Meanwhile In The Baltic Republics And Poland...

[glenn239]

Stuart NATO is solid because it has never been tested. I cant shake off the awkward feeling that if it was seriously put to a test, the wheels would come off.

 

 

 

NATO vs. Russia is unprecedented in history. There has never been a war where one side was capable of the practical annihilation of the other while being hopelessly outgunned on the battlefield. About the nearest might have been when the Syrian armor fleetingly broke through on the Golan Heights in 1973 and Damascus might in that moment have asked itself what exactly it was attempting to accomplish? Yours and Chris’s ideas about deterrence are all fine in theory but in practice your kinda trying to deter the aggressive driving of a rusty 1980’s Dodge Ram by threatening to run into it with our Lamborghini Aventador.

[glenn239]

Chris Werb 1. The ability to seriously screw up any attempt to invade a NATO country by hitting targets deep behind the front line. Logistics, IADS, command centres etc. which they have invested a lot of money in SAMS and FCS to stop us hitting with aircraft.

 

 

 

Can we interdict them better in Eastern Europe than they can interdict us getting to Eastern Europe?

 

 

2. The ability to go after civilian infrastructure deep inside Western Russia conventionally to deter them from taking out our power grid, air traffic control centres, stock exchange etc.

 

 

 

See above post. Consider the possibility the Russians view NATO as an artificial holdover from the Cold War, sort of a vestige of American global power projection that is now obsolete, but like a headless chicken is still running around the yard. If this were the case then what Russia wants to do is to get Europe to view the Americans as dangerous interlopers than no longer belong in Europe. When you look at it that way, does your strategy help the Russians to get Europeans to think that and are Great Powers more or less likely to be deterred if the other guy is doing something to help them achieve their objective?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Russia holds a nuclear exercise, including antisabotage drills. Shades of the 1980s and USAEUR Pershing guard units. Interesting BTR80 based command vehicles too.

https://www.rt.com/news/350686-mobile-icbm-drills-countersabotage/

[Stuart Galbraith]

Pretty sure they had one of these in 'Xcom, enemy unknown;'.

[Gregory]

Pretty sure they had one of these in 'Xcom, enemy unknown;'.

1) I think that deploying a million dollar system like that armed with just a machine gun a is a huge waste.

2) Why are the soldiers wearing essentially Soviet-era kit? You'd think for a high-tech demo they would bring out something more modern.

[Chris Werb]

Glenn, conventional MAD was exactly where I was going, but with the proviso that we don't hurt them any worse than they hurt us. We can also be quite explicit about what we would do in X situation in advance.

 

Can they interdict us getting to Eastern Europe better than we can interdict them getting there. That's partly why I wanted the 100 and 500km conventional missiles in place, to at least even things up by slowing them down. By and large our reinforcements have to get there from further away, but they arguably have worse and more vulnerable transport links. A lot depends on how many standoff weapons they have (the greatest unknown IMHO), how accurate they are and whether they are willing to use them on dual use infrastructure - I think the latter is a given, given recent events in Syria.

 

Re Stuart: Problem is when you look at Western Russia, I mean no disrespect, but you dont see first class roads. You dont see much high speed rail. There are not masses of bridges you can destroy. Just lots and lots of forest. What exactly are we targeting?

 

That's exactly it. They don't have many main roads and rail lines to use. They won't be bringing in tanks on high speed trains either. Those bridges you can destroy are much more vital due to the sparse and parallel/linear nature of their rail and road networks. As to a politician not wanting to end up in the Hague, do you think he'd rather be lynched by his own population for letting them sit in the cold and dark starving?

 

To be honest, I'm still having a very hard time seeing the Russians invading the Baltic Republics and I don't think we need to do that much, in comparison with other NATO spending, to assist them. The cost of one F-35 would arguably give Latvia a pretty potent ATGW capabilty or a lot of AT mines, for instance. Where I am more worried is things potentially really kicking off in the Ukraine and spilling over.

[swerve]

Yes, a sparse network of railways & major roads & a lot of forests don't make it harder for an enemy to interdict movement & resupply of mechanised troops, but easier. Fewer ways to bypass any holes,

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Pretty sure they had one of these in 'Xcom, enemy unknown;'.

1) I think that deploying a million dollar system like that armed with just a machine gun a is a huge waste.

2) Why are the soldiers wearing essentially Soviet-era kit? You'd think for a high-tech demo they would bring out something more modern.

 

VDV get everything new I think. I seem to recall there was some new coms kit, and they got it first too. You would have thought strategic rocket forces would have got it first, but maybe they just want the Paras to iron the bugs out for them.

 

If I was fielding that, Id mount at least a 40mm grenade launcher on it. Or an 82 mm mortar. Must surely be up to someone to develop a breachloading version with autoloader.

[glenn239]

Chris Werb Glenn, conventional MAD was exactly where I was going, but with the proviso that we don't hurt them any worse than they hurt us. We can also be quite explicit about what we would do in X situation in advance.

 

 

It doesn’t make sense for the side with twenty times the economy of the other to be making this type of threat. The future of Western prosperity and democracy cannot be on the table regardless of the outcome in the Baltic States. Making explicit threats will compound the error because more information about USAF targeting in Russia will allow the EU to better predict just how catastrophic the retaliatory impact could be on the EU, which will lead to tensions between Europe and the United States.

 

Where I am more worried is things potentially really kicking off in the Ukraine and spilling over.

 

 

Ukraine should be held at a distance. Either they mend fences with Russia or they don’t. Either way, it's not our problem. (Our Prime Minister is in Ukraine right now talking about freedom, but don’t mistake his hippie blather for what actually happens at the moment its time for fighting. We couldn’t even keep a half dozen F-18’s fighting ISIS).

Edited July 14, 2016 by glenn239

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Chris Werb Glenn, conventional MAD was exactly where I was going, but with the proviso that we don't hurt them any worse than they hurt us. We can also be quite explicit about what we would do in X situation in advance.

 

 

It doesn’t make sense for the side with twenty times the economy of the other to be making this type of threat. The future of Western prosperity and democracy cannot be on the table regardless of the outcome in the Baltic States. Making explicit threats will compound the error because more information about USAF targeting in Russia will allow the EU to better predict just how catastrophic the retaliatory impact could be on the EU, which will lead to tensions between Europe and the United States.

 

Where I am more worried is things potentially really kicking off in the Ukraine and spilling over.

 

 

Ukraine should be held at a distance. Either they mend fences with Russia or they don’t. Either way, it's not our problem. (Our Prime Minister is in Ukraine right now talking about freedom, but don’t mistake his hippie blather for what actually happens at the moment its time for fighting. We couldn’t even keep a half dozen F-18’s fighting ISIS).

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls

[Josh]

We have no treaty with the Ukraine. I'm willing to throw them under the bus. Selling or giving of supplies and weapons is fine, but I wouldn't want one NATO soldier on Ukrainian territory. Its not in NATOs interest. Despite rational thought the Baltic states are part of NATO and NATO needs to be ready to locally reinforce and deter any moves against those nations, though the level of force used against Russia should be broadly proportional. Engaging LOCs within several hundred km of the border seems perfectly acceptable in terms of loss of life and economy to Russia; both would be minimal while the impact on forward advances could be fairly crippling. On top that would be providing lucrative targets of opportunity for strikes against log jammed military units with little room to spread out, let alone deploy.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The problem with throwing Ukraine under the bus, is that yet again its rewarding Russia for bad behaviour. And to be quite honest, they really have done rather well out of bad behaviour over the past decade. Its been pointed out that if Bush had not been so willing to normalise relations with Russia over the Georgian invasion, then very likely they would not have undertaken Crimea at all.

 

Besides, before we all forget, treaty or not, this occurred as a direct result of our doing nothing. So its hardly as if it doesnt affect us, even when we stand aside and let Russia go all Grad happy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYHCMwkp0o0

 

People need to understand, the world is so small now, there is NO such thing as spheres of influence or things that dont affect us. if Greece, right on the other side of Europe, can give the international market jitters, then this point should be plain to all. Events in Syria had an effect on the UK leaving Europe, a point that few whom want to point to Russia helping the situation there will acknowledge.

 

 

No, I dont want NATO to defend Ukraine if its not part of the treaty organisation. But if it was right in 1940 for America to lend us a firehose, I still cannot see why its not right to assist Ukraine in the means to defend itself. Its proved itself able to do that, despite continual attempts by many to say they cant do it. Well they can. Lets just give them the weapons to help themselves. We do it to the Kurds, and they arent even a nation, and arent even friends with one of our major allies.

 

 

Maybe we should leave this for the Ukraine thread. But its worth illustrating, if Russia imposes its will on Ukraine, it can just as like do it to Belarus. And a Belarus either annexed, or more likely, in thrall to Russia, is going to not improve the military balance of defending the Baltic states or poland at all. And its just one more faultline that can create war between East and West.

 

 

Lastly, id like Ukraine join NATO. And if, by chance, Russia doesnt like it, we can point to the fact that the door to their joining NATO has never been shut either. Im bored by bad behavour being rewarded and acknowleding their right to 'understandings'. Rubbish. If we are serious about improving relations with Russia, sure, lets reward them when they help us or work with us. And give them not time at all when they behave on the world stage like hooligans. Has anyone thought to why China is behaving so badly in the Spratleys? In part I woudl suggest its because they can see Russia doing whatever the hell it likes and seeing the US doing nothing bug wagging a finger. Ditto North Korea for that matter.

 

 

Im probably going to be accused of being a militarist for all that, but in actual fact I just learned a long time ago, you get no rewards for appeasing bullies. And that essentially is the cornerstone of Putin's policies. He should get no rewards at all for it.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[JasonJ]

 

Chris Werb Glenn, conventional MAD was exactly where I was going, but with the proviso that we don't hurt them any worse than they hurt us. We can also be quite explicit about what we would do in X situation in advance.

 

 

It doesn’t make sense for the side with twenty times the economy of the other to be making this type of threat. The future of Western prosperity and democracy cannot be on the table regardless of the outcome in the Baltic States. Making explicit threats will compound the error because more information about USAF targeting in Russia will allow the EU to better predict just how catastrophic the retaliatory impact could be on the EU, which will lead to tensions between Europe and the United States.

 

Where I am more worried is things potentially really kicking off in the Ukraine and spilling over.

 

 

Ukraine should be held at a distance. Either they mend fences with Russia or they don’t. Either way, it's not our problem. (Our Prime Minister is in Ukraine right now talking about freedom, but don’t mistake his hippie blather for what actually happens at the moment its time for fighting. We couldn’t even keep a half dozen F-18’s fighting ISIS).

 

 

If mending fences means building up a strong defense line to ensure Russia is kept at bay, I agree.

 

But if it means to repair relations with Russia so that fence doors swing open both ways, then I'd think the greater portion of the burden in repairing relations would be on the larger, aggressive country; Russia. Although.. there are two ways, one is to open dialogue channels, transparency, and no arm-twisting conditions attached to deals. The other way is with such overwhelming force that "good relations" are muscled into shape. Guess which way a bully nation would pick. Don't feed a bully.

 

NATO doesn't have to add the Ukraine. Just need to give weapon sales and ODAs.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I do think we are getting things the wrong way about here. Why would NATO add Ukraine? And it wouldn't, it doesnt suit our strategic needs to add it. But why wouldnt Ukraine WANT to join NATO? And of course it does. And frankly if you respect the idea of sovereignty, then why should Russia have any say about what Ukraine says and does? And of course it shouldn't. After all, doesnt Putin whine about how the international community doesn't respect HIS actions, and then quite happily goes and imposes his views on his neighbours? Doublethink much?

 

If Ukraine WANTs to join NATO (and it might decide its not worth it) then it should be allowed to join. So should Georgia. And if anyone thinks that these are bad ideas, I might point to the idea that NATO was happy to take on board Eastern Europe, which nobody can doubt was entirely justified in the post cold war environment, and Putin has complained even about that.

 

 

Its about self determination. And about recognising that NATO is not a push process, its a pull process. Nations join NATO because they have fears for their security. Its not because NATO has a giant master plan for dominating Russia, which might make sense to the David Ickes of this world, but not I.

[Josh]

Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain. I don't believe in 'spheres of influence' so much as I believe in militarily over committing your resources. Ukraine would want to join NATO to add to its security, most likely. NATO would not take on Ukraine to add to its security, most likely. The Eastern European countries were low hanging fruit that were not immediately up against Russia proper and it made sense to integrate them into the EU and NATO for security and economic benefit. There's not really a good argument for the Baltics, and definitely not for Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO owes them nothing. I'm all for supplying both with whatever weapons they can handle, but this thread is proof that NATOs ability to defend some of its current members is already somewhat questionable and further commitments merely serve to erode confidence in the alliance.

[JasonJ]

The Ukraine is quite bigger than Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. Those countries would need immediate support if large scale invasion was to happen. But the Ukraine is capable of some depth of defense strategy. So with good military weapons, they could put a real hurt on Russia if they open up a real war. Maybe the Ukraine would be gone, but Russia would really be paying a big price, so big it may put Italy's economic strength above it, which would be quite pathetic for a country with a 150 million population. So there's still deterrence in that. .NATO doesn't have to officially close the door to the idea of Ukraine membership but just make it a difficult process. Even if diplomacy may seem futile, it still probably ought to have some wiggle room to work.

[Colin]

Bringing Ukraine into NATO would be a bad idea. Most NATO countries are mature, stable and rational, except of course Turkey. Help them stabilize for sure and hopefully get better, but don’t include them.

[Gregory]

Ukraine is not ready to be a NATO member, that's very apparent to everybody involved. Even Ukrainians are talking in terms of 2022 at the earliest. That doesn't mean that the process can't start now, which in some respects it is.

[Simon Tan]

Where does the Azov and other militia units fit in NATO? Does Ukraine joining NATO mean that they can invoke Article 5 upon accession? Work to be done is perhaps an understatement.

[swerve]

Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain. I don't believe in 'spheres of influence' so much as I believe in militarily over committing your resources. Ukraine would want to join NATO to add to its security, most likely. NATO would not take on Ukraine to add to its security, most likely. The Eastern European countries were low hanging fruit that were not immediately up against Russia proper and it made sense to integrate them into the EU and NATO for security and economic benefit. There's not really a good argument for the Baltics, and definitely not for Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO owes them nothing. I'm all for supplying both with whatever weapons they can handle, but this thread is proof that NATOs ability to defend some of its current members is already somewhat questionable and further commitments merely serve to erode confidence in the alliance.

Errr - the Baltic states have been NATO members since 29-03-2004.

[Ken Estes]

 

Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain. I don't believe in 'spheres of influence' so much as I believe in militarily over committing your resources. Ukraine would want to join NATO to add to its security, most likely. NATO would not take on Ukraine to add to its security, most likely. The Eastern European countries were low hanging fruit that were not immediately up against Russia proper and it made sense to integrate them into the EU and NATO for security and economic benefit. There's not really a good argument for the Baltics, and definitely not for Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO owes them nothing. I'm all for supplying both with whatever weapons they can handle, but this thread is proof that NATOs ability to defend some of its current members is already somewhat questionable and further commitments merely serve to erode confidence in the alliance.

Errr - the Baltic states have been NATO members since 29-03-2004.

 

Which only points to the wackiness of these and other "Meanwhile...." threads. There is little chance of an OPSEC violation herein.

[mattblack]

Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain. I don't believe in 'spheres of influence' so much as I believe in militarily over committing your resources. Ukraine would want to join NATO to add to its security, most likely. NATO would not take on Ukraine to add to its security, most likely. The Eastern European countries were low hanging fruit that were not immediately up against Russia proper and it made sense to integrate them into the EU and NATO for security and economic benefit. There's not really a good argument for the Baltics, and definitely not for Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO owes them nothing. I'm all for supplying both with whatever weapons they can handle, but this thread is proof that NATOs ability to defend some of its current members is already somewhat questionable and further commitments merely serve to erode confidence in the alliance.

 

The Baltics have done more for NATO/US in Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed in Mali and the Central African Republic than has been done for them.

[Josh]

 

Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain. I don't believe in 'spheres of influence' so much as I believe in militarily over committing your resources. Ukraine would want to join NATO to add to its security, most likely. NATO would not take on Ukraine to add to its security, most likely. The Eastern European countries were low hanging fruit that were not immediately up against Russia proper and it made sense to integrate them into the EU and NATO for security and economic benefit. There's not really a good argument for the Baltics, and definitely not for Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO owes them nothing. I'm all for supplying both with whatever weapons they can handle, but this thread is proof that NATOs ability to defend some of its current members is already somewhat questionable and further commitments merely serve to erode confidence in the alliance.

Errr - the Baltic states have been NATO members since 29-03-2004.

 

I'm aware; I'm explicitly saying that was a stupid idea.

 

EDIT: Poor phrasing on my part

Edited July 14, 2016 by Josh

[Simon Tan]

Since Turkey is in NATO, Azov is no real barrier. NATO is already busy arming, training and providing logistical and other support for all stripes of Islamic extremists. A few neo Nazis is an improvement in many ways.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain. I don't believe in 'spheres of influence' so much as I believe in militarily over committing your resources. Ukraine would want to join NATO to add to its security, most likely. NATO would not take on Ukraine to add to its security, most likely. The Eastern European countries were low hanging fruit that were not immediately up against Russia proper and it made sense to integrate them into the EU and NATO for security and economic benefit. There's not really a good argument for the Baltics, and definitely not for Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO owes them nothing. I'm all for supplying both with whatever weapons they can handle, but this thread is proof that NATOs ability to defend some of its current members is already somewhat questionable and further commitments merely serve to erode confidence in the alliance.

 

Yes, but you will pardon me saying, you are looking at it the wrong way around. Its not about gain. If it was about 'safe' people to guarantee the security of, we would not have let West Germany or Turkey or Norway join. Its about making sure the insecure are connected to a security system that guarantees their security. Or at the very least works to that end.

 

Could and should NATO do with improvement? Clearly. But lets stop pretending its for our security. Its for collective security. And with the example of Syria in mind, if Ukraine collapsed tomorrow it would mean the end of the EU anyway from the inevitable migration of refugees. In everyones interest to keep it secure. Ditto Georgia too actually. If Russia was thinking halfway intelligently it would be building Georgia up as a key player in regional security vis Turkey and the Chechens. Not trying to kill it by cuts because they dont like the friends it keeps.

 

The whole point of NATO is to keep Europe Secure. And I have a hard job seeing Ukraine destroyed by a revanchist putin in Europes interest, because what inevitably happens there WILL have an effect on European security as a whole. It already has in fact. See what not doing something does? It makes the problem worse, not better.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith