NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Top 10 most delusional geopolitical takes of 2024.

I know, right? And this is brought to you from the guy who brought you the skysweeping S400's, Infinite Iskanders, and the 'Enough Siebel Ferries would have won WW2' arguments.

Ive tried to be polite. Ive tried to be understanding. Now I just stick him on ignore since he started getting obnoxious and putting invented statements in other peoples mouths.

[Stuart Galbraith]

19 hours ago, ink said:

Perhaps the fear might have been that Western European publics might have been a lot less supportive of aid to Ukraine if that also included "our boys" burning to death in Challengers and Leopards.

In the US, there likely would have been riots if Biden had sent US men and women to let the Russians take potshots at them.

Anyway, this whole line of reasoning is only possible if you buy fully into the "our hearts bleed for Ukraine and we'll do anything we can to help" narrative churned out by the media. Personally, I don't.

I think it makes much more sense for everyone West of Lvov to let the Ukrainians fight and die and give them all the means they need to do that.

Not 'our boys' if they are paid up members of the Ukrainian armed forces. They volunteer to go into harms way, for a decent wage. Like the Russians have found with Wagner, attitudes are different to people whom arent actually part of a nations military anymore.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding of whats suggested. Its not about ordering men and women to go. its about saying 'here is a business opportunity, if you want to go, great, if you dont, thats great too.' And among people that lately retired from the US Armed Forces and are at something of a lost end, I suspect there would have been takers. Likely would have been here in Europe too.

Its not even a new idea. Its precisely the method the CIA used to stand up 'Air America' in Central Asia. Someone 'retired' from the US military, went and flew with air america for a few years, then returned to the USAF, and didnt even pass up promotions. If they got killed, they got written off. If they didnt, great, welcome back Colonel. Same method the CIA used to stand up the U2 pilots.

 

Edited June 27, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[ink]

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not 'our boys' if they are paid up members of the Ukrainian armed forces. They volunteer to go into harms way, for a decent wage. Like the Russians have found with Wagner, attitudes are different to people whom arent actually part of a nations military anymore.

Sure but that's been happening already, hasn't it? There have been well-documented volunteers from all over the place, though I'm not sure anybody has done a proper count of how many.

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its not even a new idea. Its precisely the method the CIA used to stand up 'Air America' in Central Asia. Someone 'retired' from the US military, went and flew with air america for a few years, then returned to the USAF, and didnt even pass up promotions. If they got killed, they got written off. If they didnt, great, welcome back Colonel. Same method the CIA used to stand up the U2 pilots.

I'm not sure I understand your point, tbh. Volunteers have joined up with various Ukrainian units and formed their own too. I'm sure some of these are just 'freebooters' of various kinds but I think it would be naive to assume that there aren't also 'volunteers' who are affiliated with various Western intelligence services ... if not entire units of soldiers and technicians who can more or less blend into the local context - the Poles are interesting here to me. There must be (I would assume) plenty of Polish 'volunteers' involved in Ukraine, yet we tend to hear way more about the Finns or Brits who have served than we do (in English-language sources) about Poles. Another interesting thing here is that Poles are likely to be able to learn Ukrainian much more quickly to a standard that's harder to detect than non-Slavic language speakers, thereby making them essentially indistinguishable from locals.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not sure how what you're suggesting here differs from the actual situation on the ground.

PS, as a side note, I did some travelling for work back in '22 around CE and it wasn't uncommon to see groups of (let's say) distinctly 'untouristy' Brits and Yanks huddled together and talking in hushed voices* in Ukraine-adjacent cities like Bratislava. So, my sense is that the 'volunteer' element was probably larger than the impression we get from the media. I could be wrong, of course, it's just an anecdotal impression after all.

 

* I think we can at least agree that this is not standard behaviour for actual tourists from either country 😎

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 minutes ago, ink said:

Sure but that's been happening already, hasn't it? There have been well-documented volunteers from all over the place, though I'm not sure anybody has done a proper count of how many.

I'm not sure I understand your point, tbh. Volunteers have joined up with various Ukrainian units and formed their own too. I'm sure some of these are just 'freebooters' of various kinds but I think it would be naive to assume that there aren't also 'volunteers' who are affiliated with various Western intelligence services ... if not entire units of soldiers and technicians who can more or less blend into the local context - the Poles are interesting here to me. There must be (I would assume) plenty of Polish 'volunteers' involved in Ukraine, yet we tend to hear way more about the Finns or Brits who have served than we do (in English-language sources) about Poles. Another interesting thing here is that Poles are likely to be able to learn Ukrainian much more quickly to a standard that's harder to detect than non-Slavic language speakers, thereby making them essentially indistinguishable from locals.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not sure how what you're suggesting here differs from the actual situation on the ground.

PS, as a side note, I did some travelling for work back in '22 around CE and it wasn't uncommon to see groups of (let's say) distinctly 'untouristy' Brits and Yanks huddled together and talking in hushed voices* in Ukraine-adjacent cities like Bratislava. So, my sense is that the 'volunteer' element was probably larger than the impression we get from the media. I could be wrong, of course, it's just an anecdotal impression after all.

 

* I think we can at least agree that this is not standard behaviour for actual tourists from either country 😎

It has, on a personal basis. I was thinking something rather more like the Flying Tigers, which was an ostensibly independent operation, but in reality entirely supported by the Chinese and US Government.

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

The group consisted of three fighter squadrons of around 30 aircraft each that trained in Burma before the American entry into World War II to defend the Republic of China against Japanese forces. The AVG were officially members of the Republic of China Air Force. The group had contracts with salaries ranging from $250 a month for a mechanic to $750 for a squadron commander, roughly three times what they had been making in the U.S. forces. While it accepted some civilian volunteers for its headquarters and ground crew, the AVG recruited most of its staff from the U.S. military.

 

Just think, those F16s which are going to take decades to train the support staff (apparently). Far easier to set up a unit of 'volunteers' whom are all 'civilians', whom immediately rejoin the USAF, or Danish AF, or Norwegian or whatever, when the war is over. Or those two squadrons of Typhoons the RAF is going to scrap. How hard would it be to go through Europe and recruit pilots and support staff to keep them operation in Ukrainian service?

More to the point, the USSR did exactly the same thing in the Korean war. North Korea did it in the Vietnam war (not that they were much good). Whats lacking is the imagination. We have done all these things before. We just forgot by people whom assume bending the rules this way is impossible.

 

[ink]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It has, on a personal basis. I was thinking something rather more like the Flying Tigers, which was an ostensibly independent operation, but in reality entirely supported by the Chinese and US Government.

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

The group consisted of three fighter squadrons of around 30 aircraft each that trained in Burma before the American entry into World War II to defend the Republic of China against Japanese forces. The AVG were officially members of the Republic of China Air Force. The group had contracts with salaries ranging from $250 a month for a mechanic to $750 for a squadron commander, roughly three times what they had been making in the U.S. forces. While it accepted some civilian volunteers for its headquarters and ground crew, the AVG recruited most of its staff from the U.S. military.

Just think, those F16s which are going to take decades to train the support staff (apparently). Far easier to set up a unit of 'volunteers' whom are all 'civilians', whom immediately rejoin the USAF, or Danish AF, or Norwegian or whatever, when the war is over. Or those two squadrons of Typhoons the RAF is going to scrap. How hard would it be to go through Europe and recruit pilots and support staff to keep them operation in Ukrainian service?

More to the point, the USSR did exactly the same thing in the Korean war. North Korea did it in the Vietnam war (not that they were much good). Whats lacking is the imagination. We have done all these things before. We just forgot by people whom assume bending the rules this way is impossible.

Ok, I see now, thanks.

Anyway, isn't it possible that this sort of thing is happening already and that we'll be reading about it in X years time when it becomes less sensitive to reveal that info?

[Stuart Galbraith]

We will wait and see what the kill ratios are like on the F16's. If its quite high, chances are its NATO trained pilots doing it.

[futon]

The Soviets did it too, ahead of the flying tigers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Volunteer_Group

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, I hadnt realised that till I went through the wiki article.

Why werent we doing this? Why not create a quasi Ukrainian/ NATO force? What is the point of having nuclear weapons, if we are scared shitless of nuclear escalation?

I dont get it, and frankly, I will never understand it.

[glenn239]

17 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Chinese solar panels that lose 50% efficiency after three years and start decaying completely after five is one of the most expensive scams in history, I personally know people who covered the entire roof of their houses with them, presently a full day of sunshine barely generates enough power for a small car battery...

Agreed on that.  We've got plenty of properties in this region of Ontario that have them, vestiges of an abortive Ontario green energy program from years back.  Solar panels are not a panacea or an energy solution, but for a dirt poor country sitting in the Caribbean sun with people driving little battery powered motor scooters, they're a step in the right direction.

I've got no idea what's going to happen in Cuba, but my general sense is that the era of American 'stop hitting yourself, Cuba' embargoes is over and that the BRICS will start to offer Havana opportunities for economic development.

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Martineleca said:

I really don't understand the "neutrality" point of view, throughout Russia's history their neighbours have either been under their boot or under the protection of other great powers, the chaotic interwar years were unique in that manner and unlikely to be replicated. So far not a single NATO country has been invaded by an outside hostile force while Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova that did not join the alliance partly through internal naivete and Western indifference all have large swathes of their internationally recognised territory currently occupied by Russia, which paradoxically further reduces their chances for membership because of this land dispute. 

Ukraine after 2013 had a practical choice to make, continue with the neutral policy that had kept it out of trouble with Russia for over two decades after the fall of the Wall, or risk national catastrophe by allowing itself to be wooed by the promises of NATO emissaries.  Ukraine chose to try to move closer, and into, NATO.  This has proven a catastrophe for Ukraine.  You are arguing that if Ukraine had joined NATO in 1995 or whatever, that things would be wonderful.  Well, so what even so?  Ukraine did not join NATO back then, and by all measurable criteria, it's attempts to do so after 2013 have been a catastrophe for Ukraine.  

Now we're down to posters like MZ trying to pretend that Ukraine is not losing the war.   But not too many people I know up here think that Ukraine is not losing the war.  It's all turned into 'shame on Russia' type sophistry and bullshit, as if 'tisk tisking' Moscow means a fuck in a war in which Ukraine is being  pile driven into its grave.   

In terms of the 'what if' of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO in the 1990's, I think it's a common mistake to overestimate the security that NATO can bring anyone outside of its core geographical area in Europe.  When ever a country or alliance overreaches and tries to establish spheres of interest where they are weak, it results in instability.  Regardless if Ukraine had joined NATO in the 1990's, that would have been the outcome.  About the only area of viable expansion I thought it made some degree of geopolitical sense for NATO consider was Palestine.  But more into Eastern Europe?  Forget it.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2024 by glenn239

[ink]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Agreed on that.  We've got plenty of properties in this region of Ontario that have them, vestiges of an abortive Ontario green energy program from years back.  

I don't know, I bought a Chinese solar panel in 2018 and it works just as well now as when I bought it. Does the job I need it for anyway.

[Martineleca]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

When ever a country or alliance overreaches and tries to establish spheres of interest where they are weak, it results in instability.  Regardless if Ukraine had joined NATO in the 1990's, that would have been the outcome.

You honestly believe Ukraine would have been attacked even as a full member of NATO, then why didn't Russia start by swallowing up the small Baltic states if it had no apprehension of open war with the alliance?

Edited June 27, 2024 by Martineleca

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Martineleca said:

You honestly believe Ukraine would have been attacked even as a full member of NATO, then why didn't Russia start by swallowing up the small Baltic states if it had no apprehension of open war with the alliance?

Had Ukraine hypothetically joined NATO in 2006 I doubt the annexation of Crimea happens in 2014, nor does the war break out in Ukraine in 2022.  Still, NATO's overstretch into this region would have deepened and the inclusion of a regime as banally corrupt as Ukraine's, both of these would have continued to weaken NATO.  The Russians in this case would be implacable and unappeasable, seeking opportunities to destabilize NATO in Eastern Europe, and after the rise of China and the fall out of it with the US, the pace of these opportunities would come along more quickly.  NATO's immersion in decisive regional politics of the Balkans and the Caucuses would decrease the cohesion of the alliance, (like how the Turks and Americans act sometimes like enemies even though they are both members of NATO).  The Russians would expand their military and seek the correct geopolitical circumstances to use overseas conflicts to weaken the US through proxy wars. 

That would be my guess, but that's a pretty useless what if we are discussing.   Ukraine did not join NATO prior to 2013, and Ukraine is in serious trouble at this time and NATO might not be able to save it.

 

 

[ink]

9 hours ago, Martineleca said:

You honestly believe Ukraine would have been attacked even as a full member of NATO, then why didn't Russia start by swallowing up the small Baltic states if it had no apprehension of open war with the alliance?

Worth remembering that NATO (as a whole) didn't have much stomach for adding Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 and that the US pushing for this caused some consternation. Also, back in 2008, the Ukrainian public were against joining NATO and that the Western leaning of the Orange Revolution was loosing steam because ordinary people's lives weren't getting any better.

It's because Russia can't reverse a country's NATO membership that Ukraine's moves in this direction cause so much fear for the Russian elite.

[Josh]

It also seems fantasticly unlikely NATO was ever a threat, given that it took the invasion of Ukraine for most of it to even invest 2% on defense.

[ink]

42 minutes ago, Josh said:

It also seems fantasticly unlikely NATO was ever a threat, given that it took the invasion of Ukraine for most of it to even invest 2% on defense.

Clearly the Russians thought it was a threat, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the best part of 25 years complaining about NATO acting beyond its borders, actual NATO expansion, proposed NATO expansion in Georgia and Ukraine, NATO installing missile defence, etc., etc.

Besides, I don't think anyone takes European defence seriously when the US outspends the rest of the civilised world.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Had Ukraine hypothetically joined NATO in 2006 I doubt the annexation of Crimea happens in 2014, nor does the war break out in Ukraine in 2022.  Still, NATO's overstretch into this region would have deepened and the inclusion of a regime as banally corrupt as Ukraine's, both of these would have continued to weaken NATO.  The Russians in this case would be implacable and unappeasable, seeking opportunities to destabilize NATO in Eastern Europe, and after the rise of China and the fall out of it with the US, the pace of these opportunities would come along more quickly.  NATO's immersion in decisive regional politics of the Balkans and the Caucuses would decrease the cohesion of the alliance, (like how the Turks and Americans act sometimes like enemies even though they are both members of NATO).  The Russians would expand their military and seek the correct geopolitical circumstances to use overseas conflicts to weaken the US through proxy wars. 

That would be my guess, but that's a pretty useless what if we are discussing.   Ukraine did not join NATO prior to 2013, and Ukraine is in serious trouble at this time and NATO might not be able to save it.

 

 

Then what you are saying is what IVE been saying for the past 14 years, that this is NOT about NATO expansion at all, but about what Russia can get away with.

Thank you, finally.

[Ssnake]

NATO expansion is a threat to Russia only insofar as it reduces her ability to coerce Russian neighbors to align themselves with the Russian Mafia State. Oh noes! Russia forced to limit its sphere of shit to her own borders!

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, ink said:

Clearly the Russians thought it was a threat, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the best part of 25 years complaining about NATO acting beyond its borders, actual NATO expansion, proposed NATO expansion in Georgia and Ukraine, NATO installing missile defence, etc., etc.

Besides, I don't think anyone takes European defence seriously when the US outspends the rest of the civilised world.

A political threat, not a military threat.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

A political threat, not a military threat.

No, no, no. That is NOT how its been presented. NATO was presented as a direct MILITARY threat. Thats why they ostensibly stood up 1st Guards Tank Army and returned to Divisions. Because NATO was on their borders and was a major threat of regime change!

You cant go back and cook the books and claim it was just a POLITICAL threat. Indeed, Russia is so hugely stable and happy in its one party state and Tsar Vladimir forever that we couldnt possibly change the Russian people by showing them Democracy and economic interdependence is a good thing!

10 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

NATO expansion is a threat to Russia only insofar as it reduces her ability to coerce Russian neighbors to align themselves with the Russian Mafia State. Oh noes! Russia forced to limit its sphere of shit to her own borders!

Exactly. And If Russia can no longer intimidate its former colonies, then its no longer an Imperial state. And if Russia is no longer the Imperial state, then what is it?

This is all stuff I was saying 14 years ago, and Glenn was one of my loudest critics. Now he openly concedes that yes, I clearly had a point, without actually conceding I was right. Well, thats tanknet for you.

 

[ink]

12 minutes ago, seahawk said:

A political threat, not a military threat.

I think, on balance, it was a bit of both.

[seahawk]

45 minutes ago, ink said:

I think, on balance, it was a bit of both.

No, in reality it was a pure political threat, as NATO or EU membership removes a lot of the control Russia can exercise on former Soviet Republics. And if one would really integrate itself with the West and do a similar economic development as Eastern Europe from 1995-2010, it would be a huge threat to the Russian regime, as the Russians would ask: "Why can' t we have nice things?"

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 hours ago, ink said:

Worth remembering that NATO (as a whole) didn't have much stomach for adding Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 and that the US pushing for this caused some consternation. Also, back in 2008, the Ukrainian public were against joining NATO and that the Western leaning of the Orange Revolution was loosing steam because ordinary people's lives weren't getting any better.

It's because Russia can't reverse a country's NATO membership that Ukraine's moves in this direction cause so much fear for the Russian elite.

Ukraine joining NATO may have been a factor in the 2014 invasion. It certainly was not in the 2022 invasion. 

To the contrary - Putin was the main leader pushing for Finland and Sweden joining NATO. So why would anyone think Putin feels threatened, or even opposes NATO?

[bojan]

6 hours ago, ink said:

...Also, back in 2008, the Ukrainian public were against joining NATO...

Who cares about what public thinks, majority of Montenegrins were against joining NATO and yet country got into NATO.

Edited June 28, 2024 by bojan

[ink]

25 minutes ago, bojan said:

Who cares about what public thinks, majority of Montenegrins were against joining NATO and yet country got into NATO.

Well indeed. It isn't about the sentiment of the country, it's about the sentiment of those in power. Sometimes those align, and sometimes they don't. Serbia is another example.