual storage site under NATO's nuclear participation scheme is Büchel in Germany, where an estimated 10-20 B61 are kept for potential use by German Tornados; others are Volkel in the Netherlands, and Kleine Brogel in Belgium.

 

Storage in Germany has been ever-controversial, and the last three German governments have paid lip service to getting rid of the weapons, mostly pointing out that the Tornados will be retired at some point and the Eurofighter is not cleared for nuclear weapons delivery; but as far back as the 2012 Chicago NATO summit, they have quietly gone along with plans to keep and even modernize them in concert with the other allies, particularly from Eastern Europe. In fact an early draft of the this year's aviation strategy of the Luftwaffe mentioned that the planned successor system to Tornado would have to fulfill the nuclear participation role, though the reference was ommitted from the eventual published version.

 

Personally, I'd think it fun to tell the anti-nuke protesters "okay, the Luftwaffe is getting out of nuclear participation. Instead, Poland is going to base a detachment for that purpose at Büchel". Of course realistically, any solution involving basing in a third nation would probably amount to a triple-key scheme. And yeah, it would be an awkward construct for purely political purposes under the best of circumstances, but sometimes such constructs fulfill their purpose. Though I think we're a long way from needing this.

Edited July 7, 2016 by BansheeOne

[Stuart Galbraith]

If you said 'interdictable rail route' I would entirely agree. Im not sure I entirely agree over 'easily interdictable'. For one thing Western Russia has in a number of locations S300 batteries. I was idly wondering why the hell they were there, but there might be some coverage of these units over those rail routes. And secondly, they do have a Mig31 regiment (or it might be a composite with a SU27 squadron) roughly halfway between Moscow and Pskov (I forget the name but its somewhere to the Northeast of Velikie Luki) that is going to make rail interdiction by aircraft a difficult job. In wartime with reinforcement its not going to get any easier.

 

Basically we are judging such a rail campaign based on easy access, as we found in Iraq the second time. I have to point to that Yugoslavia not being anywhere near as easy as we thought, and Iraq in 1991 was only achieveable because of some gee whizz tech and people willing to take risks (the helicopter radar strike is a case in point).

 

Physically destroying a rail line is not difficult. Keeping it destroyed is difficult from the WW2 experience. Keeping it destroyed whilst its under decent air defence systems and air cover might be asking just a bit much without taking prodigious casualties. Its worth noting that some of the Western District armies maintain what were divisional air defence systems under their control (im sure ive seem one equpped with Buk. Perhaps they are planning on using these to defend logistic routes.

 

Incidentally, Russian trucks. Have you tried Spintires yet?

Edited July 7, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Chris Werb]

Whether a nuclear weapon is tactical or strategic depends on where it lands not how it got there. Therefore NATO has no shortage of survivable tactical nukes. That's the least of our worries.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

What if they put in a nuclear storage point in, for example, Denmark, and positioned a flight of Polish fighters there as a QRA? Alright its a clunky solution, and yet it demonstrates a direct linkage between 3 Nato nations, and provides a viable nuclear response in the event (God Forbid) it all goes Pete Tong.

 

Or if the danes dont like it, park them in the UK. It hardly matters where they get parked as long as you have a tanker force assigned ready to support it.

 

In fact I thought of such a solution. East Germany is also a nuclear weapons-free zone under the 2+4 Treaty, but all other Western alliance territory would be good (ETA: The Danish island of Bornholm is really close, but it only has a small civilian airport). The nearest actual storage site under NATO's nuclear participation scheme is Büchel in Germany, where an estimated 10-20 B61 are kept for potential use by German Tornados; others are Volkel in the Netherlands, and Kleine Brogel in Belgium.

 

Storage in Germany has been ever-controversial, and the last three German governments have paid lip service to getting rid of the weapons, mostly pointing out that the Tornados will be retired at some point and the Eurofighter is not cleared for nuclear weapons delivery; but as far back as the 2012 Chicago NATO summit, they have quietly gone along with plans to keep and even modernize them in concert with the other allies, particularly from Eastern Europe. In fact an early draft of the this year's aviation strategy of the Luftwaffe mentioned that the planned successor system to Tornado would have to fulfill the nuclear participation role, though the reference was ommitted from the eventual published version.

 

Personally, I'd think it fun to tell the anti-nuke protesters "okay, the Luftwaffe is getting out of nuclear participation. Instead, Poland is going to base a detachment for that purpose at Büchel". Of course realistically, any solution involving basing in a third nation would probably amount to a triple-key scheme. And yeah, it would be an awkward construct for purely political purposes under the best of circumstances, but sometimes such constructs fulfill their purpose. Though I think we're a long way from needing this.

 

Bornholm is a good idea. Though it is strategically vulnerable, particularly to cruise missile attack. Id prefer someone that is a bit more removed and more defensible, but politically I can see the sense of doing that.

 

I hadn't realised that about Eurofighter. I idly wonder if the MOD is realising its talking itself out of the NATO TNF by withdrawing Tornado?Maybe that commends basing a NATO TNF force here. Basing it on a nation state with an independent nuclear capablity means that its not quite so easy to remove from the map with a bucket of sunshine and avoid retaliation. Though whether the Russian General staff will see it the same way is another matter.

 

I dont know, nuclear armed Poles is just something that makes me chuckle. Not a Dr Evil kind of chuckle, but chuckle nonetheless.