via Press TV.
The United States has once again threatened Russian President Vladimir with deploying more than 150 tanks and armored vehicles in Europe.This article is laced with inaccuracies but it points to something important none-the-less. US intentions and actions are either being misread or misrepresented.
Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges, commander of the US Army in Europe, said the Pentagon planned to deploy the tanks and vehicles by the end of 2015.
They could be placed in Poland, Romania or the Baltic states, the military commander told Reuters.
"By the end of... 2015, we will have gotten all the equipment for a heavy brigade, that means three battalions plus a reconnaissance squadron, the artillery headquarters, engineers, and it will stay in Europe," Hodges said.
Last month, the Pentagon threatened Russia with redeploying nuclear cruise missiles to Europe, accusing Moscow of violating two arms control treaties.
Washington said Moscow violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
However, Russia denied the allegation and said the testing of a ground-launched cruise missile in July 2014 was in compliance with the INF treaty.
Hodges said the United States currently has about 30,000 troops in Europe plus a similar number of Air Force, Navy and Marine personnel.
He added that the US military would keep the forces in the continent despite budgetary pressures in the country.
The US and its allies accuse Russia of sponsoring military activities in Ukraine. The Kremlin has firmly rejected the accusations.
From our perspective we're reassuring allies.
From the Russian view we're being provocative.
Happy 2015. Its going to be a rough ride.
Just my opinion: current logistics and systems for our family of AFVs shoots us in the foot. Need to brake GD-land strangle-hold on thinking for new tanks, ifvs etc.
ReplyDeleteGD stranglehold? So the M109A7, AMPV, M777, and Bradley are made by GD now? (Note, the first three of those are pretty good by the way.) There are many problems with American Land Systems but the majority are not caused by manufacturers. In fact, GD's proposal for the GCV was the lightest of the three (65 tons w/o add on armor) and to my knowledge, none of the manufacturers, GD included, were exactly pushing for design requirements that pushed the concepts' weights up that far.
DeleteThe real problem is the same one that exists with the F-35...it's the idea that every platform has to be perfect and do everything which is just not possible. This is why it has taken so long to even see the end of the tunnel with the JLTV (which was killed by lightweight MRAP's years ago).
break not brake...
ReplyDelete@The United States has once again threatened Russian President Vladimir with deploying more than 150 tanks and armored vehicles in Europe. @
ReplyDeleteInteresting, they appear in Ukraine or not?
Doubt it, probably Baltic States.
DeleteTrip-wire.
ReplyDeleteOh please.
ReplyDeleteRussia has rebuilt and refitted Ostrova bases - each about 50kms away from Estonian,Latvian and Lithuanian borders.
They did that in 2011 and finished in 2013.
From all the information we have, each of them is loaded with +50 T-90s and at least 30 Ka-52 helicopters.
When we ask for meagre self-defense gestures - and they are gestures onlly - such as basic anti-tank and BTR equipment with a handful of tanks for our guys to train with - 'omgomg, NATO imperialist provocation the Baltic bayonet, [insert stupid shit here].....!!!!''
We dont even have proper radars to detect Ka-52 helis, not to mention the highly trained Pskov units right at our - and with it NATO and EU - borders.
Not to mention Kaliningrad which is basically a multi-fortified castle and base in 21st century. It literally could probably take Sweden and Norwegian army on its own.
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing but hysterical propaganda that you`ll hear next year on Kremlin-biased outlets like RT.
The Ukraine is essential to the security and prosperity of Russia. They will nuke it to a self-lighting parking lot status before they allow it to be snatched into the Western SOI.
DeleteThat's a fact.
They cannot afford to lose their breadbasket and provide free ABM lookin on their central missile fields, anymore than we could afford having China take out a CRF lease on Kansas, Missouri and Ohio-
China Poised To Play Debt Card
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/china-poised-to-play-debt-card-for-u-s-land/
Having said that, is there ANYONE HERE who thinks that Russian tanks are going to once again roll into Eastern Europe? Anyone?
If not, INF/CFE violative excuses are a joke. It is the American _tactical_ tomahawks which exceed the MTCR treaties with 900+nm ranges from essentially untouchable sea basing and so long as we have those, we can stiff arm Russia long enough in Eastern Europe to stand up a real defense in Western Europe which is where such a small force as an ABCT might actually stand a chance of dying usefully, shoulder to shoulder, with NATO allies.
It was fighting with one foot in the gutter of the English Channel that gave rise to the idiocy of Forward Defense and nuclear MADness in defense of Germany. And that is simply no longer a running start case with the Warsaw Pact dissolved and 30,000 tanks broken up, parceled out or old beyond utility in the CIS states.
In any case, so long as we have Tridents on subs and B61s on B-2s, it _does not matter_ what the Russians try in Eastern Europe, they will lose. And because they will lose, they will not try. And the Ukraine is not Europe.
If the Russians want the Baltic Republics back to secure the approaches to St. Petersburg and provide a solid flank for any envelopment operations out of Belarus into a Ukrainian invasion by NATO forces, that's a different matter.
I would dare to suggest that the U.S. let it happen. Pull our NATO air policing units and walk away.
Because we have security for Central Europe via Eastern Europe and security for Eastern Europe in the depths of Western European air and naval basing for a tactical airwar.
While the Wisla is not the Dnieper-
Logical Polish Natural Barrier
http://www.eurocanals.com/Waterways/Resources/poland.gif
Logical Ukrainian Equivalent
http://theblacksea.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/footsteps-cossacks-map-576x385_tcm43-9015.gif
The reality is that this is not 1941 either-
Dnieper Front 1941
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Map_of_dnieper_battle_grand.jpg
Which means we do not have to maintain full frontal contact with forces to effectively stifle individual assaults.
DeleteWhile this is bad news for both Warsaw and Krakow, it is good news for the planet because it means that the same old rules apply: "Not today, maybe tomorrow."
The difference being that it doesn't have to be U.S. forces which reinforce the NATO East border regions and indeed -should not be-, because this is not a real as much as an artificially induced threat condition (the SOF in Ukraine are Western, likely including those which stole the Buk battery and fired up the Airliner) in which we are pushing Russia's buttons, looking to reinitiate a permanent global garrison force as Keynesian economics.
I despise what the liberals are doing to my country, economically, socially and politically.
But if our armed forces cannot be bothered to field court a few traitors in the White House and Congress before SECURING OUR OWN BORDERS against the _THREE ARMY GROUPS_ worth of invading low IQ, high criminality, illegal immigrant, populations that come here from our south /every year/; I have absolutely no sympathy with them securing their right to exist in a 'get out of sequestration, free' carded world, simply by picking a fight we don't need to be in.
The Baltic States are not NATO. Ukraine is not NATO. Push Russia too hard as a nationalist (i.e. proud of their own population and history = sane) nuclear power and NATO will _fail_ in it's primary mission to protect Europe and America.
See: Twilight 2000.
Let the Germans reinforce the Poles and the Czechs and the Rumanians. Eighty years after Hitler rose to power, they run Europe anyway. Why are you not forcing them to at least pay for the privilege by standing up their own mechanized force similar to what they had in the Cold War?
It is NOT our problem.
@Having said that, is there ANYONE HERE who thinks that Russian tanks are going to once again roll into Eastern Europe? Anyone?@
DeleteI'm, sir. Pay attention to characteristics of T-72 Б3 and Armata MBT – it is clear that both are assault tanks, specially if keep in mind that Armata initially carried 152-mm gun (possible launcher of tactical nuke-shells). In case of global war armored hordes under red flags have all chances to performance tourist-tour in Europe.
@free ABM lookin on their central missile fields, @
Baltic countries can provide to NATO's ABM the same close bridgehead right now. Wrong argument, sit.
@And because they will lose, they will not try. @
Pay attention to Russian overwhelming tactical nuke possibilities – more then 10 000 warheads on different carriers. I'dont now why in Western open media spread info about only 2 000-3 000 tactical warheads – it is well-known in Russian military-around circles that quantity is more then 10 000.
@And the Ukraine is not Europe. @
Please, do not tell it to Ukrainians – too much of them seriously believe that Ukrainians are greatly more then mere Europeans – but European's ancestors, founders of democracy and European constitutional law and Latin language))))) If seriously – Ukraine is a pivot point for EU. If EU or generalized West do not finde remedy against Russian proxy and hybrid-war performance – instability in present Ukraine will be in the Future pushed in EU countries. This year warfare in Ukraine will show very much. Reportedly about 60 NATO's military instructors were noticed on some Ukrainian military airport – so we will see what these instructors have in their numerous military boxes. And we will see which kind and how much of soviet/RF weapon the Donbass rebels find in the nearest bushes or supermarkets.
The US/Nato are tactical geniuses, but strategic morons. We win battles, but not wars. Over and over.
DeleteRussia/China are strategic masters. If you want to understand them, you need to understand the game of 'Go'. Where direct confrontation is secondary to simply denying your opponent any path to victory.
By all accounts, Russia's tactical performance in the South Ossetia campaign was near laughable. But they still got everything they wanted. They're getting what they want in Ukraine too, without formally rolling their tanks over the border.
China is simply buying up the still-functional parts of the US and off-shoring them homeward. Making any war longer than 6 weeks unthinkable due to our inability to replace material losses. Next they'll be buying up US Pacific real estate to settle our debts to them. Patiently waiting for our collapse so that they can assert sovereignty over their acquisitions.
I2,
Delete@Having said that, is there ANYONE HERE who thinks that Russian tanks are going to once again roll into Eastern Europe? Anyone?@
>>
I'm, sir. Pay attention to characteristics of T-72 Б3 and Armata MBT – it is clear that both are assault tanks, specially if keep in mind that Armata initially carried 152-mm gun (possible launcher of tactical nuke-shells). In case of global war armored hordes under red flags have all chances to performance tourist-tour in Europe.
>>
I don't take out T-72s with other tanks sir. I drop GBU-39/53 or CBU-105 if they are stupid enough to cluster up. I shoot them with Hellfire. And because they are tanks not AA vehicles, they can do nothing to stop it.
This is the key to understanding an advance into Europe. It buys the Russians nothing. Costs them paying customers for LNG. And plays 1973 Sinai games with bounding out from under the cover of the kinds of weapons systems which can actually defend the VOLUME airspace over an armored thrustline.
If they have nothing to shoot at and no logistics support to continue the advance, they are going _nowhere_. Because that is the definition of deep attack and assymetrical warfare that defined Air Land Battle Doctrine. You don't shoot at something which can shoot back in a fair fight. That's stupid. If the enemy is in range, so are you.
@free ABM lookin on their central missile fields, @
>>
Baltic countries can provide to NATO's ABM the same close bridgehead right now. Wrong argument, sit.
>>
Nope. Not from Plesetsk and Severomorsk. Even with today's weapons the SM3 IIa/b are out of their range class as under-ground track midcourse or terminal defense weapons. You need something like a GBI to get that kind of kill and the U.S. is not going to pay to put ballistic weapons in silos in the Baltic States, even the Russians would (morons they are not) allow the construction rather than just Iskandering the sites.
Because they too _do not have to_ occupy terrain to deny the installation of active defenses.
Add to this that the Russians are working feverishly on a high energy followon ballistic missile which is form and fit compatible with Topol-M and thus can be swapped out on the TELs. If they flush their SS-25s out of their garages early to counter B-2 strikes, they can get out from under any realistic BPI/API defense. Unless it's sitting real close to the ascent track.
The only real counter to this will be X-37 inserted Project Thor followon as RFG. Which will mean the outer space treaty is worthless.
The U.S. uses Europe as a shield and stalking horse. Which allows them to constantly bully and backfoot the Russian Bear without a direct nation:nation threat as a political tool.
But there is a serious push for One World Government and the Germans still want to rule a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals and between those two Agendas we are on the edge of an incredible misunderstanding of exactly how far Russia will go to defend her interests. Even as she has NEVER gone to defend her allies abroad.
Do not mistake the two conditions. The Soviets lost, not 25 nor even 50 million in WWII but somewhere between 75 and 100 million. So many that they were only just recrossing the 200 million mark in 1991 when the USSR broke up. They have made a near religious persecution complex out of that experience which dwarfs that of the Jews 'Holocaust'.
DeleteYou push your luck with them, fulfilling all their paranoid fantasies by invading Russian as Ukrainian soil again and you will be frying in your own radioactive juices before you can think to blink.
@And because they will lose, they will not try. @
>>
Pay attention to Russian overwhelming tactical nuke possibilities – more then 10 000 warheads on different carriers. I'dont now why in Western open media spread info about only 2 000-3 000 tactical warheads – it is well-known in Russian military-around circles that quantity is more then 10 000.
>>
Yes, we have foolishly discontinued our best tactical weapons options, from the non-replacement of Lance to the retirement of SRAM and cancellation of AGM-131. With INF being what it is, we are down to free falls and strategic air launch cruise.
The irony being that EITHER of those options is more than sufficient to stop any Russian Armored movement into Eastern Europe and the Russians will not retalliate so long as we blow up their toys on Polish or Czech soil.
Because if they did, the next weapons would be SLBMs and they would be falling on Moscow.
Again, the U.S. uses Europe as a shield. Just because we are no longer really a nuclearized force on the Continent doesn't mean we would not use nukes to spoil the loot of any Russian attempt to reenter Europe, the long, hard, way.
You are expendable. And the Russians are too. And while we would undoubtedly die somewhere between Europe dying and Russia dying, the simple truth is that it gains Russia _nothing to try_ because they will not have Europe and they will only get their offensive forces destroyed which means that we would win the followon (REFORPOL) conventional attack into the Ukraine which they could only stop with nukes and we're back to razed earth for razed earth and nobody winning.
Delete@And the Ukraine is not Europe. @
>>
Please, do not tell it to Ukrainians – too much of them seriously believe that Ukrainians are greatly more then mere Europeans – but European's ancestors, founders of democracy and European constitutional law and Latin language))))) If seriously – Ukraine is a pivot point for EU. If EU or generalized West do not find remedy against Russian proxy and hybrid-war performance – instability in present Ukraine will be in the Future pushed in EU countries. This year warfare in Ukraine will show very much. Reportedly about 60 NATO's military instructors were noticed on some Ukrainian military airport – so we will see what these instructors have in their numerous military boxes. And we will see which kind and how much of soviet/RF weapon the Donbass rebels find in the nearest bushes or supermarkets.
>>
No. Russia minds her own business. It is The West who can't stop getting into foreign adventures, largely becasue we foolishly depleted our own continental resources past economic ease of exploitation fighting two World Wars that were ALSO none of our concern.
Russia sits atop all the resources she will ever need and only requires markets _which she had until last year_ to sell them in. The difference is that those 'NATO instructors' you talk about were there for a long time before Russia responded with her own Spetznatz and Voiska airborne units. They were part and parcel of the effort to force a trumping of Russia-neutral politics in the Ukraine towards a Western favoritism.
The Ukrainians know what happened to the last President who tried that. His political 'half life' was not very long at all. And so it was all being done on the sly. Which is still no better than mucking about in Russia's backyard (think Grenada, Nicaragua or even Cuba for comparative examples of Uncle Sam is Watching idiocy) and expecting not to get caught.
If Russia were to get a foothold in Eastern Europe it would only be because the stupid, greedy, Europeans would rather allow the desperate poverty of the former Warsaw Pact states flow West as unwanted consumer immigrants than help them rapidly stand up functional economies in their own states.
And so the answer is not to risk WORLD WAR THREE by trying to pry the Ukraine out of the Bears death grip but to make Eastern Europe as uninterested in Russian infiltration as they were in 1939 when the Germans were actually welcomed at first because the Socialists were seen as the lesser evil to Communism.
In any case, it is not the United States business to restart even the Cold War, just to keep the miltiary in business as our own nation totters on the brink of Failed Statehood. Keep Mexico in Mexico and save OUR culture as society. Let the Europeans work out how they are going to steal the Russians breadbasket out from under their noses on their own damn dime.
]@The US/Nato are tactical geniuses, but strategic morons. We win battles, but not wars. Over and over.@
DeleteI beg to differ, sir. Both – China and Russia lived dozens years and still follow Western rules. It shows real level of Western political masterpiece. “Ukrainian campaign” is a win-win situation for the West. Ukrainians only in political sense differ against Russians in all other terms we a alike. Not to mention Russian technical addiction to some Ukrainian plants production. In geopolitical strategic sense Kremlin lost this battle: the best victory in the battle when you achieve the same result without the battle. And Russians by fact manage a civil war in Ukraine, all vid from Donbass region show that Ukrainian solders speak Russian inly in daily routine.
One my teacher said that if you see in a solid interconnected system one part looks unlike – so this part is the system's point of control. In terms of Geopolitic – at my take China is above-said “unlike part” - for dozens years they were too stable , too successful, too becoming stronger day-by-day. But time flies, time flows – now France is kicked away China-backed regimes in Africa and it is just a beginning. In my opinion, after Western rivals in the Middle East were tied up, after EU countries united around USA because of “Russia, ISIS and ebola” - the generalized West will performance a battle chandelle against China going to launch all torpedoes at once. And we will see whose Truth be more stronger. My bet is on the West.
@By all accounts, Russia's tactical performance in the South Ossetia campaign was near laughable@
What do you mean concrete, sir?
to M&S
Delete@I drop GBU-39/53 or CBU-105@
@And because they are tanks not AA vehicles,@
Our traditional accent on “armored hordes” doesn't mean absence of remedy against airborn bombs and rockets or against AT-systems developed in towns. Potential of present RF greatly less then potential of NATO. It means nothing but wide usage of tactical nukes – and my notices about “new view Russian army” proof above-said statement: weapon and vehicles performance characteristics, legends of drilling, changes in structure of army – this all points out that our army is oriented on intense usage nuke weapon and highly maneuverer combined fight. Not WWII-style – frontal attacks
@even the Russians would (morons they are not)@
bgggggg
@Plesetsk and Severomorsk.@
I'dont get you, sir. May be my scanty English(( What do you mean?
Russia already has an advanced anti-missile and AA system:
Radars coverage is on pics below (pics need to be updated but current changes were not radical)
http://i41.tinypic.com/212hfyd.jpg
http://cs9550.vkontakte.ru/u7482633/119493309/x_d7048c29.jpg
@SS-25@
old-age. Topol'-M and Yars are on the full marsh
@real counter to this will be X-37@
S-500 is developed to eat such orbital birds.
@SLBMs and they would be falling on Moscow.@
there are three echelons of S-300 and S-400 around Moscow region.
@Voiska airborne units.@
“Voiska” in Russian means several military units or combat arm.
@And so the answer is not to risk WORLD WAR THREE@
The pivot point here – will be or not NATO's direct support of Ukrainians. If will be – it means the next step to WW III.
@the Russians breadbasket out from under their noses @
You too much accent on Ukrainian resources but miss another, even more important for us, Russians, issue – irrational one. Long story in short – Ukrainians and Russians are tied on too much in cultural sense – a lot of Russians have roots in Ukraine, and I'm not an exception. For a lot of us Ukrainian issue is a personal one.
@i-i
DeleteThe goal for NATO in Ukraine was/is a proxy war with Russia. In this they failed, as Moscow turned the situation into a Ukrainian civil war instead.
The NATO goal now is to prod Russia into formally (as opposed to informally) invading Ukraine. But it’s simply not in Russia’s interest to do so. How many times now have the western media proclaimed an ‘invasion’ based on a couple of tanks or trucks running around near the border?
That the West is able to leverage its economic advantages against Russia is no surprise. But they’re still not getting the proxy war they wanted, and Putin isn’t having that much trouble staying in power. Which isn’t surprising, as sanctions almost always fail to topple leadership in the target country.
As for Russia’s performance in Ossetia, I’m not going to look it up. But they had serious problems with unit coordination and their pilots took far more casualties than they should have against the Georgians. But strategically, they did everything right.
"Happy 2015. Its going to be a rough ride."
ReplyDeleteSol , do you predict kiev will try to assault eastern urkaine again in 2015 ?
These military to military training missions are about strengthening NATO at the tactical level.
ReplyDeleteEstonia is in the market for self propelled guns. Latvia just purchased 120 some BAE refurbed British CRVs. Lithuania just purchased another round of Javelin missiles. As NATO members that share a border with Russia, they are well motivated to work with the US and other NATO allies.
I've learned a lot about NATO in six months. EUSAREUR does 60% of the Army military to military engagements, with 5% of the total forces. The numbers are similar for EUCOM.
But to sum it up, these training missions are not a threat to Russia, they are a reassurance to our allies.
the optics aren't good though. between the economic sanctions, whatever the foolishness is with the oil markets (no matter how much i like it and think that they're finally responding to economic reality) added to these military missions i can easily see how Russia could view this as a provocative act.
Deletewe'll see what we'll see but i have no confidence that someone has outlined potential responses to these acts....and i'm worried that Russia/Brussels/Washington could miscalculate. i don't think we'll see WW3 but something bad none-the-less.
Sol, here's an excellent rundown of the big picture for 2014/15:
Deletehttp://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-imperial-collapse-playbook.html
An excerpt, as concerns Ukraine:
Delete"Next, the Russians provided some amount of support, including weapons, volunteers and humanitarian aid, to Ukraine's eastern provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk, which declared themselves People's Republics and successfully fought Ukraine's so-called “anti-terrorist operation” to a stalemate and an imperfect, precarious cease-fire.
Very significantly, Russia absolutely refused to get involved militarily, has withheld official recognition of these republics, has refused to consider breaking up Ukraine, and continues to insist on national dialogue and a peace process even as the bullets fly. According to Putin, Ukraine must be maintained as “a contiguous political space.” Thus, the Russians have responded to the Anglo-imperialists' setting up of an anti-Russia in the form of Ukraine by setting up an anti-Ukraine in the form of DPR and LPR, thereby shunting the Anglo-imperialist attempt to provoke a war between Ukraine and Russia into a civil war within Ukraine."
And another:
Delete"You might also notice that the Anglo-imperialists have been getting very, very angry. They have been doing everything they can to vilify Russia, comparing Putin to Hitler and so on. This is because for them it's all about the money, and they didn't get what they paid for. What the Anglo-imperialists were paying for in corrupting Ukraine's politics was a ring-side seat at a fight between Ukraine and Russia. And what they got instead is a two-legged stool at a bar-room brawl between Eastern and Western Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine accounts for a quarter of the Ukrainian economy, produces most of the coal that had formerly kept the lights on in the rest of the country, and contains most of the industry that had made Ukraine an industrialized nation. Western Ukraine is centered on the unhappy little rump of Galicia, where the political soil is so fertile for growing neo-Nazis. So, paying billions to watch a bunch of Ukrainians fight each other inconclusively while Russia gets to play peacemaker is not what the Anglo-imperialists wanted, and they are absolutely livid about it. If they don't get the war they paid for PDQ, they will simply cut their losses, pack up and leave, and then do what they always do, which is pretend that the country in question doesn't exist, which, the way things are going in the Ukraine, it barely will."
Here is a pretty good summary of the last six months. The Baltic states went on a defense spending spree, and UK, Norway, and the US all sent troops on "permanent training" missions to the Baltics. http://www.bne.eu/content/story/baltics-splurge-eu300mn-upgrading-defence-last-6-months
ReplyDeleteRemember it was political concessions to Russia that we wouldn't build new permanent NATO bases in the Baltics that was part of the 1997 Nato Russia Founding act. The Baltic states have been quite vocal about desiring permanent bases in their countries, but a permanent training presence is all that is possible without violating the letter of the treaty. So Russian newspapers call it "provocation" by NATO to justify the continued air and sea incursions into Baltic air and sea areas.
The EU has nearly ten times the GDP of Russia so it's foolish that the increasingly heavily-indebted* US has to defend its rich but unconcerned (about Russia) allies, while Russia increasingly looks eastward on military, economic and financial matters.
ReplyDelete*There are predictions that within ten years, if interest rates rise as expected, the interest on debt will exceed the Pentagon budget.
Economic power is important, but the EU/Europe doesn't have the political power to achieve anything without the US. Too many cooks, not enough chefs.
Deletebut neither the US nor the EU have any sort of interest in taxing the wealthiest individuals or corporations because they will flee with their capital to some tax-dodger resort like the Cayman or Lichtenstein
Europe has obviously not responded to this hoked-up "Russia threat" and certainly there are chiefs in Germany, France.and UK who have for years been responding to the mighty Taliban threat in far-off medieval Afghanistan but against Russia? Not so much.
DeleteThe UK has sent tanks to Poland for exercises and will likely preposition equipment.
Deleteand many of the Eastern European and Nordic countries have announced increases in defense budgets.
however, considering the number of European/Nato members who have cut their budgets to the bone, they have little more than Toy Armies
Well the US has an army with a C/S wailing all the time about how he's over-required and under-supported and here he goes on a wild-bear chase to a place where people don't mind wild bears.
DeleteI know the US strategy is to keep military units up close and personal with its long-standing enemies Russia and China but this idea -- currently in planning stage -- makes no sense.
IOW, I think they shoot for consistency, not logic. The US must retain units in Korea and Europe ...because, that's all, just because. They make a statement, or something.
So then don't cry that your hands are tied, Odierno, for other places why just might be considered essential rather than just for show.
This is weird...
ReplyDeleteIf you want to deploy armor to reassure allies.. you tell them, in secret and make sure to have it ready as soon as you announce it to the world and the potential enemy.
What is the use of these tanks at the END of 2015? If Putin really wants to push it he might do so BEFORE that date, specially after this announcement. If he is not.. then there is no reason to send them.
Ok so if Putin decided to get into a full on shooting war with NATO today it is possible that he may get the support of Belarus they love Russia and their support of Russia in a major war is a possibility. With this in mind Putin would be able to throw about 210000 men from the western and southern military districts into the invasion. If Belarus was to support them that would be about another 30000 men for Putin.
ReplyDeleteNATO would be divided. The Baltic States would be just run over. Latvia has 14845 men, Estonia 6000 men, Lithuania 3500. They would just be rolled over by the Russian tanks. Then the Russians would get to Poland which only has about 65000 personnel in its land forces of whom 45000 are actual military personnel. However unlike the Baltic States Poland would not be on its own it would have the following NATO rapid reaction forces for support.
Germany
1st Armored Division
Special Operations Division
US
2nd Cavalry Regiment
173rd Airborne Brigade
12th Combat Aviation Brigade
UK
16th Air Assault Brigade
France
11th Parachute Brigade
Army Special Forces Brigade
Holland
11th Airmobile Brigade
13th Motorized Brigade
Italy
Puzzoulo del Friuli Brigade
Turkish Army(Not bloody Likely)
52nd Armored Division
23 Motorized Infantry Division
Spain(Also not likely)
7th Light Infantry Brigade
6th Parachute Infantry Brigade
Greece(Really not happening)
8th Infantry Brigade
9th Infantry Brigade
10th Infantry Regiment
15th Infantry Regiment
International Forces
Franco-German Brigade
However looking at these we can completely discount Turkey with their growing dislike for the west and the fact that they have their own problems to deal with in regards to Iraq and ISIS. The Spanish and Greeks are bankrupt I doubt they could even afford to send their forces to Poland. Looking at the forces that are left the vast majority of them are light infantry forces that would have a very difficult time standing up to the mechanized forces of the Russians.
NATO air forces would be in better shape. The European Countries alone on paper can field around 360 Typhoons, 150 Mirrage 2000s, 420 F-16s, 30 F-18 Hornets, 60 MIG-29s, 45 MIG-21s, 45F-4s, and 120 Rafales for fighters as well as 300 Tornados, 30 Harriers, and 15 SU-25s as strike aircraft with no heavy bombers. For a total of 1230 Fighters and 345 strike aircraft
The US has 54 F-16s, 36F-15 C/Ds, and 18F-15Es in Europe Totaling 90 Fighters, and 18 strike aircraft
Russia by contrast can field 359 SU-27s, 43SU-30s, 34SU-35s, 253MIG-29s, and 122MIG-31s for fighters, for strike aircraft they have 280 SU-24s, 195SU-25s and 56SU-34s, the Russians also have heavy bombers 107TU-22Ms, 58TU-95s and 16TU-160s. For a total of 811 fighters, 531 strike aircraft and 181 bombers.
Belarus could also contribute 37MIG-29s, and 22SU-25s
All in all I give the initial advantage to Russia until the Germans, British, French, Danish, Dutch, Belgians and US can bring their heavier mechanized forces to bear as well as the full extent of US air power.
I'd like to point out that the defense plans for the Baltic states doesn't rely on their active forces. In Estonia's case, the active force is really just a training ground for the reserves. When you train with the Estonians, they only train on two things, ambush and break contact. Makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
ReplyDelete