NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Ssnake]

2 minutes ago, sunday said:

The Ukrainian nuclear stockpile was taken away.

It was given away, in exchange for worthless security guarantees from Russia.

[Perun]

12 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

The US could very well deploy nuclear weapons even now to Poland, Finland and Romania if it wanted to. Due to technical considerations it's largely irrelevant anyway, as there are ICBMs, SLBMs and cruise missiles with thousands of kilometers in range. Having nukes closer to potential enemy doesn't really translate into an advantage, in a sense quite the contrary - as they're more vulnerable there.

Diference is if those nuke bombs are tactical

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

It's not just that. They also have an destabilizing effect due to the much reduced reaction times. If you detect a missile launch and have 20 minutes to read intent and check for false alerts, that's one thing. Try to do it in under two minutes.

What reaction time do you have with B-2 or stealth cruise missiles? Potentially zero.

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, sunday said:

USSR nuclear capabilities did not help at all in 1991 to prevent its dissolution

The Ukrainian nuclear stockpile was taken away.

Those are the historical facts that a Russian leader would -and must- remember, not some theories, even the most logical and reasonable.

Because the problem wasnt a military one to solve, it was an economic and civil one.

The Ukrainian stockpile was GIVEN away by Ukraine, in exchange for guarantees on security. Which turned out to be not worth more than toilet paper.

Im of the opinion the only historical facts that Vladimir Putin respects are those he pulls out of his ass. Reality and truth dont enter into the subject.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

What reaction time do you have with B-2 or stealth cruise missiles? Potentially zero.

B2 is a strategic nuclear weapon. The Americans are going to be wary of deploying those forward. The nearest they are going to get is the UK (Im a nuclear target again, hooray!), and I doubt personally they are going to use them against tactical targets. Intermediate range weapon sites, weapons stockpiles, command and control, yes.

TBH, we dont replicate what the Russians have. They have a large tactical stockpile. They have assembled an intermediate range stockpile seemingly. They have a strategic stockpile. NATO has a small stockpile of tactical weapons, it was as low as 200 in 2014 IIRC. We dont have intermediate. And the US as always might not use its strategic weapons because escalation.

If it ever comes to a nuclear exchange in Europe, you have the NATO tactical stockpile, the French aircraft delivered tactical stockpile (I think they ahve some weapons delivered via SCALP IIRC), and our collective ballistic missile fleet. There is talk of assembling a NATO IMF at sea. Ill believe that when it happens, there is no sign of it yet.

IMHO, the days of slow escalation are probably a thing the past. Its unclear to me whether IMF really has any value at all in such circumstances. Its value in the 1980's was mainly political, not actual use, because we would have likely been in a full nuclear exchange before the cruise missiles arrived at their targets anyway. IIRC from the UK its 2 hours.

[sunday]

5 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

What reaction time do you have with B-2 or stealth cruise missiles? Potentially zero.

Potentially...

IRBMs or hypersonics launched from next door, for instance, are not potentially zero. Those are realistically a few minutes.

Stealth technology, like all the technological advances, tend to lose their edge with time. A F-117 was shot down, then the type was retired from active duty.

Geographical advantages are usually permanent.

[sunday]

14 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

It was given away, in exchange for worthless security guarantees from Russia.

Wonder if someone was even thinking about having Ukraine in NATO back then.

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, that only really started gathering pace when Dubya wanted warm bodies for the Global War on noun.

[ink]

30 minutes ago, sunday said:

Wonder if someone was even thinking about having Ukraine in NATO back then.

Ukraine joined PfP in 1995, I think. Ukrainian officers were training with NATO personnel even before that. NATO expansion never a hiccup did see.

[Stuart Galbraith]

There is a link here about NATO's partnership with Ukraine, and whats most evidence is quite how much was said, and how little actually materialized.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm

Poland and the other former Warsaw pact states were in talks about joining in 1997. Ukraine was already behind the curve to that happening.

[ink]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is a link here about NATO's partnership with Ukraine, and whats most evidence is quite how much was said, and how little actually materialized.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm

Poland and the other former Warsaw pact states were in talks about joining in 1997. Ukraine was already behind the curve to that happening.

No doubt it was behind the curve.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It would be interesting to learn if Clinton talked with Yeltsin over it. He seemed to be doing damn near everything he wanted at the time.

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

USSR nuclear capabilities did not help at all in 1991 to prevent its dissolution

The Ukrainian nuclear stockpile was taken away.

Those are the historical facts that a Russian leader would -and must- remember, not some theories, even the most logical and reasonable.

They did not help, because the leadership was weak and corrupt. A strong leader would have used the available means to stop the end of the USSR and the WarPac. He would have stomped out the opposition, like the Chinese did.

The lesson for Russia is to be ruthless and use everything available to defend itself.

[Stuart Galbraith]

In fact as I recalled what happned in some of the Asian Republics, in the Baltic states, and ultimately the August coup, that is precisely what the leadership of the USSR did. It didnt work, because the USSR was a country assembled at the point of a gun. China similarly was assembled by violence, but as it happened some 2000 years ago, inevitably any nationalistic tendencies of breakaway regions have long been extinguished. Hong Kong and Taiwan excepted, natch. With the USSR, every nationalist group was submerged under the permafrost of 70 years of Communism. In 1990, it all started to defrost.

It was a lesson napoleon learned in the age of nationalism. The more you beat down on nation states, the more they want to be nation states. Ask a Pole. Heck, ask an Israeli.

In that regard, Russian have never entirely understood Europe, being late to nationalism themselves. No wonder they had no idea how to deal with the Balts, let alone the Poles.

[ink]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In fact as I recalled what happned in some of the Asian Republics, in the Baltic states, and ultimately the August coup, that is precisely what the leadership of the USSR did. It didnt work, because the USSR was a country assembled at the point of a gun. China similarly was assembled by violence, but as it happened some 2000 years ago, inevitably any nationalistic tendencies of breakaway regions have long been extinguished. Hong Kong and Taiwan excepted, natch. With the USSR, every nationalist group was submerged under the permafrost of 70 years of Communism. In 1990, it all started to defrost.

It was a lesson napoleon learned in the age of nationalism. The more you beat down on nation states, the more they want to be nation states. Ask a Pole. Heck, ask an Israeli.

In that regard, Russian have never entirely understood Europe, being late to nationalism themselves. No wonder they had no idea how to deal with the Balts, let alone the Poles.

I reckon they could have had at least a crack at it. But the state was weak, partly because the leadership had lost faith in it just as much as the people. Those that hadn't, tried their darnedest.

[Perun]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

The Ukrainian stockpile was GIVEN away by Ukraine, in exchange for guarantees on security. Which turned out to be not worth more than toilet paper.

Im of the opinion the only historical facts that Vladimir Putin respects are those he pulls out of his ass. Reality and truth dont enter into the subject.

The security guarantees was given by countries which historicaly gave security guarantees and did nothing when was needed

[Perun]

Did we all forget what guarantees was given to Gorbachow, about NATO going east

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, ink said:

Ukraine joined PfP in 1995, I think. Ukrainian officers were training with NATO personnel even before that. NATO expansion never a hiccup did see.

PfP by itself didn't mean a thing and the V4 in the early 1990s actually worried that it might be a possible substitute that the West would offer instead of actually joining NATO. And for a short time it was, as I said it was us here working on Western leaders to be allowed to join, not the other way around.

Around the time such ideas were considered in the West (PfP as a substitute for V4 NATO membership), Albright visited Wałęsa and he was like 'what am I supposed to talk about with that woman?'. The US State Dept, accustomed to much higher diplomatic standards, interpreted it as a sign of a great displeasure with the ideas of a 'substitute membership', which were shelved soon after. Little did they know, Wałęsa was just his typical boorish self.

ETA: Central Asian 'stans' are members of PfP since the 1990s, same for 3 countries in the Caucasus. PfP cooperation with Russia and Belarus is suspended, but they were members since around the same time as well. In short PfP =/= NATO expansion.

Edited June 4 by urbanoid

[ink]

10 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

PfP by itself didn't mean a thing and the V4 in the early 1990s actually worried that it might be a possible substitute that the West would offer instead of actually joining NATO. And for a short time it was, as I said it was us here working on Western leaders to be allowed to join, not the other way around.

PfP means different things to different countries. But it is not correct to say that it didn't mean a thing. Maybe it wasn't enough for Poland, but that's just one case of many.

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, ink said:

PfP means different things to different countries. But it is not correct to say that it didn't mean a thing. Maybe it wasn't enough for Poland, but that's just one case of many.

I said it didn't mean a thing by itself. Ukraine wasn't seen as a prospective NATO member in the 1990s any more than Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan was. Or Russia for that matter.

[Stuart Galbraith]

50 minutes ago, Perun said:

The security guarantees was given by countries which historicaly gave security guarantees and did nothing when was needed

And yet, they werent the ones that broke the security agreement, it was Russia.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 minutes ago, ink said:

PfP means different things to different countries. But it is not correct to say that it didn't mean a thing. Maybe it wasn't enough for Poland, but that's just one case of many.

Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Tajikstan, all got partnership for peace. Urbanoid is quite right. It was a policy to make it look like NATO was taking an interest, without putting any real effort in. As can be seen by the results in all these places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace

[Stuart Galbraith]

52 minutes ago, Perun said:

Did we all forget what guarantees was given to Gorbachow, about NATO going east

You presumably missed the interview with Gorbachev, where he said that NATO had given absolutely no guarantees? And he was the one most critical of NATO expansion over the last 10 years. He still admitted, it wasnt anything they hadnt committed to do.

[Pavel Novak]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

Did we all forget what guarantees was given to Gorbachow, about NATO going east

Isn't this just a myth? Guarantee for Ukraine was written and signed. But that NATO not going east is at best some remark proposed behind close door but not reaching written agreement - like many other options which never becomed reality.

[urbanoid]

Just now, Pavel Novak said:

Isn't this just a myth? Guarantee for Ukraine was written and signed. But that NATO not going east is at best some remark proposed behind close door but not reaching written agreement - like many other options which never becomed reality.

Gorbachev literally said that the topic of NATO expansion wasn't discussed at all at the time, it wasn't even brought up by anyone.

Unfortunately it's one of those myths that likely aren't going away, at least not anytime soon.