Meanwhile In The Baltic Republics And Poland...

[Simon Tan]

Yes. Absolutely Russia is held to the same. Should it be held to a higher standard than NATO?

[Simon Tan]

The Ukranians are sticking scrupulously to Minsk? This must be NATOlogik.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The Ukranians are sticking scrupulously to Minsk? This must be NATOlogik.

 

So the Ukrainians pull their artillery back, and the Russians dont, and thats sticking to Minsk is it?

 

 

Yes. Absolutely Russia is held to the same. Should it be held to a higher standard than NATO?

Not, just stick to the same level. So how much territory has NATO annexed lately? Stop playing these equivocation games where Russia is meant to be aping what NATO does. It hasn't and doesn't. Whether its the arms build-up they started first, whether it was crashing and burning CFE, whether its placing tactical nuclear weapons in range of European cities (a stockpile about 7 times higher than NATO possesses incidentally), whether its snatching people from other side of borders, murdering political opponents in European states, launching cyber attacks, overflights of European territory, nibbling away at neighbours territory, threatening nuclear attack every couple of months and so on and so on. Now if NATO was doing half of that, I could say 'Nice one Russia, send it back down the bearing'. But we aren't. And until people stop happy clapping this nonsense that is portrayed as reciprocal to what NATO is doing, I guess they will keep on doing it.

 

Did Russia protest Poland joining NATO? I cant find a reference to it. Did it protest against the Baltic states joining NATO? I cant find a complaint. So basically this hysteria being whipped is post factual angst over something they were perfectly happy with over a decade ago and then changed their mind about for purely political reasons. One can only surmise what those reasons are, but that they are clearly bogus you can look back on the historical record. They invented the claim that NATO would not accept new members because it suits their claim that Russia is being encircled. In actuality, its Russia driving the requirement for NATO membership because everyone is bloody terrified of living on its borders.

 

Nobody is suggesting NATO is purer than the driven snow. That Russia is led by an egomaniac whom clearly wants to perceive NATO in the darkest light possible is self evident. Yet people stil keep accepting the horse-shit they hear on RT as fact. The nice thing about the Soviets when they wrote 'Whence the threat to peace?', nobody actually believed it because it was self evident bollocks. Now everyone apes to accept breathtaking and insane lies for reasons I can only put down to dissatisfaction with the Western Media narrative or President Obama. Well good luck with that. Im sure the Ministry of Truth started with good intentions too.

 

 

No, Russia should not have higher standards than NATO. But if they are going to bleat about NATO aggression, a level playing field is a good starting place dont you think? They arent even close and you know it.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

Pretty fair appraisal of Russian military capability here I thought.

 

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/just-how-dangerous-russias-military-16981

Assuming energy prices do not rise and there is no major breakthrough in either Syria or Ukraine (that would end operations or see Western sanctions lifted), the Kremlin will have to start deciding whether to expend resources on maintaining current operations or on further efforts at procurement and modernization. A major new contingency—related to succession crises in Central Asia, for example—could also tax Russian capabilities. But at this point, Russia has not yet reached any moment of decision where it must end operation or forego further modernization of its force.

[swerve]

Russia sees NATO and judges it by its actions. Funny how blind you can be when you put your mind to it.

You were obviously looking in a mirror when you wrote that.

 

Yes. Absolutely Russia is held to the same. Should it be held to a higher standard than NATO?

Certainly not. Has anyone suggested that? All I hear is that it should be held to some kind of standard, maybe not too much lower that NATO. Why do you think that asking it not to be ten times worse is holding it to a higher standard?

Edited July 16, 2016 by swerve

[Simon Tan]

Blind how?

[Simon Tan]

Tell me about these Ukranian heavy weapons not firing daily. Same as the DNR/Russian heavy weapons not firing daily. Sorry.. I fail at NATOlogik.'

 

ETA:- Difference between VladMart and ErdoMart? DNR and al-Nusra etc.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Simon Tan

[Stuart Galbraith]

BMD4M entering operational trials. Reportedly 33 in service.

[glenn239]

Swerve What part of "Ukraine can't without Russian co-operation & Russia won't cooperate" don't you understand? You keep talking as if Russia will suddenly start being reasonable, despite the complete lack of evidence for that opinion & the massive weight of evidence to the contrary

 

 

The answer is the same as it was back in 2014 - if Ukraine confronts Russia then matters will escalate into open war between the two and Ukraine will descend into civil war. The instability in Europe will grow. The best way forward for Ukraine is to mend fences with Moscow and move on, (you’re opinion that Russia is not capable of a negotiation with Ukraine to the purpose of excluding NATO and the EU from Ukraine is noted and dismissed). Things like allowing Ukraine to join NATO, or arming Ukraine with ATGW’s, these are all the kids sitting on the bus shouting encouragement to the kid to get off the bus and fight the bully - once the actual beating starts, the kids on the bus won't help. The result will be the decent of Ukraine into chaos. Perhaps this is what you actually want?

 

Certainly not. Has anyone suggested that? All I hear is that it should be held to some kind of standard, maybe not too much lower that NATO. Why do you think that asking it not to be ten times worse is holding it to a higher standard?

 

 

Russia shall be held to a higher standard by whom and by what methods? If Russia perchance decides that these standards and methods are unacceptable and pushes back, how far are you prepared to risk the future of western society in the pursuit of your ideology?

[glenn239]

 

Stuart Yes it is dangerous. Might I politely point out that we have since 2008 done absolutely nothing to risk raising Russias Ire and,

 

1 They have continued to nibble away at Georgian territory, and made moves to recognise the enclaves they have created when everyone and his uncle other than Russia recognises them as Georgian Territory.

 

I mean, imagine if NATO did this to Russia. They would shit a brick. Yet they feel free and able to do stuff like this all the time, and usually they dont give the territory back.

 

 

 

 

I explained clearly to you yesterday the principle of legitimate alliances - you have no excuse to be pretending today that you do not understand what I said. Georgia is outside the territory that we can defend with conventional means. There is no legitimate defensive alliance possible with Georgia because we cannot deliver on the premise we are to uphold. Therefore, regardless of Russia’s conduct, an alliance with Georgia can be neither be defensive nor legitimate in character for NATO. Tough shit, but that's the way it is.

 

 

2 They annexed Crimea….This is important Glenn. Particularly if you are Polish or Ukrainian….

 

3 They keep that war going, despite promises under Minsk 2 to agree to keep the conflict stabilised. They have not fulfilled that agreement a damn.

 

I’m neither Polish nor Ukrainian and have already dismiss your inclinations as too dangerous to be practical. The end game to Ukraine with Russia is either some sort of new deal between Kiev and Moscow on Russian terms, a frozen conflict, or escalation to the partition of Ukraine. Either way, Ukraine is on its own; NATO will not help them. Which of the three possible outcomes do you prefer?

 

We have been over this ad nauseum, but I feel I ought to point them out because, by doing nothing, this all happened. What is happening now, is not safe. So basically your idea of sitting on our hands and pretending the world is a nice and safe place has if anything eroded the European security we have all been happy to take for granted.

 

 

 

Your inclinations to me are borderline insane. This type of thinking is a menace to our security like Custer was a menace to the wellbeing of the 7^th Cavalry. You don’t even seem to get that Neville Chamberlain made a stand with Poland in 1939 because all of Europe was on the tipping point to entering the Nazi sphere, which would have made Germany militarily predominant over Britain, whereas that there is no such danger of that with Russia. The reason why WW2 happened is not in play for us - we're massively conventionally dominant over Russia and there is no possibility of this being overturned.

 

When will you stop your pig headed attitude that its NATO doing all the running aggravating the bear….

 

 

 

When the area of Russian aggression moves into NATO territory; you either do not or will not understand that all these conflicts are in areas that were not part of the Cold War victory. Georgia was never part of the deal. Ukraine was never part of the deal. You want them out of Russia's orbit, it's going to be a fight. And to that I say - you and Swerve have fun, maybe serve in the same UA unit, and don't forget to blog.

 

 

 

You will happily throw any Eastern European state (or best I can tell, ANY state) under the bus in the illusion of international security, refusing to recognise that doing so is making the world less, not more safe.

 

 

 

Here’s an idea - maybe on the Brexit thread bare your teeth with the EU posters so that I know you're on Britain's side and then maybe I can believe a word you say about how tough you’ll be with the Russians?

Edited July 16, 2016 by glenn239

[Chris Werb]

What Glenn said about there being no point in making an alliance you can't deliver on.

[Gregory]

I explained clearly to you yesterday the principle of legitimate alliances - you have no excuse to be pretending today that you do not understand what I said. Georgia is outside the territory that we can defend with conventional means. There is no legitimate defensive alliance possible with Georgia because we cannot deliver on the premise we are to uphold. Therefore, regardless of Russia’s conduct, an alliance with Georgia can be neither be defensive nor legitimate in character for NATO. Tough shit, but that's the way it is.

 

 

 

 

You still haven't explained how NATO was supposed to defend West Germany with conventional means.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Gregory

[urbanoid]

 

I explained clearly to you yesterday the principle of legitimate alliances - you have no excuse to be pretending today that you do not understand what I said. Georgia is outside the territory that we can defend with conventional means. There is no legitimate defensive alliance possible with Georgia because we cannot deliver on the premise we are to uphold. Therefore, regardless of Russia’s conduct, an alliance with Georgia can be neither be defensive nor legitimate in character for NATO. Tough shit, but that's the way it is.

 

 

 

 

You still haven't explained how NATO was supposed to defend West Germany with conventional means.

 

 

Or, even better, West Berlin.

[Chris Werb]

So you're suggesting we should employ a deliberately under-funded, under-equipped conventional military as a nuclear escalatory trigger, like we did up until c. 1985ish vs the Warsaw Pact. but this time for the benefit of Georgia and the Ukraine?

[urbanoid]

I was talking more about the Baltic states, which to some here seem impossible to defend. Well, first thing is that they are't, second - Russia is the shadow of USSR and their only advantage over the West is the WILL to act.

 

The will is the problem here and IF ONLY we had more of it, I could be advocating NATO expansion to Georgia and Ukraine as well. Given the current sad state of affairs, I'm not.

 

If we take only numbers (military,economy) into consideration, we should be able to reduce Moscow's influence to ... Russian borders. Their side of those borders, obviously.

[Stuart Galbraith]

So you're suggesting we should employ a deliberately under-funded, under-equipped conventional military as a nuclear escalatory trigger, like we did up until c. 1985ish vs the Warsaw Pact. but this time for the benefit of Georgia and the Ukraine?

Chris, you will pardon me pointing out, we are kind of doing that already. What difference is 2 more nations we cant conventionally defend going to make in the grand scheme of things?

 

I do agree with Urbanoid though, a conventional defence is possible, if we are willing to pay for it. But we arent. And even if we did, one has to say that Russia would likely retain the ability to threaten massive retaliation either via conventional or nuclear options even for what we would regard as insignificant terrain. Putin has threatened to do that already with Crimea. Its not our defence or political posture that is so much the problem. The problem is what Putin or any replacement will do, which seem to baffle a succession of pundits from the well informed, the Donald Trumps all the way down the scale to the guys with seaweed and tea leaves. Its impossible to know whats going to deter when the Kremlin makes the rules up on the fly.

 

That said, I think we have to view Eastern Europe as whole. its very easy to say 'we are responsible for that bit of terrain but not that bit'. My own view is, Russia views all these territories as its sphere of influence, so our deluding ourselves into thinking we can fight for one but not another we havent signed a treaty with, is in my view bit legalistic. They already know we are involved in Ukraine and Georgia, so defeating our purposes there will reinforce their belief their tactics of confrontation work.

 

I guess what im saying is, just because we are not committed to defend Ukraine or Georgia will not mean Russia wont determine their actions have caused a defeat to NATO purposes, and a consequent lost of deterrent effect to the rest of the alliance. And they have, when you look how keen we were to get Georgia in pre 2008, as it surely deserves. How exactly are we sure that they view Estonia differently from Georgia because they signed a treaty with NATO?. Russia signed treaties too, how many are they sticking by? Why are they necessarily going to assume NATO is any more solid if they challenge it?

 

Look, this is a contentious view. I dont expect anyone to agree. But one cannot say that Georgia doesn't deserve to join considering the hoops it jumped through help us in Afghanistan. And frankly the way Ukraine has been treated, after we all lined up to guarantee its security in 1992, is shoddy beyond belief. If we are this scared of what Russia will do, lets disband NATO and tell Eastern Europe to go reform the Warsaw Pact and stop bugging us. But lets stop pretending throwing what we regarded as once important principles under the bus because we are scared of Russia is Smartpower . Sure, my proposed actions are potentially dangerous. I can only point to the do nothing crowd that seems to have dominated European politics since 2008 and suggest that was they have done is clearly not working at all. Has anyone really noticed a relaxing of tensions due to our good efforts to appease Russian sensiblities? I didnt think so.

 

Ill leave it there, but I do think we really need a radical rethink of how we approach partnerships with these European nations. Are we really saying if Finland was invaded, we wouldnt help? And if we would, why are we so leery of making the same commitments to anyone else that wants to join? Russia is already pissed with us. Lets stop thinking we can bargain our way into their good books. We wont.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[bd1]

I was talking more about the Baltic states, which to some here seem impossible to defend. Well, first thing is that they are't, second - Russia is the shadow of USSR and their only advantage over the West is the WILL to act.

 

The will is the problem here and IF ONLY we had more of it, I could be advocating NATO expansion to Georgia and Ukraine as well. Given the current sad state of affairs, I'm not.

 

If we take only numbers (military,economy) into consideration, we should be able to reduce Moscow's influence to ... Russian borders. Their side of those borders, obviously.

again, time to quote estonian colonel - ´´it´s amazing how in this conflict russia, the weaker side on every measurable scale, has been so successful forcing it´s narrative in this case´´

 

if there were will and leadership in the west, russia would be selling familiy jewels for food coupons in 2 years, money, economy run to the ground, finance system, credits cut off, no technological advancements from west, political isolation etc etc., the ´´soft power´´ drawer is far from short. the russia have for example said many times how they consider being thrown out of SWIFT system as ´´financial nuke´´.

 

now, i don´t want any of this to happen to russia*, but to send a clear (even if non-public) message, who still wears the pants in this world. or who´s testies are in the drawer that is about to be slammed shut. or whatever would be the coolest phrase.

 

anybody on the ´´russland-verhstehr/russia-understander´´ position must still remember that russias plan is to collapse west´s global power and to bring on new multi-polar system. that is still the goal, no frikkin ´´reset´´/cooperation on war against terror´´ etc. whatever is the current catchphrase is not going to change that. eroding west´s influence is still going on.

 

ISIS , wahhabism etc, GCC - hire iran to do the fighting. they are still nuisance on grand scale. all islamic terror acts together against west in the last 20 years probably cost less in human lives than a single average day in WW1 or WW2.

 

* honestly

Edited July 16, 2016 by bd1

[swerve]

What I am saying is that NATO members are busy destabilizing their neighbours and doing all the bad things that Russia is accused of. And doing it with entities sworn as enemies of NATO and whom have launched a series of direct attacks on NATO members. It is really impossible to keep a straight face when all these aspirational nonsense is brought up at the same time Al Qaeda is getting every recruit, bullet and stack of bread from Turkey. Leaving out the still ongoing oil smuggling from DAESH.

 

The ability to not see is quite inpressive. Drive on.

A combination of a fringe (in every sense) member acting on its own & some quite extraordinary incompetence, with various members pulling in multiple directions at once. To consider that to be in the same category as the centrally directed malevolence of Putin shows a remarkable flexibility of thought, that allows arbitrary reclassification of aspects of reality to fit preconceptions.

 

And to imagine that "Al Qaeda is getting every recruit, bullet and stack of bread from Turkey" is a bizarre fantasy. You've lost it, Simon. You're allowing your prejudices to override your reason.

[Simon Tan]

Where else does it come from?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I was talking more about the Baltic states, which to some here seem impossible to defend. Well, first thing is that they are't, second - Russia is the shadow of USSR and their only advantage over the West is the WILL to act.

 

The will is the problem here and IF ONLY we had more of it, I could be advocating NATO expansion to Georgia and Ukraine as well. Given the current sad state of affairs, I'm not.

 

If we take only numbers (military,economy) into consideration, we should be able to reduce Moscow's influence to ... Russian borders. Their side of those borders, obviously.

again, time to quote estonian colonel - ´´it´s amazing how in this conflict russia, the weaker side on every measurable scale, has been so successful forcing it´s narrative in this case´´

 

if there were will and leadership in the west, russia would be selling familiy jewels for food coupons in 2 years, money, economy run to the ground, finance system, credits cut off, no technological advancements from west, political isolation etc etc., the ´´soft power´´ drawer is far from short. the russia have for example said many times how they consider being thrown out of SWIFT system as ´´financial nuke´´.

 

now, i don´t want any of this to happen to russia*, but to send a clear (even if non-public) message, who still wears the pants in this world. or who´s testies are in the drawer that is about to be slammed shut. or whatever would be the coolest phrase.

 

anybody on the ´´russland-verhstehr/russia-understander´´ position must still remember that russias plan is to collapse west´s global power and to bring on new multi-polar system. that is still the goal, no frikkin ´´reset´´/cooperation on war against terror´´ etc. whatever is the current catchphrase is not going to change that. eroding west´s influence is still going on.

 

ISIS , wahhabism etc, GCC - hire iran to do the fighting. they are still nuisance on grand scale. all islamic terror acts together against west in the last 20 years probably cost less in human lives than a single average day in WW1 or WW2.

 

* honestly

 

I was reading Robert Services biography of Lenin the other day (well worth reading incidentally) and noticed that at the core of his new economic policy there was a remarkable contradiction. That he believed in trading with the West and the wider world, because that was the way of safeguarding Bolshevism and building up the Soviet stage. And yet at the same time, covert action to collapse the west and bring over a proletarian lead revolution should also continue. In short, he proposed to murder the people that were keeping the Soviet Union alive. Not even his fellow Bolshies quite got it either.

 

The same is true of the Kremlin today. On the one hand they clearly aspire (if Putins comments are of any worth) to restructure the world into a multipolar one, pretty much remove Americas influence from the world stage (at at least reduce it to the level of Russia), and stop it being the hub of a global trading network. AND AT THE SAME TIME invest in America, Britain, and sell shitloads of gas and oil into the system that they would themselves bend entirely out of shape. It makes no sense. And in fact one can look to Russian nationalist comments about removing Britain from Europe. That actually happens via Brexit, and the value of their properties and bank accounts in London goes through the floor too.

 

Putin is a Brexiter at heart. He aspires to certain grandeose but vaguely defined policies, and if it was truly dumped in his lap, he wouldnt know how to make it work. Boris Johnson and he should get on like a house on fire.

 

Russia is Europe. And until someone in power get it (which remarkably Lenin, for all his faults, clearly believed) and Russia starts to work WITH Europe rather than try to destabilise it and threaten it, then this dance will continue. Russia is cutting its own throat and is too blind to see it in its Post Cold War victim narrative.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

Russia forms a new corp headquarters in Kaliningrad. Page 46

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/current.pdf

 

No new units, the combination of Army and Naval formations under the same command is interesting. Page 42 discusses an exercise in the Far East where Naval infantry take part in an exercise with Motor Rifle forces, again with cross attachment.

 

I guess I shouldnt be that surprised. They are after all attaching Army Tank Battalions to VDV airmobile formations.

[Chris Werb]

I think the Baltic Republics are "defendable" - the question is simply whether enough defensive capability can be put into them and is there the will to use it. That requires political will, primarily on the part of the countries and their populations. I am not impressed with Latvia in particular. Last year they promised to up their defence spending from 1.4% to 1.5%. GDP per capita is $14,259 which is very close to Russia's at $14,611, but the countries are night and day in willingness to defend themselves.$380 million will not buy a country of Latvia's size a lot of defence and they are expecting other countries to carry them. Poland, for example, has a lower GDP at $13,390, but is meeting it's 2% NATO commitment, so people in Poland are enabling Latvians to have a higher standard of living than they have. As to political will, there are about 1000,000 Latvians of military age, so with a budget of $380M a year, they should be able to put together a light version of the former Swiss national defence system. Even if they only armed 1:5 of the people of military age, that would be >200,000 people able to block roads, drop bridges, snipe and generally make a huge nuisance of themselves with a budget of c. $2500 per reservist per year excluding overheads.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Mind you In defence of Latvia, I dont think we have done them any favours either. I mean we actually SELL them CVR-Ts? Those things are fit for the scrap heap and the MOD sees an opportunity to offload them like a bunch of Arthur Daleys. I really should be surprised, didnt we sell Saxons to Ukraine as well?

 

But otherwise, fair one. A single regular Brigade (with only really 2 deployable battalions) and without any artillery (which is attached to the territorial forces) is piss poor. On the positive side, very impressed by Latvia. 2 deployable regular brigades, both of which have artillery and which shortly will likely to be both mechanised. That really is setting a high standard.

 

I do have to question why the Balts dont consider combined procurement. They all commit to buying the same equipment, and like as not it will actually get them a saving in spare parts, equipment, training. Not only that, but if 2 of them have to come to the assistance of one, having common equipment is clearly a good idea.

[bd1]

can´t synchronise budgets/personnel so much i guess

[Stuart Galbraith]

can´t synchronise budgets/personnel so much i guess

Perhaps not. But act least sharing training facilities would be a good step forward, particularly for FIBUA, artillery etc.