OT? A New Cold War [Archive]

RN7

10-31-2014, 02:53 AM

I'd say Putin is doing his best to expand Russian political influence over the former Soviet republics, and as the article states how independent are the former Soviet states from Russia in reality? There are at least 15 million ethnic Russians still living in these countries and their economies are still closely linked and dependent on Russia. Particularly through Russian energy exports to them, and Russia's guarantee of their security through its strategic nuclear forces and its air defence capabilities. However there is also a lot of resistance to Russian interference in their affairs for example the Ukraine, the Baltic States and Georgia, and Russia has its own troublesome ethnic minorities such as the Chechens.

However beyond the old Soviet borders Russia will have a lot of trouble regaining the political influence that the Soviet Union once had. In Europe most of the old Warsaw Pact nations are now part of NATO as are the Baltic States, and Germany is united. All of Europe's neutral countries are Western democracies, and the only ally that Russia has in Europe is Serbia although there may be some lingering pro-Russian sentiment among the Eastern Slav's and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe. Also Russia is not much of an economic power. In 1985 the Soviet economy was about 55% the size of the US economy. In 2013 the Russian economy was still smaller than the Soviet economy was in 1985 and is about 13% the size of the current US economy. In Europe the Russian economy is the same size as the Italian economy, and smaller than the economies of Germany, France and Britain. Russia still has the world's third largest defence budget, but China spends twice as much and America spends seven time as much, yet Russia is still trying to keep up with America and China in numbers.

Russia's economy is also dependent on energy and arms exports. China, India and others buy a lot of arms and technology from Russia, but they do so because they can't afford Western arms or because the West won't sell them arms (China). Many countries are also still dependent on Russian oil and gas, notably the former Soviet Republics, China and Europe, and Putin has used Russian energy resources as a tool to bully them. But oil exports are dependent on the price of a barrel of oil, and that can and has been manipulated in the past.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11181297/Oil-slump-leaves-Russia-even-weaker-than-decaying-Soviet-Union.html
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/13/michael-reagan/ronald-reagans-son-says-his-father-got-saudis-pump/

Today America doesn't need Middle Eastern oil anymore because of its shale resources. Imagine the economic harm that it could do to Russia now

Raellus

10-31-2014, 02:44 PM

An interesting article on Poland's role in the current dynamic- quite a change from the old Cold War days.

http://www.businessinsider.com/poland-is-preparing-for-a-russian-invasion-2014-10

Raellus

11-12-2014, 04:41 PM

A fairly concise and fair-minded analysis of Russia's attempt to enlarge and modernize its military, and the obstacles that it will likely face along the way.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russias-military-back-9181

Raellus

11-13-2014, 12:48 PM

Potential fault lines within the NATO alliance.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/grave-threat-the-nato-alliance-its-not-russias-military-11661

At least some NATO member nations are taking the Russian threat seriously.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-13/russia-threat-prompts-nordic-governments-to-prepare-for-worst.html?cmpid=yhoo

rob

11-13-2014, 03:38 PM

Take the verboseness of Russia with grain of salt. Their land forces are still draft based, loaded with corruption, have many out dated systems from the 1980s. Don't get me wrong here, they do have some good stuff, not just enough of it. What NATOs problem is since the winding down in Afghanistan, NATO members have not been keeping the forces current. Right now, in dealing with Russia, the use the economic method. Russia trades sells oil which is bought and sold in US dollars, as is gold, with oil prices down, their economic situation is not good.

Raellus

11-14-2014, 01:39 PM

Rob, your point's well taken. However, with Moscow increasing spending on defense, and the U.S. cutting defense spending, the qualitative gap is starting to close. And in some military categories, like armor, the Russians have a quantitative advantage.

My point is that the Russians aren't pushovers. 10-years ago, probably. Today, not really. 10 years from now, if these defense spending trends continue, even less so. I don't want the West to make the mistake of underestimating ta potential adversary.

Raellus

11-14-2014, 01:40 PM

Moscow still has a few friends.

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-troops-hold-drills-serbia-162814039.html

kato13

11-14-2014, 02:02 PM

My point is that the Russians aren't pushovers. 10-years ago, probably. Today, not really. 10 years from now, if these defense spending trends continue, even less so. I don't want the West to make the mistake of underestimating ta potential adversary.

I agree in general but Russia has short and long term issues which will probably break those trends.

The aggressive posture seems to be the result of a cult of personality. If Putin is removed from the equation (perhaps his shirt allergy flairs up ;) ) I believe Russia would not maintain its current stance.
Demographic issues related to the age of the populace I have discussed before.
Their economy is a one trick pony (energy) and crude futures are down 6% this week and 29% annually. Also the energy strangle hold on Europe is weakening with the first LNG transports from the US arriving in Lithuania last month.

A populace will accept a reduction of freedoms (as Putin has done) if there is a dynamic economy. The crash of the Ruble (down over 30% since the beginning of the year) should put a bit of a damper on Putin's tightening control and his military buildup which is riddled with graft and corruption.

I am not saying I don't think the USA is in bad shape compared to a decade ago, but fundamentally I think China is positioned better to be our primary opposition over Russia.

Olefin

11-14-2014, 03:36 PM

Raellus

11-14-2014, 04:04 PM

You guys both raise a lot of good points, and I don't disagree with most of them. Kato, your shirt allergy comment made me LOL. But that's why I'm so troubled. I think Putin is very realistic about Russia's limitations. If you read the articles, Russia is actively trying to rectify its military shortcomings. It probably won't succeed to the point where those major, endemic weaknesses are completely cured, but it's trying. Likewise, Putin has shown that he is an opportunist and is ready to take aggressive action when he sees an advantage or opportunity arise. Russia is clearly testing the waters of expansionism now in the Ukraine and Moscow's learned that aggressive, expansionist behavior is not being adequately punished, not to any degree that has deterred said behavior. Recent reports suggest that active Russian military involvement in east Ukraine is actually increasing. Putin appears to be learning the same lessons that Hitler learned from his earliest land grabs: the West talks a big game but isn't willing to back it up.

My fear is Putin realizes Russian limitations and, at some point, events will reach an event horizon where Russia feels like the time to reclaim the old Soviet break-away republics is now or never. There are a number of factors that could trigger Russian aggression. I see those weaknesses that you pointed out Kato, especially the economic ones, as being pressures that will actually encourage increased aggression. For example, if Putin senses that he is losing control due to domestic disatisfaction in a weakening economy, it might increase his aggressive behaviro. The Argentine Junta did this in the Falklands in 1982.

I can definitely see him trying to pull a Crimea in Latvia and or Estonia. I can even see an outright military invasion of the Baltic Republics. Sure NATO could probably kick them out, but would they really try? They've taken a very soft stance regarding Crimea and Eastern Ukraine- the vibe NATO's been putting out there is that they probably wouldn't risk all-out war to defend the sovereignty of a few tiny nations. Granted, that's a worst-case scenario, but I really can see it happening. Heck, according to a couple of the articles, Estonia and Latvia, and even Poland, are afraid of being ditched by NATO if Russia were to attack.

kato13

11-14-2014, 04:39 PM

If you are saying you think Putin is a major threat in the near term (say 3 years), I fully agree with you.

The longer term is where I have less concern.

Full disclosure regarding the shirt joke: Credit should belong to "The Daily Show".

Olefin

11-14-2014, 05:46 PM

Webstral

11-14-2014, 06:50 PM

George Friedman has some interesting observations about Russia and a second Cold War in The Next 100 Years. He called the Ukraine when he wrote the book. While I don't agree with everything he writes, the book is very well worth reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416012495&sr=8-1&keywords=the+next+100+years

Raellus

11-14-2014, 06:57 PM

The real question is will Putin make the same mistake that Hitler made

Hitler got his way in the Rhineland and Austria and Czechoslovakia and planned to fight the West between 1942-1944

So he figured he could easily invade Poland, get what he needed there and then build up for the really big war - instead he miscalculated and got his big war right there and then - and in the end he lost

He got several months of "Sitzkrieg" as French and British forces sat on their hands watching the final stages of the partition of Poland. In the meantime, he conquered Norway and the Low Countries. After that, he steamrolled through France in about a month and sent the BEF across the Channel in tatters. At that point, things were looking really good for Nazi Germany.

By far, his biggest strategic mistake was invading Russia, and doing so before Great Britain could be knocked out of the war. Second to that, in terms of colossal strategic blunders, was declaring war on the U.S.A. Imagine how he could have complicated things between the U.K. and the U.S. by refusing to officially declare war on the U.S. The American public, who were already baying for Japanese blood, would have had a very hard time with a unilateral declaration of war against Germany when Japan was perceived as the more legitimate, imminent threat. Congress likely wouldn't have backed the the Germany First agreement. Hitler signed his own death warrant when he held true to the Tripartite Pact and declared war on the U.S.A.

Targan

11-14-2014, 07:51 PM

Keep in mind too that the effective Russian Army is actually quite small compared to their whole force. Most of their forces are still not that well trained, motivated or equipped. In many ways their army is more like the early WWII model right now - a core of well trained and well equipped men with the vast majority being little better than militia, albeit decently equipped militia. The question is will Putin have the time and the money to be able to make that mass of ineffectives into something like what the Soviets had in the early 80's

^This. Exactly right. The post-Soviet Russian Army has tried to simultaneously retain the mobilization-type force of the Cold War alongside a professional, well-trained, well-equipped ready reaction force and it's really strained them. They've enjoyed a short period of economic happy times due to their energy exports but that isn't a constant. As the years go by all that old equipment gets older and they can't maintain it all properly.

StainlessSteelCynic

11-15-2014, 12:40 AM

And there's always China to worry about as well...
http://news.yahoo.com/video/chinese-jet-design-based-stolen-044547470.html

RN7

11-15-2014, 01:25 AM

And there's always China to worry about as well...
http://news.yahoo.com/video/chinese-jet-design-based-stolen-044547470.html

The Chinese are shameless and will just flatly deny it as they do about everything else, and the blancmange in the White House will do absolutely nothing about it.

RN7

11-15-2014, 02:09 AM

I am not saying I don't think the USA is in bad shape compared to a decade ago, but fundamentally I think China is positioned better to be our primary opposition over Russia.

I would totally agree. China is a strategic competitor to the US on an economic scale that Russia or the USSR could never match. China's intellectual thievery is also becoming menacing, although most of the hardware it clones still sucks. But the rate China's technology is advancing I'd say America has about five years to put an end to it or it might become to difficult to stop.

However America is becoming energy self sufficient again because of shale, and that will give it a freedom on the international stage that it really hasn't had for the last sixty years. Unlike China and Europe it can't be bullied by the likes of Russia and OPEC. Also the things that once made China attractive to investment will soon make it unattractive; big population, low wages, non-existent labour and health laws, dictatorship. Now it has an ageing and soon shrinking population, popular demands for higher wages, fairer laws and an end to government corruption and more democracy. The Chinese government can only manipulate and lie too its population and the rest of the world so much.

Raellus

11-15-2014, 08:54 AM

I agree that China is the stronger rival to the U.S.A., ATM, and looks likely to continue being so. I've shared my thoughts on that matter in the Twilight 2030 thread. That being said, I still think that, ATM, is the more dangerous one, currently at least.

I'd like to focus more on Russia here. I encourage you to read the articles I've posted the links to here. Here's an oldie but goody.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-sends-ironhorse-tanks-to-natos-nervous-baltic-front-line-2014-10

The map with U.S. and Russian bases, correlation of forces table, and flashpoint blurbs is a pretty good place to start.

kato13

11-15-2014, 02:51 PM

For me this argument is falling into the fact that I bought the USSR was in parity with NATO capability and sustainability and "Fool me once, shame on the USSR, fool me twice shame on me". Back in the 80s I ignored chronic systemic issues with their military and economy (by reading articles that sounded very much like the ones I see now).

I think if you want Russia to be the big baddie in 2030, you need to focus on how their economy is able expand now not their military IMO. The Russian economy is not doing well. I read an article earlier this week where Apple Corp's valuation was 33% greater than the ENTIRE Russian stock market.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/11/20141114_AAPLRUSS_0.jpg

Just spit-balling but maybe throw something beyond oil and gas into the equation. Maybe they master fusion or superconductors which is dependent on some rare element they have a near monopoly on.

If I were to play T2k now I would explain the USSR's survival by having them produce as much oil as they do now, plus finding and exploiting the gold and mineral reserves which were featured in Clancy's Bear and the Dragon. I think you need to do something similar. My planned point of historical divergence went back as early as 1973 IIRC, with the Soviet expanding their oil exploration in response to the oil crisis.

This can certainly be frustrating when writing "future" history as you have to make the point of divergence earlier to allow the economy to change dramatically in time before the military build up, and in a year it might already be wrong.

Of course as far as RPGs go most players did not know the rich and well thought out history of DnD's Greyhawk realm, and they still enjoyed it. You don't have to make everything logical or perfectly connected to real world in order to make an interesting game world. Because of this please only take my suggestions if they help you make what you want.

Raellus

11-15-2014, 04:38 PM

Olefin

11-15-2014, 04:47 PM

I can see the Poles definitely in the case of a Russian invasion of the Baltic states coming to their aid very quickly - especially as they have sufficient armor and training to be able to hand the Russians a very bloody nose. And also keep in mind that the Soviets took away an awful lot of Poland after WWII - if anyone has a grudge in Eastern Europe against the Russians its the Poles.

However I agree that the Baltic nations militaries, as they currently stand, would be little more than speed bumps against the Russians.

RN7

11-16-2014, 01:17 PM

I appreciate constructive criticism and I appreciate helpful suggestions even more. I'll think about how we can make Russia stronger economically so that they can pay for the wide-reaching modernization that they are currently pushing for, but won't likely be able to sustain given their financial woes. The will is there, but they might be losing their way. If I can reconcile the wants with the hows, I think this could work.

The problem here Raellus is finding a way to make Russia economically stronger in the future. Its current strengths are its energy resources and its arms industry.

Oil: Russia is currently (2014) the world's third largest producer of oil after Saudi Arabia and the USA. Russian production is all conventional and unless they find the motherload of oil fields under Siberia or offshore in the Arctic they are unlikely to produce any more than they currently do. Russia has potentially the world's largest technically recoverable oil shale resources (if you believe their figures), even bigger than America's so they say. Although they have plenty of water needed to recover it, unlike America they don't have the technology and the favourable geology needed to economically exploit it.

Ores: Russia has plenty of ores, and many rare ones. But what's out there that's going to make Russia a ton of money and dominate the world market in it? Unless we try 2300AD tantalum!

Arms Exports: Most years Russia ties with America as the world's leading exporter of arms by value. I think their currently first but it changes periodically, and the big Western European arms exporters (France, Britain, Germany) and others eat away at their market share. China also is becoming a force in arms exports, and over the next decade may start to match American and Russian leadership. However America is by far the biggest market for American defence contractors, but Russia's defence industry needs the likes of China and India and others to buy its weapons.

Other areas Russia could exploit in the future.

Copy China: Russia could try and copy China and make itself a low cost hub for multinationals to make consumer brands and gadgets for re-export back to the rich developed world. Despite Obama claiming that Russia doesn't build anything, Russia does have a sizeable existing capacity to manufacture a whole range of consumables products, with most of it goes back into the Russian market. It could be greatly expanded with foreign investment, but Russian industry is notoriously inefficient and the country doesn't have a good reputation in quality and reliability. Ironically Russia is also considered a rich country compared to others, as the standard of living of your average Russian is twice that of your average Chinese. If a Russian worker can't compete with an average German who earns US$45K a year how are they going to compete with a Chinese earning US$ 7K a year?

Civil Aviation: Russia has since the breakup of the Soviet Union tried to become a force in the production of civil aircraft. America (Boeing) and Europe (Airbus) dominate the large civil jet airline industry, America (Cessna, Gulfstream), Brazil (Embraer) and Canada (Bombardier) dominate the regional/business jet airline industry, and America (General Electric and Pratt & Whitney) and Britain (Rolls Royce) build all the engines. Russia has the industry and technology to build its own civil airlines and engines but has pretty much failed miserably to do so outside of selling some aircraft to Russian airlines and few oddball regimes around the world. Its best bet would be trying to break into the regional/business jet airline industry, but China and Japan are also trying to do the same. Oddly enough Antonov has carved a niche for itself in the heavy air cargo industry that is dominated by Boeing 747 freighters through the An-124 transport, but Antonov is a Ukrainian company and not Russian.

Space: Russia is still a force in the space industry. Since Obama shut the Space Shuttle programme down and cancelled NASA's Constellation programme, Russia has pretty much dominates manned orbital launches and charges America a premium for the use of its rockets. However American astronauts will be back in space within five years with the ongoing development of the SLS launchers and the Orion spacecraft. In unmanned launchers they compete with America, ESA, China and others, but haven't been that successful in selling their commercial communications and observation satellites to other countries. China is interested in acquiring Russian military satellites for its own military uses, but I don't think Russia will be selling them their most advanced ones.

Nuclear Fusion: Russia has a major nuclear power industry and has an ongoing nuclear fusion programme. Only America has a bigger nuclear weapons industry and builds more nuclear reactors for military purposes, but Russia's civil nuclear industry is smaller than many think. American nuclear power stations produce four times as much energy as Russia's do, and France and Japan also have bigger nuclear power industries and soon China will too. Future breakthrough's in nuclear fusion are likely to occur in America or Western Europe (Britain and France) who are devoting the most resources towards it. The same could be said for other cutting edge technologies. Russian research is highly respected and the country still produces plenty of smart scientists and engineers, but they can't compete with America and others for funding.

Webstral

11-16-2014, 11:26 PM

stormlion1

11-17-2014, 11:06 AM

One thing to remember about Russia in comparison to the west is they are still producing new Aircraft, Tanks, Helicopters, etc while most NATO nations have stopped producing quite some time ago. Most of that gear is for the export market but it all can be seized before it leaves the country for domestic use. Stalin once said Quantity has a quality all on its own. The Current leadership in Russia I think is taking that lesson to heart. In a non-nuclear war they can flood a battlefield while every piece of NATO gear will be priceless in comparison. Its only the lack of clear allies that stops the Russians from really getting ambitious.

Raellus

11-17-2014, 01:15 PM

I agree that there are things Russia could do in a hurry. The question would be what it would take to stay there. If Putin could pull off a major diplomatic coup in the wake of an invasion of one or more Baltic Republics, he might be able to get the US to agree to let him keep what he took. This doesn't seem likely, though. The chicken hawks in the US are looking for an excuse to dust off the good stuff that seldom got used in OIF or OEF. Escalation would be virtually unavoidable, given the tiny nature of the Baltic Republics versus the operational range of the aircraft that would be involved. The logic of counter-air pretty quickly would involve combat in the airspace of nations around the Baltics, followed by attacks on air bases, SAM, and ground-based radar in neighboring countries. While one might argue that escalation might be managed by a sort of firewall between aircraft penetrating non-Baltic airspace in prosecution of operations focused on the Baltics and ground forces crossing land borders, the inevitable efforts of USAF SO rescuing pilots would blur the line between rescue and commando operations, which would blur the line further regarding heliborne raids, which might finally lead to cross-border actions by ground forces. Though I'm not Putin, I have a hard time imagining what he thinks he could get out of occupying one or more Baltic Republics compared to the firestorm that could erupt in response.

Right. But that's where the West's response so far, which in some ways echoes the Appeasement policy of the Great Britain and France leading up to WWII, might be informing Putin's decision-making. So far, he's annexed Crimea and destabilized large chunks of Ukraine without receiving anything harsher than stern warnings and economic sanctions, both of which Putin has pretty much ignored. So far, sanctions have not proven to be an effective deterent. Is he really worried about a NATO military response? Probably, but if his plans in the Ukraine pan out in the not-so-distant future, he may decide that NATO is a paper tiger, all bark and no bight (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

Hilter said something to the effect that if the French military had responded to his reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936, he wouldn't have been able to hold it. France's innaction encouraged Hitler to take control of Austria and invade parts of Czechoslovakia and, ultimately Poland. Just four years after he could have been stopped by France, he demolished it.

I have a scenario which I'm almost ready to share here that I think makes a compelling case that Russia could take and hold at least one of the Baltic States (probably Estonia), even with a conventional military response from NATO.

One thing to remember about Russia in comparison to the west is they are still producing new Aircraft, Tanks, Helicopters, etc while most NATO nations have stopped producing quite some time ago. Most of that gear is for the export market but it all can be seized before it leaves the country for domestic use. Stalin once said Quantity has a quality all on its own. The Current leadership in Russia I think is taking that lesson to heart. In a non-nuclear war they can flood a battlefield while every piece of NATO gear will be priceless in comparison. Its only the lack of clear allies that stops the Russians from really getting ambitious.

I totally agree, Stormlion. I've been arguing the numbers game for years. Yeah, an M1A2 is, overall, a better tank than a T-72MB, but if the Russians can field 5-6 T-72MBs for every one M1A1, a rough parity can be achieved. And some of the latest T-90 upgrades are narrowing the qualitative gap.

If NATO shows any cracks, it might serve, in Putin's mind, to mitigate his lack of strong allies. Regardless, he's working to build economic and military alliances with sympathetic or easily bullied nations (see the recent "anti-terrorist" join maneuvers with Serbia and the [economic] Eurasian Union).
-

Raellus

11-17-2014, 07:29 PM

I'll wager that NATO will hold a qualitative edge in aerial combat over Russia for the foreseeable future but this article makes me a little less confident.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/american-f-16s-arent-supposed-to-dogfight-mig-29s-and-su-27s-7e974b11d217

The F-16 is still my favorite jet fighter bomber, has been ever since I first set eyes on one. I used to spend hours on my old black-and-white Macintosh trying to earn ribbons in a Falcon sim game. This news has me feeling a little sad.

RN7

11-17-2014, 09:20 PM

I have a scenario which I'm almost ready to share here that I think makes a compelling case that Russia could take and hold at least one of the Baltic States (probably Estonia), even with a conventional military response from NATO.

Unless a US Navy carrier battle group was sailing around the Gulf of Riga and a fully mobilised NATO corps and air group was positioned in Poland the Baltics wouldn't have a hope in resisting a Russian invasion. They have a no air force other than some light transport planes, 13 Mi-8/17 helicopters and some civil aircraft. Their navy has 4 patrol vessels and 15 minesweepers, and they have an army of 14,000 troops with 3 T-55 tanks, 266 APC and 142 towed artillery pieces and 50,000 reserves and para-military.

If NATO shows any cracks, it might serve, in Putin's mind, to mitigate his lack of strong allies. Regardless, he's working to build economic and military alliances with sympathetic or easily bullied nations (see the recent "anti-terrorist" join maneuvers with Serbia and the [economic] Eurasian Union).

Since Russia annexed the Crimea a good way to rub Putin's nose in it might be for Germany and NATO to threaten to annex the Kaliningad enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. It used to be part of German East Prussia until 1945, although it would also make the Poles very nervous!

Targan

11-17-2014, 09:36 PM

Since Russia annexed the Crimea a good way to rub Putin's nose in it might be for Germany and NATO to threaten to annex the Kaliningad enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. It used to be part of German East Prussia until 1945, although it would also make the Poles very nervous!

If that happened my joy would know no bounds. Perfect scenario: NATO annexes the Kaliningad enclave, Putin goes on a Siberian wilderness trip in an effort to make himself feel better and look macho to his people and gets mauled by a bear, subsequently dying slowly and in pain and dimly aware that he has become incontinent.

RN7

11-17-2014, 11:05 PM

Yes the more I think about Kaliningrad the more I like it. The Germans were there since the Teutonic Knights Christianised the local pagans in the 13th Century, and maybe before if we include the Goths etc. Longer than the Russians were in the Crimea I think. Yes cancel the Potsdam Agreement and march into Kaliningrad and rename it Konigsberg and see what Putin does.

I don't think it would be that hard. The Russians just have 11,000 troops and marines in the enclave with over 800 tanks, but the naval base, the battery of SS-21's and the squadrons of Su-27's and Su-24s and S-300 SAM's could be knocked out quickly.

stormlion1

11-17-2014, 11:06 PM

A NATO seizure of the Kaliningad enclave would be almost a god send for Putin. He would happily go in front of the World and the UN and the rest and declare he is not the aggressor as what's happening in the Ukraine is separatist and the Russians haven't actually invaded anywhere but NATO has seized ground. And in a way he would be right.

RN7

11-17-2014, 11:09 PM

Screw what Putin thinks

Targan

11-17-2014, 11:44 PM

Screw what Putin thinks

+1

RN7 for PM :D

Webstral

11-18-2014, 01:10 AM

Raellus

11-18-2014, 05:04 PM

There's a certain parallel between events in Eastern Europe and the events leading up to Hitler's invasion of Poland. However, the parallel breaks down a bit once one compares a German invasion of Poland with a Russian invasion of, say, Estonia. While Great Britain and France guaranteed Poland's security, the means to do so was not in place. It was genuine bluff. The Brits and French had no means to intervene in Poland. They would have had to invade Germany. The leadership in these countries had no stomach for a fight. Conservative Americans, on the other hand, would love to be let off the leash. Since Estonia is now a NATO member, an attack on Estonia would be an attack on every member of the alliance. It wouldn't be a question just of Russian tanks versus American tanks but of Russian tanks versus American, British, German, Dutch, Belgian, and possibly even French tanks. (Mon Dieu!) There wouldn't have to be a debate. Treaty obligations would simply kick in.

Right, but here's the thing, NATO hasn't adequately prepared to defend the Baltics. Setting aside whether NATO would react en toto and in force, they're not really well prepared to do logistically and organizationally. There've only been a handful of joint manouvers, usually involving nothing larger than a brigade two, and there are no significant NATO units permanently based there. We're not talking Cold War West Germany any more. Estonia doesn't have any MBTs or combat aircraft of its own. Without a significant NATO presence there- boots on the ground- the Baltic states are extremely vulnerable. Russia could grab Estonia, for example, before NATO could get sufficient ground forces- we're talking heavy brigades which need significant lift resources to move long distances en masse- to stymie and/or dislodge Russian ground forces. Russian aircraft and submarines could interdict NATO sealifts by laying mines in the Gulf of Riga. This would likely begin before the shooting even started. Ground MSRs could be interdicted by sabotage or other means. Russia could warn Lithuania and Latvia that if they allow transit of NATO formations, that they will be next.

So, in the case of a Russian invasion of Estonia, NATO would be heavily dependent on air power to stop/eject the aggressor. NATO has more advanced combat aircraft than Russia, but the qualitative gap is starting to shrink. Russia has an impressive array of anti-aircraft weaponry. Last generation Russian SAMs have shot down American stealth aircraft before- it's not unthinkable that it could happen again with current generation hardware. To think that B-2s and F-22s are invulnerable is a mistake. The circumstances are not clear, but several Raptors have been "shot down" during excercises, in one case by a Qatari Mirage 2000. And we all know that aircraft can not take and hold territory.

Now if the question becomes whether or not the various members of NATO would balk at honoring their treaty commitments... There's a horse of a different color. I honestly have no idea how that one would play out without an hypothesis that was two parts prejudice and three parts guesswork. I suspect there would be some pacifist sentiment in every NATO country, along with some hawkish sentiment. The balance would vary from country to country. Without having a compelling reason to think otherwise, though, I have to believe that member nations of NATO would honor their commitment under the Treaty or suffer real blowback from the other members. The United States would have to honor the terms of NATO or lose all credibility in every alliance. Once the US was on board, the UK would follow suit if not march in time with the US. After that, every other member would have to consult their consciences and self interest, bearing in mind that a spiteful Washington might consider all existing arrangements of every sort with NATO members refusing to honor their obligations up for renegotiation. If Germany and France both decided to sit out, then others might follow. If either pitched in, the other would feel obliged to follow suit.

Look at the lukewarm public support in Europe for stronger economic sanctions. Condemnation, even, hasn't been universal. Current NATO member Hungary, for example, has shown sympathy- support, even- for Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine. Only three or four NATO member nations meet the defense spending requirements called for in the treaty. I hope that I am wrong, but I don't think that NATO unity is a given. Will all NATO member nations willingly contribute their military forces to defend the Baltic States? Once again, I really hope so. Given the uneven, lukewarm response to Russia's aggression and violations of international law over the past two years, I'm not so sure.

I think that we need to accept that the NATO of 2014 is not the same as the NATO of 1987. Yes, it's larger and more inclusive, but is it as well organized, coordinated, and prepared militarily to fight a conventional war in Europe? I don't think so.

Webstral

11-18-2014, 05:57 PM

I agree that defending Estonia is out of the question. At issue is liberating Estonia.

NATO certainly is a different creature than it was in 1987. The logistical challenges are very different. The forces available to NATO are very different.

The first question would be whether or not a Russian invasion of Estonia would prompt a declaration of war by the United States or result in military action that amounts to the same thing. If the US decides to sit on her hands, Estonia belongs to the Russians. If the US goes to war over Estonia, the game is on. I can't imagine that the United States would fail to take military action to defend a member of NATO. There is too much at stake world wide for the US to let someone--anyone--invade and occupy a member of NATO. How the other members of the alliance react to that will vary from country based to some degree on what the US and Russia choose to do.

Liberating Estonia would take ground forces. How many and of what composition would be up to SACEUR. He would have to balance a number of factors, not all of them military.

Hm. Duty calls. Will get back to this interesting discussion later.

stormlion1

11-18-2014, 10:39 PM

Raellus

11-19-2014, 04:28 PM

The Baltic States, Poland, and Scandanavia are taking the threat of a Russian invasion pretty seriously. Until NATO's power players (the U.S., U.K., Germany, and France) do too, the danger will continue, if not increase.

http://www.newsweek.com/tiny-baltic-states-prepare-hit-back-mighty-russia-285264

Webstral

11-19-2014, 08:44 PM

The problem is we don't have the troops or gear anymore in Europe. It would take months to bring the troops and gear back over. Best case is to do it and stall with talks or go into a war with Europe taking the lead and trying to cross the Atlantic with the gear when we can. Reminds me of a book called Red Storm Rising that does.

You’ve summarized the core challenge quite nicely. The drawing down of US forces in Europe since the end of the Cold War has only exacerbated the problem that CONUS and Europe are separated by the Atlantic Ocean.

The fashion in which NATO responds to a Russian invasion of Estonia depends to some degree on how the invasion unfolds, I think. For instance, if Russians simply put 50,000 troops (or whatever they deem suitable for the first wave) on the Estonian border, then roll over the little country without any warning to the rest of the world, government and public opinion in NATO will react differently than if there is an extended period of unrest on the part of the Russian minority followed by public statements, negotiation, posturing, incidents, etc. In short, if the Russians successfully cultivate the idea that ethnic Russians in Estonia are suffering under the tyranny of Estonian rule, public opinion in Europe especially is likely to be more favorable than if the Russians simply slap Estonia to the ground and take her purse.

Let’s assume for the moment that the Russians eventually invade and that Estonia resists, if briefly and hopelessly. Obviously, this will trigger treaty obligations on the part of every other member of NATO. NATO’s reaction hinges on the reaction of the United States. The reaction of the United States will depend to some degree on what happens leading up to the invasion and during the invasion. If, for instance, the Russians invade more-or-less out of the blue like Hussein did in Kuwait, the American response won’t involve too much of a personal stake. If, on the other hand, a period of saber rattling prompts the US to put a brigade of paratroopers in Estonia as a show of solidarity with a member of NATO, and if the Russians invade anyway and wipe out a brigade of US troops, the reaction will be more extreme. In the former case, American appeals to reluctant treaty signatories would begin with, “In keeping with the obligations enumerated in the North Atlantic Treaty…” In the latter case, American appeals to reluctant treaty signatories would start with a lapel grab and “Listen good, [expletive deleted]!”

From the Russian standpoint, there are definite advantages to either staying out of Estonia altogether or rolling in unannounced and hoping that sheer surprise and hutzpah carry the day. An extended pre-invasion crisis runs the risk of drawing NATO forces eastward. The longer the Estonians wail about being defenseless in the face of overwhelming Russian force, the greater the likelihood that the POTUS will come under pressure to have SACEUR make some show of force to settle the nerves of the Eastern European members of NATO. The most obvious idea is to send small contingents of troops from several NATO nations to Estonia. Spreading the risk out sends the right signal to everyone, while keeping the numbers small implies a strictly defensive mission. From the Russian point of view, however, the introduction of any NATO combat units into Estonia means that NATO is closer to St. Petersburg and Moscow than ever. Once the NATO troops go in, they are likely to have an extended stay. This reality poses two dangers for Russia. The first is that the viability of an invasion and occupation of Estonia without a major war virtually disappears. To whatever degree the Russians (Putin) believe Estonia can be put in the bag without a war with NATO, that chance diminishes almost to nothing if the Russian invasion force kills, captures, or otherwise drives from the country 500 troops from each the US, UK, FRG, France, Poland, Italy, Canada, etc. On the other hand, the presence of NATO troops so close to St. Petersburg is intensely dangerous. What would be the point of dragging NATO’s forces further east with no other gain anywhere to offset the change in NATO’s dispositions? Once NATO starts fortifying Eastern Europe, there is no telling where it could stop. Several NATO corps in West Germany was bad. Several NATO corps in the Baltics and Poland is much, much worse. And again, the Russians can’t help but be aware that the option of invasion without a major war basically will go off the table if American combat units go into Estonia in ANY quantity and get destroying during a Russian invasion and occupation.

So it seems to me that an invasion out of the blue is the most likely course of action if in fact an invasion is to take place. In addition to having the advantage of not drawing in the rest of NATO as irresistibly, a bolt-from-the-blue invasion would catch the Americans flat footed. The longer a pre-invasion crisis lasts, the greater the opportunity for the Americans to ship a heavy division or two to Europe and stockpile materiel under peacetime conditions. A fait accompli means that the Americans have to start their buildup from the beginning. The same logic applies to the other members of NATO, the mobilization and readiness of each of which should be kept as low as possible leading up to the moment of decision.

At the risk of showing prejudice, I feel obliged to say that the Russians really can be brutes. The argument will be put forward that slapping Estonia to the ground and taking her purse will send the right message to the effete Westerners, the argument will go. They didn’t do anything of substance in the Ukraine. They won’t get involved in Estonia. The US may piss and moan about it, but they are already bogged down with other crises; and in any event, American public opinion won’t stand for a confrontation with Russia on top of ISIL, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. I doubt Putin is foolish enough to put stock in this argument, but one never knows.

Again, duty calls so I will have to get back to this later.

Raellus

11-20-2014, 12:53 AM

You've hit the nail on the head, Web. I too think the overwhelming invasion scenario is less risky for Russia. Attempting an Eastern Ukraine-style destabilization and intimidation campaign and subsidized insurgency in Latvia and/or Estonia risks NATO sending advisors and counter-insurgency forces in response. This immediately makes a military coup-de-main a much riskier proposition because NATO will have more cause to respond with matching force if its own troops are caught in the subsequent Russian attack. Putin's either going to have to be content to play the long game, or go for the jugular. If I were him, I'd go with the latter for the reasons you outlined.

At the risk of showing prejudice, I feel obliged to say that the Russians really can be brutes. The argument will be put forward that slapping Estonia to the ground and taking her purse will send the right message to the effete Westerners, the argument will go. They didn’t do anything of substance in the Ukraine. They won’t get involved in Estonia. The US may piss and moan about it, but they are already bogged down with other crises; and in any event, American public opinion won’t stand for a confrontation with Russia on top of ISIL, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. I doubt Putin is foolish enough to put stock in this argument, but one never knows.

I doubt it too, but this is the premise of our T2030 game world. The following may not be probable, but I firmly believe that it is realistic and plausible. Here's how it goes...

The U.S. is preoccupied with conflicts elsewhere in the world. Europe is struggling with dissatisfaction with the EU, and the costs of supporting anti-terror operations in the Middle East and Africa. NATO is riven by internecine bickering and acrimony. NATO has shown Russia again and again that aggression and territorial expansion won't be punished militarily. There may not be a will to do so and, even if there was, military commitments elsewhere will interfere with the way. In this atmosphere, Russia miscalculates, leaps, is met with a unexpectedly pugnacious NATO response, and WWIII in Europe is under way.

My original scenario envisioned a preliminary destabilization/intimidation phase prior to outright invasion of Estonia, but I edited that out several weeks ago because such a campaign would likely provoke a NATO military response of some kind. ATM, I really only see NATO responding strongly if the stakes aren't too high.

I'm really quite baffled as to why measures to station a NATO heavy brigade in one or more of the Baltic States. Too much expense, too much risk, not enough upside is my guess. Putin's got to be wondering the same thing, and likely drawing similar conclusions.

Webstral

11-20-2014, 06:58 PM

Let us assume for the moment that Putin invades and occupies Estonia with little or no warning and that this action does not involve combat units from any of the other members of NATO. The reaction of the United States to this event is the hinge on which future events turn. The European members of NATO are highly unlikely to do anything of a military nature without the lead of the US. The reaction of the US hinges on where the POTUS leads.

Having brought up Obama, I will post a disclaimer. I’m not interested in anyone’s opinion about whether Obama is a socialist, a Muslim, a Kenyan, a coward, inept, foolish, greedy, the Antichrist, or the best thing since sliced bread. If you are unhappy that the last two Presidential elections have failed to yield a POTUS to your liking, go down to the bar and complain to your pisos. This ain’t the place for that. It’s also not the place for extolling whatever virtues you might feel Obama brings to the office. I mention him only because it’s impossible to discuss something like an invasion of Estonia by Russia in a current events context without bringing the POTUS into it. I post a disclaimer now because several of our newer members seem to struggle with separating objective analysis of the military and strategic challenges that face the Commander-in-Chief from their impulse to editorialize regarding their perceptions of the personal shortcomings of the current POTUS.

In the event of a bolt-from-the-blue Russian conquest of Estonia, the POTUS becomes faced with some very difficult policy choices. I do believe he can’t possibly stand by and allow a member of NATO to be occupied. He’s got to do something to get the Russians out of Estonia. Even if the solution ends up being a negotiated agreement that causes the Russians to withdraw, such an agreement will be based on having the Russians believe that the US is psychologically and militarily prepared to spank them. It’s hard to see how said preparedness would not involve the movement of US heavy divisions to Europe.

The POTUS would have to decide right away whether he’s going to order SACEUR to put NATO air assets into combat over Estonia. On the surface, this seems like an easy decision to me. The sooner Putin understands that his occupation of Estonia will not go unchallenged, the greater the chance that negotiations will yield fruit without recourse to major ground combat. I say this with the caveat that heavy forces sufficient for the expulsion of the Russians from Estonia must be on-hand. However, putting NATO air assets into action over Estonia immediately can have a political and military cost. Decisions about whose air assets to use probably have to be made right away, and the results of the air actions will have a bearing on the political discussions in Washington and all of the other NATO capitols immediately following the breaking of the news.

SACEUR is going to want unambiguous guidance. He will say that if he puts a single aircraft over Estonia, then he’s going to want to put up a strike package capable of accomplishing something. What exactly does the President want accomplished at this juncture?

This is where it’s going to get tricky for the POTUS right away. Simply executing ground attack missions against Russian troops in Estonia makes a statement of intent. Personally, I wouldn’t mind this at all. If you send your troops across international borders, then you should expect the allies of the invaded country to conduct air strikes against your troops in the country at the bare minimum. Everyone in NATO should expect that the US will, at the very least, attack from the air enemy troops in the process of invading a member of NATO. Still, the act of attacking Russian ground forces in Estonia is a commitment. Such a commitment would embolden some and panic others.

For those here who are even less knowledgeable about air operations than I am, a quick review of a couple of items may be warranted. Normally, aircraft flying strike missions (close air support, interdiction, etc.) do not move to the target area by themselves when the enemy is in a position to contest control of the airspace above the target. It does happen. The Tornado was designed to fly through contested airspace at heights under 60 meters. This is called ultra-low penetration. The advantage of ultra-low penetration is that strike aircraft flying very fast and very, very low can exploit ground clutter to confuse look-down radar in the defender’s fighters and thus avoid interception. Ultra-low penetration also enables the strike aircraft to evade ground based radar and allow so little time for ground based air defenses to react. So the theory goes. Operation Desert Storm was the first opportunity of the RAF to put tactics designed for the Central Front through their paces. The tactics work, but they impose a high cost in aircraft.

If an air force wants to send strike aircraft into contested airspace without operating in the ultra-low penetration mode, and if the strike aircraft aren’t stealthy, then the air force puts together a strike package. The package typically includes strike aircraft, radar jamming aircraft, air defense suppression aircraft, and fighter escorts. This combination of aircraft enables the package to fight its way to the target and back. In such a package, the strike aircraft may comprise a small percentage of the package. Most of the airframes involved are assigned to fight enemy interceptors, defeat enemy radar, or destroy enemy ground based defenses. It takes a lot of aircraft to fight this way, which is why the European Allies designed the Tornado. There’s a connection with the development of the F-111, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to put the pieces together.

Then there is stealth. Stealthy aircraft get around the requirements of the strike package by being invisible.

When an air force establishes temporary and/or localized control over the airspace, that air force is said to have achieved air superiority. Strike packages operate under conditions of air superiority because often it is the escorting aircraft that create air superiority. Once an air force has near-total control of the airspace over most of its intended targets, that air force is said to enjoy air supremacy. Once air supremacy is achieved, strike aircraft can move to their targets unescorted.

All of this connects to the ground attack mission in support of Estonian forces.

I’m out of time again. I will have to come back another time.

Raellus

11-20-2014, 08:24 PM

I agree that the temperament of the POTUS, whoever that happens to be if and when the Russians roll, is going to determine what kind of response NATO makes. I'd like to stay on the safe side and move away from geo-politics for a little bit in order to talk strategy and tactics instead.

The outcome of an air war over Estonia is squarely in the realm of theory. Military aviation used to be my specialty, but that was a couple of decades ago. Things have changed a bit since then. Let's speculate, though. NATO hasn't fought a first or even second-rate air force in... well, forever. As I understand it, NATO spends a lot more on pilot training and air time than the Russians. In terms of airmen (and women), I'll give the advantage to NATO.

NATO fields greater numbers of 5th generation combat aircraft than the Russians. That said, our 3rd/4th generation Falcon and Eagle fleets are getting long in the tooth and the latest models of MiG-29 and SU-27 are at least a match for those storied warbirds. The F-22 is a game-changer, no doubt, but they're not invincible, and there aren't really that many of them. IF the JTF ever gets into serious production, it's going to give NATO a but sharper edge, but if the Russians can work out the kinks, make some refinements, and get the PAK-50 into production, the fighter gap will close again. And note that Russian combat aircraft are considerable cheaper than NATO equivalents (at least, the Russians charge their customers much less than Western nations do). Russian aircraft radars are improving, and their passive IR detection capability and off-boresight aiming systems are something that American front line fighters lack. Every source I've looked at claims that NATO will kick some serious ass in BVR engagements, but once things get up close and personal, the Russians could actually have the advantage. The fact that Falcon drivers are no longer being trained in aerial combat is worrisome. Russia has the interior lines, so its aircraft would be able to operate longer and at higher speeds in the combat zone. There's also the matter of overflight permissions. I reckon that the Russians will make threats against Lithuania and or Latvia (if the latter isn't already on the chopping block as well), trying to pressure them into pressuring NATO to back down.

Then there's the ground-based air defenses. I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that SAM technology is something that the Russians actually do pretty well, better even than NATO. Russia would, no doubt, flood its conquests with thick, multilayered SAM nets and copious AAA. Every NATO strike mission would be flying into a hornet's nest, and that's not taking into account Russia's air combat resources and capabilities. Against both, NATO's going to have a hard time of it.

The point that I'm trying to make is that the idea that NATO could do a number on the Russian air defense system like the Coalition did to Saddam's in '91 and '03 or Serbia's in the early '90s is wishful thinking. I think that NATO would eventually come out on top, but at a very, very steep cost.

It's here that we have to go back to political will. When the butcher's bill comes in, will NATO leaders keep their nerve or lose their stomach for a fight?

Raellus

11-20-2014, 08:51 PM

Maybe some good news for NATO.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-war-games-spill-secrets-175912339.html

RN7

11-21-2014, 01:04 AM

Here you go Raellus the Ruskie's are now placing weapons in orbit. That Putin just won't lie down!

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/39405-russia-strikes-fear-in-us-w

Raellus

11-21-2014, 03:40 PM

Thanks for that, RN7. Can JDAMs and/or other "smart" munitions function fully without GPS sats?

I don't like where this is heading:

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-china-plan-war-games-arms-sales-could-130004941.html

NATO needs to do more of this, but hold them in the Baltic States, or at least practice larger scale emergency deployments there.

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-troops-largest-armored-deployment-eastern-europe-six-175420900.html

The one major downside to large scale manouvers in the Baltics is that the Russians may see them as deliberate provocations, prompted Moscow to launch its own large scale manouvers on the other side of the border. This could provide a convenient cover for assembling an actual invasion force. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

Raellus

11-21-2014, 03:50 PM

When my sophomores are learning about the causes of WWI, I teach them the mneumonic M.A.I.N. (causes of WWI). Looking at the situation in Eastern Europe, I'd say that all of the factors that contributed to

Millitarism: The Russians are definitely ramping up military spending and procurements. NATO nations are being urged to keep pace.

Alliances: You've already got NATO, and Russia's trying to assemble a Eurasian [economic] Union (which, I'm sure will somehow be twisted to accomodate a military component). If the Russians and Chinese sign some sort of mutual defense pact or military alliance...

Imperialism: Putin might say otherwise, but, in practice, empire-building (or rebuilding) is what Russia's doing in East Ukraine. And Moscow would argue that the U.S. is up to no good in the Middle East. Putin's also accused the U.S. of practicing economic imperialism around the globe.

Nationalism: Putin's trying to get the Russians riled up and behind his nationalistic endevours (see the Sochi Winter Olympics) but some reports suggest that many Russians are unhappy with Russia's expansionist adventures in East Ukraine. It's not just Russia. In other European nations, right-wing natioanlist parties have been making inroads in national and EU elections.

All of the ingredients are there. If the heat keeps getting turned up, and politicians keeps stirring the pot, things could potentially boil over.

unkated

11-21-2014, 04:19 PM

The one major downside to large scale manouvers in the Baltics is that the Russians may see them as deliberate provocations, prompted Moscow to launch its own large scale manouvers on the other side of the border. This could provide a convenient cover for assembling an actual invasion force. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

Not buying that. Large scale maneuvers in the Baltic states would send the Russians a message they would very well understand - "we can do this, and we will if we have to/want to." Just as the large-scale maneuvers in West Germany in the 80s did not provoke a Soviet invasion.

And just as the message was clear in the Ukraine what Russia meant this past Spring and Summer when it held maneuvers on it's side of the border with eastern Ukraine.

Putin may decide in his political calculus to attack, but it would not be a snap decision proviked by NATO maneuvers

Raellus

11-21-2014, 05:38 PM

Putin may decide in his political calculus to attack, but it would not be a snap decision proviked by NATO maneuvers

I didn't say that it would be. He would, however, see it as a threat/provocation. If he's looking for a casus belli, that could give it to him. It doesn't mean he'd act immediately, though. He could launch an invasion months after the NATO troops left and claim that it was a preemptive act of self defense.

Not buying that. Large scale maneuvers in the Baltic states would send the Russians a message they would very well understand - "we can do this, and we will if we have to/want to." Just as the large-scale maneuvers in West Germany in the 80s did not provoke a Soviet invasion.

That's fine. I don't think that you are looking at it from the Russian POV, though. To anticipate what the Russians might do, one has to think like them. To the Russians, NATO members on Russia's borders constitute an existential (from a regime point of view) threat. Putin wants buffer states, like the USSR had after WWII. "The Great Patriotic War" created deep scars in Russia's psyche. For example, what the West sees as Russian aggression in Ukraine, Russians see as self-preservation. IF there's to be war between Russia and the West, cultural misunderstanding will be at its root.

Your analogy is an apples to oranges comparison. West Germany didn't border the Soviet Union directly. East Germany, Poland, and the non-Russian, non-independent republics of Belarus & Ukraine stood between them. The Baltic States do border Russia. Large scale military maneuvers in the Baltic States will be seen as very threatening. Imagine if Russia or China held large scale military maneuvers in Mexico. Would POTUS, the DoD, and Congress be cool with that?

unkated

11-21-2014, 06:00 PM

Perhaps we have different meaning to "threat."

"Threat" means Russia would be in danger of being invaded. I doubt Russia is under the apprehension that NATO will invade Russia unprovoked.

Yes, I understand very well that Putin would like to reconstitute the Soviet Union (or the Russian Empire), preferably surrounded by governments "friendly" (frightened) of Russia. Yes, as a buffer zone as well as to have more resources to play with.

My point is that while he might find NATO maneuvers in the Baltic states a sign that his goals would be frustrated there at least for the moment, he would not mistake it as a sign of imminent invasion, and indeed as the sign it would be intended as of "Do not play here except at your own peril."

Could he or would he do something afterward? Maybe.

But he would not be mistaken about the message.

Uncle Ted

Webstral

11-21-2014, 06:32 PM

The point that I'm trying to make is that the idea that NATO could do a number on the Russian air defense system like the Coalition did to Saddam's in '91 and '03 or Serbia's in the early '90s is wishful thinking. I think that NATO would eventually come out on top, but at a very, very steep cost.

I could not agree more. At the risk of getting ahead of myself, the buildup to the ground offensive phase (assuming the war gets to that point) would be a classic air war. In order to support the ground forces decisively, NATO would have to knock Russian air power in western Russia on its fourth point of contact. This would mean penetrating Russian airspace where the air defenses will be as good as they are anywhere in the country. The imperatives of this part of the war easily could lend a strategic aspect to the war which would give the B-2 a chance to prove whether it was worth the money.

Then there's the ground-based air defenses. I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that SAM technology is something that the Russians actually do pretty well, better even than NATO.

I am given to understand much the same. Western concepts of air defense—particularly that of the United States—place a premium on aircraft-based air defense under the logic that aircraft are more flexible and more responsive. A very dense ground-based air defense cannot be repurposed very easily once air supremacy has been achieved. The USAF plans to win, whereas the Russian air defense scheme seems more oriented towards not losing. Provided the Russian air defenses don’t lose, they have properly supported the ground forces that are the instrument of decision anyway.

Getting back to where I left off, getting strike packages to deliver ordnance against Russian ground forces in Estonia means dealing with Russian air defenses. Estonia is a small country. A significant portion of the country can be put under an umbrella of ground-based air defenses based in Russia. Russian fighters operating over Estonia will be operating from Russian bases under the cover of radar based on the ground in Russia and airborne radar flying in Russian airspace. From the standpoint of waging air war, there’s hardly any distinction between Estonia and northwestern Russia. It’s less a matter of a blurry line than a gradation of color. If SACEUR is worth his pay, he will explain this to the POTUS in the simplest terms possible as briefly as possible.

The uninitiated among the civilian leadership will ask why we can’t just send our aircraft to attack targets in Estonia and leave Russia out of it. They will want to show support for Estonia without risking widening the war. This is understandable but misguided. Hopefully, someone in the DOD will be able to explain that the most effective means of protecting friendly forces from the enemy’s air defenses is to destroy the enemy’s air defenses. This means destroying the enemy’s radar, whether it is on the ground or in the air. This means grounding the enemy’s aircraft by damaging the runways or even destroying the enemy’s aircraft on the ground (where possible). This means destroying missiles and ADA before they get a chance to fire. Even if these things aren’t always possible, the enemy’s interceptors have to be dealt with before they come within range to fire their missiles at friendly strike aircraft en route to their target. Given the small size of Estonia, this means that the strike package escorts are going to have to be able to attack the enemy’s interceptors in Russian airspace. As you point out, Raellus, BVR is going to be NATO’s strong suit. It’s hard to imagine better circumstances for BVR than knowing that everything flying on the Russian side of the border belongs to the enemy. Failing to allow NATO fighters to attack targets in Russia pursuant to attacking targets on the ground in Estonia means throwing away the men and the aircraft in an attempt to dance the tango on a political tightrope. Better not to send the strike package(s) in the first place.

The point of all this is that any NATO response to a Russian invasion of Estonia almost certainly will lead to direct confrontation with Russia in the skies over western Russia. Though Western politicians will try to place some sort of artificial limits on the types of air power activities NATO conducts, placing artificial limits on the types of targets NATO can hit in western Russia will unnecessarily hamper NATO air operations in defense of a NATO member. What would remain to be seen is whether the military could convince said politicians that if NATO is going to fight at all for Estonia, then military considerations, not political ones, should guide operational guidelines if the lives of the air crews and the public investment in their machines are to be honored.

If the Russians are serious about occupying Estonia, there’s nothing the USAF or all the combined air power of NATO can do in the face of overwhelming Russian combat power on the ground. It’s hard to see how the leading Russian units won’t reach Tallinn in less than 48 hours—probably much less. I would expect that Russia would have control of the country except for isolated pockets within 2 days. This is long enough for the biggest air battle since WW2, but it’s not long enough for NATO to do much of substance.

Once the air war starts, it’s hard to know where the lines will be drawn. This uncertainty will present challenges and/or opportunities for both Putin and Obama. For instance, let us suppose that SACEUR gets the green light to operate more-or-less the way he wants with the mission of providing CAS and interdiction strikes against Russian forces in Estonia. How far north, east, and southeast of Estonia can he send air interdiction missions? Can he hit Russian air bases that are not being used to support operations in Estonia (if, in fact, there are any Russian air bases within range that are not supporting the invasion of Estonia)? Can he hit Russian Backfires, even if Backfires haven’t been used? Can he hit munitions dumps? Fuel depots? Transportation assets being used to support the invasion? Bridges being used to support the invasion? Ground based air defenses that can hit NATO aircraft attacking ground based air defenses that can cover part of Estonia? Munitions factories?

The question of which assets can be attacked all goes back to the matter of intent. Is the United States going to eject Russia from Estonia by the use of ground forces, if necessary? Will the United States mobilize the necessary resources to get that job done, even if Russia decides to mobilize her conventional resources fully? This is the million dollar question, and the POTUS has about 10 minutes to make that decision once he gets word that Russian forces are attacking Estonia. Every action taken from that moment forward hinges on whether he is going to commit to liberating Estonia or not. For the purpose of this argument, I will consider anything less than the mobilization and deployment of sufficient resources to drive the Russian Army out of Estonia in the face of large-scale Russian mobilization to be a “no”. Given the way politicians think, I doubt that Obama will commit to a “yes” answer in those 10 minutes. Neither will he abandon Estonia entirely. This ambiguity will be a problem until and unless the POTUS commits fully or withdraws completely.

Once the United States and Russia are effectively at war, declared or otherwise, escalation becomes natural. If the US is using Polish air bases to engage in air combat over western Russia, then military logic dictates those air bases are subject to Russian air attack. The same goes for any air bases in Europe being used by the USAF to fight over and around Estonia. If the air battle involves the Luftwaffe, the RAF, the Polish Air Force, or whomever, the air bases of those countries’ air forces also are subject to air attack. The same logic that dictates NATO attack air and air defense assets in western Russia applies to Russian action against NATO air and air defense assets.

On the other hand, political concerns will present themselves to the Russians, too. If the USAF is flying out of Polish air bases, for instance, attacks on Polish air bases cannot help but run afoul of Polish air defenses. It’s hard, though not impossible, to imagine the Poles giving the Russians an unrestricted approach to drop bombs on Polish air bases that will almost certainly kill Polish nationals. The Poles probably will defend their airspace against Russian intrusion. Though I am not an expert on public sentiment in Poland at this point in time, I hypothesize that combat between Polish and Russian air power in Polish airspace following the start of a Russian invasion of Estonia will, on balance, yield a more combative spirit among the Polish citizenry and government. This will be especially true if US combat air assets are operating in support of a NATO ally.

The same is probably true to varying degrees of any other NATO country. If the US is flying air combat missions out of Germany or Denmark in support of a member of NATO being invaded by Russia, and if Russian air assets attack the air bases being used by the Americans who are executing their duties under the umbrella of the terms of the alliance, the public opinion in those countries is likely to experience a net hardening. I write “net” because some citizens will crap themselves at the idea of real war with Russia and demand that their government agree to anything to avoid war. However, with Russian troops rolling across Estonia and the USAF flying combat missions in defense of a member of NATO, I believe the majority of citizens in Denmark, Germany, etc. will be outraged by Russian violation of their airspace. If air crews of the host nation become involved in the fighting (it’s hard to imagine they wouldn’t be) and suffer losses, public opinion will become more inflamed. Loss of life among the civilian population at the business end of Russian air attack would further aggravate public opinion. This hardening can be expected to manifest itself in the willingness of the government to abide by the terms of the alliance.

So the Russians have some real concerns to address before invading Estonia. They can’t control the American reaction. They can try to gauge it and perhaps manipulate it, but they cannot really control the American response. If the Russian military leadership doesn’t tell Putin that an invasion of Estonia may very well lead to an air war involving assets being attacked all over western Russia, then they won’t be earning their pay. Just as they can’t control the American reaction, they can’t decide for the Americans where they draw the line on which assets will be attacked.

The unknown quality of the American response extends beyond western Russia. If the US and Russia are at war, declared or otherwise, at H+1 on the day the Russians invade Estonia, which forces are in play and which forces are not? It’s probably a safe bet that there will be no nuclear response. But beyond that it’s hard to say where the Americans will draw the line.

The reason for this is that ejecting Russia from Estonia, if the US commits to this, will require US heavy forces be shipped from CONUS. This will require transit across the Atlantic in cargo vessels. If the Russians want to stop the US from reinforcing Europe, they are going to have to sink that shipping—at least enough to cause the Americans to reconsider their commitment to Estonia. The Americans will also understand this. Someone somewhere in the American chain of command will point out that aircraft suitable for attacking American shipping in the Atlantic should be neutralized as early as possible. Depending on how SACEUR wants to play it, aviation assets that could be used against NATO shipping in the North Atlantic could come under attack right away under the thesis that war is war, after all, and the US is fully justified in destroying Russian assets that might be used to attack American shipping bringing war assets to Europe.

Beyond this is the question of just how far the war extends. Are aircraft and bases anywhere in European Russia fair game? If so, what about aircraft and air bases in western Siberia? Eastern Siberia? If US and Russian naval vessels encounter each other outside of the combat zone, do they fire on each other? If not, why not? Aren’t US and Russian military forces engaged in combat? If so, then the US ought to just go to town on every Russian fighting platform the Americans can put in their crosshairs. Again, this is something the Russians can’t control.

Once American and Russian pilots are killing each other following a Russian invasion of a member of NATO, the logic of escalation takes over. This should give everyone pause.

Webstral

11-21-2014, 08:26 PM

The Russians are an interesting group of people. They have a set of circumstances not very much like ours. They will react to perceived threats based on their criteria, not ours. Then there’s Putin, whose needs will be a variation on what we might call Russian needs.

As everyone knows, the Russian economy underwent a drastic change after 1991. The Soviet Union made almost everything, though not always well or cost effectively. When the former Soviet industries were exposed to the global marketplace, they experienced massive failures. The modern Russian economy is underpinned by sales of energy. I seem to recall a post on this topic within the last week, so I won’t reiterate my colleague’s material here.

The population of ethnic Russians has been contracting for some time. This is an enormous problem. The labor pool is shrinking, as is the pool of military manpower. One of the potential benefits of the invasion of Georgia was the absorption of 100,000 ethnic Russians in Abkhazia. Many other populations of ethnic Russians lie outside the borders of Russia. Bringing them back into the fold is more important than it ever was. Ethnic Russians comprise a quarter of Estonia’s population of 1.3 million. We might not consider the acquisition of 300,000 people of a specific ethnicity worth going to war over, but it’s not up to us to decide how the Russians see things.

People more in the know than I am have pointed out that the contraction of Russia’s borders (vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and her Eastern European ramparts) creates a security situation that they may find intolerable. For instance, St. Petersburg is now less than 200 miles from the nearest NATO member nation. For a people who are accustomed to seeing themselves as vulnerable to invasion, this situation cannot help but make them twitchy. They may act based on what they consider to be a situation that makes them vulnerable regardless of whether an invasion is in the offing.

I believe one of the reasons NATO has not moved significant forces into Eastern Europe is that the Russians are twitchy about being invaded. They might not see the presence of several non-Polish heavy divisions in Poland as a defensive measure. To Russian eyes, such a force might appear as an invasion force waiting for the right moment to strike. NATO has shown a surprising sensitivity to this possible Russian perspective. While I hope that Russians as a whole perceive NATO exercises as a defensive demonstration of support for Estonia, there is a non-negligible chance that they will see it an effort to intimidate them. Putin could exploit this. I hope he will be sensible and realize that our lackluster response to events in the Ukraine is no indicator regarding Russian designs on Estonia. We’ll see, I suppose.

Raellus

11-21-2014, 08:42 PM

The population of Latvia has an even greater percentage of ethnic Russians than Estonia does. Although Kato's mentioned Russia's contracting population a couple of times here and elsewhere, I hadn't thought about it being an incentive for territorial expansion. Thanks for that, Web. If Russia takes parts of Estonia and Latvia, not only do they gain territory (buffer space), they also gain Russian people.

Thanks also for the points about how the Russian AD network spans borders. Although I've thought a lot about ways that a Russian invasion of Estonia could widen into a wider war between Russia et al (namely, Belarus) and NATO, I hadn't really thought about how the nebulous overlap of ground-based AA networks might contribute to escalation. I'd kind of touched on it with the issue of over-flight rights, but the fact that Russian SAM based on Russian soil would likely need to be dealt with to protect NATO aircraft operating over eastern Estonia. Hitting Russian forces in Estonia is one thing, hitting them on Russian soil is another.

kato13

11-21-2014, 11:57 PM

While Latvian population pyramids are not as upside down as Russian ones are
http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/latvia-population-pyramid-2014.gif

They both show a very similar dramatic decline in births in the last 20 years. Both the percentage of children and the percentage of Russians have trended steadily downward in the past 2 decades.

If Putin wants new young Russians, maybe a constant loop of Barry White songs would be more effective than invading the Baltics.

edit

This does put the Latvians in more serious trouble in 15 years when they only have 60% of their current Military age men available. The Russians will have similar demographic problems, but as they have a larger population in general it would probably be easier for them to shift people around.

sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia
http://www.indexmundi.com/latvia/age_structure.html

RN7

11-22-2014, 12:07 AM

If Putin wants new young Russians, maybe a constant loop of Barry White songs would be more effective than invading the Baltics.

Or maybe entice the younger Russians back to Russia. There is a whole load of them living in America and Western Europe and elswhere.

RN7

11-22-2014, 12:41 AM

Thanks for that, RN7. Can JDAMs and/or other "smart" munitions function fully without GPS sats?

USAF X-37B undoubtedly has the ability to knock out Russian and Chinese GPS and other satellites, despite the Pentagon's denial that it supports the development of space based weapons.

NATO taking on Russian air defences in the Baltics and on the periphery of Russian territory is not something that the Pentagon would be happy about. It is possible that Russia has an ability to detect a B-2 stealth bomber attack, at least from its north-western approaches across Europe and the Arctic. Russian SAM systems are also very good, debatably as good or better than anything NATO has. Russian Air Force Flanker derivatives would cause NATO air forces huge problems. Russian AESA radar and air-to-air missiles are very good, and Russian Flanker has speed and range of an F-15E with better manoeuvrability. Even an F-22 would find this combat environment challenging to say the least.

jester

11-22-2014, 01:13 PM

RN7

11-23-2014, 01:54 AM

Stealth tech coupled with assorted radar counter measures would be more than a match for any of the Russian air defense network.

Figure anti radar missiles, jammers, false signals, EMP technology diversionary and real strikes, strikes to their air defense command centers, computer viruses and other technology if used would give an amazing strike capability.

And then lets not forget about wildweasel and similar systems that would accompany any strike forces.

Like they say "They only have to get lucky once."

What if Russians can track stealth tech aircraft?
What NATO non-stealth aircraft can avoid detection by Russian long ranged radar?
What NATO cruise missiles can avoid detection by Russian long ranged radar?
Known NATO anti-radar missiles have a range of no more than 150 km.
Wildweasel use anti-radar missiles.
Russian S-300 and S-400 SAM missiles have a range against aerodynamic targets of 200 km plus and 400 km respectively.
Russia has over one thousand S-300 and S-400 launchers.
What non-nuclear EMP technology does NATO use and what is it's range?
What computer viruses would NATO use to degrade Russian command and air defence systems?
What defences against Russian computer viruses do NATO command and air defence systems have?
How does NATO suppress Russia's AWAC and 400 Su-27/30/35 Flanker, 300 Mig-31, 300 Mig-29 and unknown number of PAK FA fighter aircraft over Russian airspace?
How does NATO suppress potential attacks from non-nuclear Russian bombers, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles?

StainlessSteelCynic

11-23-2014, 05:17 AM

It's worth noting that stealth aircraft can be tracked by using different radar wavelengths, specifically the longer wavelengths typically used by weather radar. The lower frequency radars are then used to direct higher freq radars onto the target.
Plus there's been research into tracking stealthy aircraft via the disruption in airflow and also by thermal imaging to detect changes in the air temperature caused by high speed aircraft.

Hitting the stealthy aircraft is still problematic but that's slowly changing.

http://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chinese-russian-radars-track-see-u-s-stealth
http://airinsight.com/2014/02/24/will-synthetic-schlieren-photography-result-in-the-end-of-stealth/

RN7

11-23-2014, 12:43 PM

To defeat expected advancements in Russian and Chinese stealth detection capabilities the US may field two types of bombers by the mid-2020's.

The next generation B3 bomber under development will be a further progression of current US stealth technology. The B3 will likely be sub-sonic and smaller than the current B2 but also cheaper to build.

Hypersonic aircraft/missiles may be a better way to defeat enemy air defences than stealth aircraft, as they can strike so fast it would be nearly impossible to counter them in time. The SR-72 hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft under development will be the successor to the SR-71 Blackbird if its funding is not cut. It's being developed in parallel to the unmanned X-51 high speed strike weapon demonstrator. The SR-72 is expected to be able to reach speeds of Mach 6 from standstill and will likely have a strike capability.

RN7

11-24-2014, 05:50 AM

The best way to knock Russia out would be to blind it. i.e. go for its early warning capabilities.

Russia currently has 58 satellites in orbit including 4 early warning and 2 ELINT/SIGINT satellites, and the GLONASS navigational constellation of satellites which is the Russian alternative to America's GPS. I'd be certain that the USAF could disable, destroy or jam any number of Russian satellites in orbit through using kinetic or laser weapons or electronic warfare packages on an X-37B drone spaceplane or by other means. However attacking Russian satellites in orbit will not be on the agenda due to the fact that Russia would probably launch an immediate nuclear strike on the United States.

Attacking ground based installations might be an alternative.

Russia currently has six rocket launching sites.

Baikonur, Kazakhstan
Dombarovsky (Orenburg Oblast) Russia
Kapustin Yar (Astrakhan Oblast) Russia
Plesetsk (Archangelsk Oblast) Russia
Svodbodny (Amur Oblast) Russia
Vostochny (Amur Oblast) Russia

A military attack on them would provoke the same response from Russia as the United States would react to an attack on Cape Canaveral.

Other ground based installations of interest include satellite control centres, tracking centres and long ranged radar systems.

Satellite control centres
Pican-1 Komsomolsk-on-Amur (Khabarovsk Krai) Russia
Serpukhov-15 Kaluga (Kaluga Oblast) Russia
Titov Space Systems Control Centre-Krasnozamensk (Moscow Oblast) Russia

Rocket and satellite tracking centres
Eysk (Krasnodar Krai) Russia
Kluchi-Barnaul (Altai Krai) Russia
Maloyaroslavets (Kaluga Oblast) Russia
Ternopil (Ternopil Oblast) Ukraine
Ulan-Ude (Republic of Buryatia) Russia
Yeniseysk (Krasnoyarsk Krai) Russia
Yevpatoria (Crimea) Ukraine
Zhelezhnogorsk (Krasnoyarsk Krai) Russia
Znamenka (Tambov Oblast) Russia

Long ranged radar systems
Armavir (Krasnodar Krai) Russia
Balkhash (Kargandy Region) Kazakhstan
Baranovichi (Brest Oblast) Belarus
Gaballa (Qabala District) Azerbaijan
Lekhtusi (St Petersburg Oblast) Russia
Mishelevka-Irkutsk (Irkutsk Oblast) Russia
Mukachevo (Zakarpattia Oblast) Ukraine
Olenegorsk (Murmansk Oblast) Russia
Pechora (Komi Republic) Russia
Sevastopol (Crimea) Ukraine
Sofrino (Moscow Oblast) Russia (ABM engagement radar)

Russia's radar and satellite control network is very widely dispersed over Russia's 17,075,400 square kilometres and neighbouring countries. In the event of NATO intervening during a Russian invasion of Estonia and the other Baltic states, attacking systems in Western Russian districts facing Europe and the Arctic would seriously disable Russia's ability to monitor NATO forces and its own airspace. An attack on GLONASS control centres would also disable Russian aircraft, air defence systems and guided weapons. The question is what do you attack them with before Russia catches on and goes ballistic?

Webstral

11-24-2014, 11:11 AM

It’s clear that others understand the basic problem of escalation relative to the prospect of fighting in Estonia. One would hope that fear of the unknown would cool the ardor of all parties involved. Unfortunately, the unknown can have the opposite effect. Whereas Putin might be put off an Estonian adventure by the idea that NATO might attack important strategic assets throughout the country pursuant to prosecuting operations in western Russia, he also might decide that the Americans are more likely to be put off taking the steps that might be necessary to liberate Estonia. In the latter case, the uncertainty of the situation becomes an asset because said uncertainty is believed to affect American thinking deeply enough to offer a window of opportunity. I don’t know nearly enough about Putin to make an educated guess about how he will look at the situation.

Getting back to the American response, I want to shift tracks to the ground offensive. Once Russia is in full possession of Estonia, it’s unlikely that anything short of a major ground offensive will put them out. For the same reasons that the liberation of Kuwait obliged Coalition forces to operate in an adjacent portion of Iraq, a liberation of Estonia will involve ground operations in nearby portions of Russia. If the POTUS isn’t prepared to fight on Russian soil, albeit near the Estonian border, then the whole business is off. At the same time, the liberation will take a large contingent of US forces. It’s hard to imagine that the European allies will be willing to put their ground forces into action while the US supplies no ground troops. At the end of the day, it’s going to take US heavy divisions to liberate Estonia. How many is a question for the Pentagon. I can’t imagine that anything less than 8 divisions will suffice, along with 12 or more NATO heavy divisions. Putting 8 US heavy divisions (mechanized infantry or armored) on the ground in Europe would mean mobilizing part of the National Guard, as well as part of the Army Reserve to provide support units.

The timetable would revolve around getting the required number of divisions to their assembly areas in Eastern Europe, along with their supplies. Let’s call the entire US ground force committed to the liberation Seventh US Army for the sake of argument. Seventh Army is going to have to come over in stages, because even during the height of the Cold War the US could sealift no more than a strong corps (4 divisions) at a time. Nowadays, I would not say that any more than 2 divisions could be sealifted in the first lap between CONUS and Europe. I would be willing to be proven incorrect.

Getting the required equipment to Europe might take 3 trips. We probably can expect that each trip would involve more transport shipping as ships are diverted from their normal civilian routes and otherwise brought out of mothballs in the Naval Reserve. I used to know all the facts and figures for reinforcing Europe by sea off the top of my head, but now I don’t. Under the best conditions, the CONUS-Europe leg would take no less than 6 days. That’s assuming the troops are embarking at Northeastern ports like New York or Boston. If they are embarking at Houston (which is the closest major port to Ft. Hood), one can double the time for transit.

Then there is unloading at the other end. I really don’t know how long that would take. I suppose the answer depends in part on which European ports are being used. If US forces are unloading in several European ports, the unloading will go much more quickly. If they are using only 1 port, unloading is going to take longer. How many ports are being used will depend in part on how many and which NATO allies are on board. Also, physical security will be a concern. Whether the Russians oppose the crossing or not, NATO has to assume the Russians might oppose the crossing. While air and submarine attacks against sealift vessels within 100 miles of the Atlantic/North Sea coast of Europe are unlikely, one simply doesn’t know. Also, mine countermeasures may necessitate using fewer ports because there are never enough minesweepers available. It would be unreasonable to assume that the Russians would not take an interest in mining the approaches to Western European ports once they conclude the Americans mean business about liberating Estonia.

Once the unloading is complete, there is the return trip. The mere prospect of Russian air or submarine attack on shipping in the North Atlantic will compel a convoy system, which will mean that the ships unloaded first will wait for the ships unloaded last before heading back across the Atlantic. Thus a round trip from New York might take 3 weeks. A trip starting in Texas and ending in New York could take a month. At the end of this first reinforcement effort, Seventh US Army may have received 2 divisions, plus whatever assets were airlifted in. The number of divisions could be lower.

While the first reinforcement mission is underway, we should expect the bean counters to have been doing their jobs. Other heavy divisions identified for the mission in Europe will be en route to their ports of embarkation. This is where the exact timing of things is in the hands of the logistics types. How long does it take to move 4th ID from Ft. Carson to whichever port is going to be used? The best ports to use are going to be the East Coast ports, preferably as far north as possible: Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Boston. Rail capacity, port capacity, available shipping, convoy mandates, and other factors will determine which divisions and what supplies are loaded when and where. It may be that after the first flotilla returns, the USN has the assets available to send 2 separate convoys.

Mobilization of the National Guard divisions needed to beef up Seventh US Army will have to be factored in as well. Ideally, each mobilized division would receive 90 days of training before being sent overseas. It’s hard to see how that will happen. I suspect whichever divisions are sent will get more like 45-60 days of training before shipping out to Europe. These divisions will go in the third wave of sealift.

Once a given heavy division is on dry land in Europe, it will have to go forward to Poland at the minimum. This will take some time.

The point of all this is that getting Seventh US Army ready to push the Russians out of Estonia will take some time. I’d be very surprised if 8 US heavy divisions were ready for action in anything less than 90 days. Everything would have to go perfectly for that to happen. Depending on a variety of factors, this could take 6 months—maybe more. Both sides will be very aware of this timeframe. If the Russians decide that NATO isn’t bluffing, they may go to full mobilization. It’s hard to say just how things will go at this juncture. The willingness of the Russians to stay in the fight will depend on what has been going on in the air war up to that point and on the willingness of the other NATO partners to stay the course with the US.

jester

11-24-2014, 02:37 PM

You've got the bottle necks of shipping.

The American Merchant Marine and the civilian ships that support the military for such operations have been chronically undermanned. About 8 years ago it came out that in order to pass their inspections they would fly personnel from the East Coast to the West Coast so they could pass. And that is at a moderate to low operational tempo, not one of full mobilization.

So, where do we get the personnel and now the vessels for this increased shipping? As you said, civilian assets may work for personnel and even light vehicles. But your heavy lift to move your armor I doubt will be able to be shipped on the standard car carrier. So, armored units may be a bit on the light side or take longer to form.

Sadly, pulling civilian or retired will give you a lag of skill set until they get up to par as well.

Bringing vessels out of mothballs. Depending on its level of mothball status could mean at the least several months in a shipyard to almost rebuilding the vessel. Sadly in a time of limited drydock and shipyard space since we've closed to many we no longer have those assets of skilled people. (Same for our aviation capacity)

Rail capacity....again, the bottleneck of the railheads. I know how long it takes to load a mech brigade on railcars. A division, a lot longer. The space inside the railhead and the cars available and where they are stored is an issue while the train is being assembled. Then the nightmare of keeping those trains moving cross country....even though military traffic always has right of way. We hit the port facilities. The rail head for off loading.

In ports, we have civilians and their assets working with military at off loading. 2 new crews working together who have not done so before. And again SPACE. How many vehicles and conex boxes belonging to a Brigade or a Division? You will need to clear out vast areas of your ports to make room for this equipment as well as for a security aspect. I can see the ports being slightly more organized than a Chinese fire drill.

Next, convoy, do we have the assets for that in theater and to conduct other operations? And do we have the skills? I recall about 2 years ago, an unknown submarine managed to make it well within a carrier battlegroup....they think the submarine was Chinese. It brought a big question about how our antisubmarine capability has degraded. And it must be asked, not just using Cold War era equipment, but troops who just don't have the skillset and experience.

And lastly, Russia is building up its submarine force again. I can not help but think they are well aware, the easiest way to fight is to keep them from landing. If you can keep your foe from even setting foot on land you've won! With that mindset, I could think they would put effort in keeping forces from crossing the Atlantic. Granted, that goes on the theory that there is not a lot of political bluff that allows for a troop buildup before anything actualy happens.

Another issue, bluff. Or good ol Cold War Brinkmanship. Push it to the limit and see how far you can go. Which in my view is what ol Vlad is doing. The gamble, is a small former block country that has limited ties or common history with Western Europe worth Nato going off? Come on, its only Estonia or Latvia...both are smaller than Los Angeles, they're not worth it. The test was Georgia, and then Ukraine neither Nato members true but a good test of the Wests resolve. Now, if both had completed their admission to Nato, would things have been different?

Webstral

11-24-2014, 04:14 PM

The problem with writing off a member of NATO—any member of NATO—is that the credibility of the United States as an ally goes into the toilet as a consequence. One can debate whether bringing a country like Estonia into NATO was wise, given the difficulty of getting forces there and supporting them. Now the deal is done, though. Either we commit, regardless of the inconvenience of doing so, or our metaphorical stock tanks. If we fail to commit the resources of NATO, including the United States, to defending the territorial integrity of a member of NATO, then the whole arrangement comes into question. At that point, we might as well disband NATO for all it will be worth.

The political price to be paid by a POTUS who effectively negates NATO by failing to live up to the country’s obligations under treaty would be enormous beyond measure. His political opponents would call for an impeachment, and they might actually bring it off. It would be very, very difficult to see how he could expect his party to see much success in the 2016 elections unless his party joined hands with the other major party to force the POTUS to honor our treaty obligations. What a nightmare that would be. And then the government of every other country that has signed a treaty with the US (bilaterally or otherwise) would wonder whether the treaty was worth the paper it was printed on.

I’m not a gambling man, but I’d put the mortgage money down on an American commitment to Estonia. In my mind, the real questions revolve around efficacy and an ability to marshal the political will to embark upon the biggest war since WW2. The American public will be all up in arms at first. Once the initial excitement wears off and the National Guard and Reserves begin getting called up, the electorate will begin to realize that this is more than just good TV. And then when someone broaches the idea of increasing taxes to pay for the biggest war since WW2, the voters will suffer a distinct flagging of enthusiasm. So it will be up the POTUS to set expectations up to and including taxes, full mobilization, and even a draft as the USAF is fighting its first combat missions over the Baltics. I hope the appropriate staffs have been working on scenarios, because the first 12 hours after Russian troops cross the border are going to be an important time to say and do the right things.

Raellus

11-24-2014, 04:47 PM

The American public will be all up in arms at first. Once the initial excitement wears off and the National Guard and Reserves begin getting called up, the electorate will begin to realize that this is more than just good TV. And then when someone broaches the idea of increasing taxes to pay for the biggest war since WW2, the voters will suffer a distinct flagging of enthusiasm. So it will be up the POTUS to set expectations up to and including taxes, full mobilization, and even a draft as the USAF is fighting its first combat missions over the Baltics. I hope the appropriate staffs have been working on scenarios, because the first 12 hours after Russian troops cross the border are going to be an important time to say and do the right things.

I think that the reaction will be mixed. I doubt that more than 10% of the population of the U.S.A. could point Estonia out on a map, even given the context clue that it borders Russia. And like you said, once the bills start to come in, or talk of reinstituting the draft begins, much of any enthusiasm does exist will probably fly out the window.

In terms of ground fighting in Estonia, NATO would immediately be at a several disadvantages. Even given the best-case scenario that NATO could get its ready reaction force (its exact current composition is unknown but it is believed to consist of one or two brigades of mostly light troops each from the U.S., U.K., Germany, and Poland) to Estonia before its own military is annihilated, it would immediately be outnumbered and outgunned by the Russians. NATO's supply lines would also be much longer. and NATO troops would be further from its air cover/support. It's unlikely that this relatively small, light military force, at the end of a long, vulnerable logistics chain, could do much more than slow the Russians down.

If the Russians were able to defeat the NATO RRF, would NATO member nations approve of a larger, stronger campaign to liberate Estonia? It's hard to say. One could argue that an early defeat could galvanize NATO members/supporters and stiffen their backbones. It could also go the other way, with an early defeat causing NATO members to lose their stomach for further combat, especially if the Russians offer to negotiate a settlement. Said settlement would undoubtedly lead to at least part of Estonia changing hands and ending up under the Russian flag.

This is why I think that the NATO RRF is a bad idea, in practice. It's not strong enough to stop a determined, large-scale Russian combined-arms offensive, and its loss could jeopardize further military measures to liberate the afflicted Baltic member state(s). ATM, it's not much more than a token gesture- a sop to those crying out in the Baltic wilderness.

The only real guarantee of Baltic security is basing NATO heavy brigades there. I'd be willing to wager a large sum that even just serious talk of doing such a thing will provoke a serious escalation in the region, likely leading to some sort of preemptive military action by the Russians.

As a side note, I've heard that, like in 1914 and 1941, the rail gauges between Poland and Lithuania change, complicating any ground trans-shipment of NATO heavy brigades from Germany/Poland to the upper Baltic States.

Webstral

11-24-2014, 05:07 PM

The chicken hawks will be all over it. We can count on certain media outlets to pump as much oxygen as possible into whatever feeble flames exist among their viewership. One party, which shall go nameless, will very happily spend tax dollars in whatever quantity can be financed by sales of bonds to those of means on the consumption of machines and supplies for war with Russia. A certain segment of the population will be delighted that the Russians are the bad guys again.

I agree that reactions will be mixed, overall. A handful of setbacks during the buildup to the main ground offensive will test national commitment. While I agree that few Americans know where Estonia is right now, after they see it on the screen 30+ times daily for a month or so, the general populace may be able to distinguish Estonia from Rhode Island. In any event, I think even people who would not be inclined to go to war can understand the value of honoring a treaty, a contract. After all, if the federal government can back out of honoring the most fundamental NATO obligation, then they back out of honoring any obligation under whatever pretext comes to hand.

Raellus

11-24-2014, 05:46 PM

All good points. I guess I probably couldn't have pointed out Kuwait on a map back in '91 (I was 16 or so) before the Iraqis invaded.

My second point still stands, though. If the NATO RRF is deployed and gets its butt kicked, will the public stand for round two, especially if it means full mobilization (including the draft) is put into effect, tax hikes to pay for a large-scale conventional war, etc.? Instead of a shooting war, we might be looking at a new Berlin crisis situation, with a new wall and highly militarized border zone going up to separate Russia's new conquest and its nearest free neighbor.

Webstral

11-25-2014, 01:45 AM

If NATO were to insert a rapid reaction force, it would get its butt kicked. In some ways, that would be part of the point. The 82nd Airborne could have accomplished nothing more than being turned into road kill by the Republican Guard if Hussein had invaded Saudi in 1990. The American command knew this and chanced it anyway. It was a supreme act of chicken. If Hussein had annihilated the 82nd Airborne, the leadership was gambling that the American public would demand payback.

Obviously, not everybody would be on board for a crusade to liberate Estonia. What would be interesting is how the forces that be would manage getting people on board and keeping them on board through tax hikes, bond drives, and a draft of some sort. The Military-Industrial Complex would go all in, obviously. How other interest groups would respond would be very interesting to watch. People who normally have a knee jerk reaction to tax increases would have to be convinced, co-opted, or distracted. People who would be opposed to a major war, which is what this probably would become, would have to be silenced or discredited. The military manpower reserve and their parents would have to be motivated.

I think the manner in which the air war was waged and represented (not necessarily in that order) would be important factors. Intrepid reporters operating in occupied Estonia would have to send out word of Russian atrocities. The willingness of the noble Poles to go to the mat with the evil Russian aggressors would have to be played up. Putin's likeness to Hitler would have to be ridden for all the mileage it was worth. If these things could be done--if the people doing the fighting and paying for the fighting could be convinced that this was a chance to do what Britain and France and the rest of the world failed to do when Hitler could have been managed--then it might be possible to get a majority on board and keep them on board for the necessary effort.

jester

11-25-2014, 04:10 AM

Here is another question on this line.

Have we updated out plans for a Russian offensive west? Or, are we still using the Fulda Gap scenario that we used when my uncle manned a bridge facing the then Soviets in years after WWII? Over many a glass of port he would explain that his unit, (Radio relay and engineer) had 1 job. Blow that bridge. And as was explained to them buy them 1 day. In reality, they would of done their job is they'd of bought a couple hours.

Somehow, I am not confident the plans have been kept up.

Also, lets not forget that the Russians have used infiltration for many of their invasions. In A-stan they came in initialy as civilian aircraft if I recall right. And well, in Ukraine they are only soldiers on leave doing it on their own....those Russian soldiers who have been captured that is. The rebels who speak with distinct regional dialects are locals :rolleyes:

So, who is to say, they will not send in people from the GRU to stir the pot? And then claim it is an "INTERNAL" issue. So they can send in humanitarian aid and peacekeepers to protect the ethnic Russians? Hmmm, where have we heard this scenario before? Does it end with "Good luck, you're on your own?"

Raellus

11-25-2014, 01:16 PM

So, who is to say, they will not send in people from the GRU to stir the pot? And then claim it is an "INTERNAL" issue. So they can send in humanitarian aid and peacekeepers to protect the ethnic Russians? Hmmm, where have we heard this scenario before? Does it end with "Good luck, you're on your own?"

I'd considered this option too, since the Russians have a fairly proven track record of employing infiltration and destablization tactics. If it ain't broke, why fix it? The following article suggests that's where Russia is heading.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gertz-us-lacks-unconventional-warfare-strategy-2014-11

I'm kind of on the fence now, because said tactics employed against/within a NATO member nation would very probably lead to the deployment of NATO counter-insurgency forces being to Estonia. This would up the stakes and complicate any planned follow-up conventional invasion on the part of Russia. If tensions rise gradually, NATO would be given time to strengthen its conventional military presence in the region; this might spoil Russia's chances of seizing the territory by force. I think that Putin would balk at the presence of a couple of NATO heavy brigades. On the other hand, if NATO has combat troops in action near Estonia's border with Russia, even if it's only a few dozen SOF operators, Putin can frame the situation as NATO aggression, and use it as a casus belli, spinning any Russian invasion into an act of self-defense.

Given recent Russian defense appropriations, I don't think that the Russians are content to limit themselves to unconventional means in order to gain the territory that they covet. For the last few years, Russia's been working on building a conventional military that can compete with, or even defeat, NATO's capabilities.

jester

11-26-2014, 05:19 AM

We also have one other thing.

CHANCE!

Dumb luck....bad luck.

As Senator Fred Thompson said when he was staring as the carrier commander in Clancys "Hunt for Red October" "this will get out of hand and we'll be lucky to live through it." or something similar.

Remember, how Arch Duke Ferdinand was killed?

The assasins botched the job three or four times. And one of the assasins failed, was in a sandwich shop, when the driver of the car, lost turned around right infront of him. Dumb luck.

Forces, operating in close proximity who are pumped up. As they say, "stuff happens." Either by accident, or by someone who has an axe to grind...after all the East/West are our age old enemies and lets finaly settle things! All it takes is a wildcard. And before you know it, we're slipped over the brink.

stormlion1

11-26-2014, 08:50 AM

A question will be if the Russians will have learned the lesson the Iraqi's failed to heed before the first Gulf War. Up until the start of operations the Iraqi Army could have sweeped down out of Iraq and Kuwait and taken Saudi Arabia and put everything we had put in out right fast. They gave us time to prepare. Would the Russians be that dumb to allow us time to ship all that gear over? I have a feeling they wouldn't. There would be suspicious sinking's, accidents, Power outages, industrial sabotage at ports, rail lines, etc. No matter what happens it won't be up to the US to be the leading edge, but the members of NATO inside Europe. The chronically undermanned, under equipped NATO members in Europe.

Webstral

11-26-2014, 01:21 PM

I agree that unconventional warfare is not the strong point for US forces. The US Army and its support mechanisms are optimized for a high tempo war in which stupendous and highly accurate firepower combine with speed of action to destroy the enemy in an updated version of blitzkrieg. Shock and awe is not a bad title for this, regardless of what one thinks about how OIF turned out for everyone. The Army is so specialized for this mission that even after 8 years of OIF and 13 years of OEF the force remains oriented on fighting and winning this kind of war. The downside is that we don’t focus as much on other areas.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Europeans have to look at things the same way. It’s entirely possible for a European counter-insurgency force to operate within a ring of American conventional combat power.

Tactics have to reflect intent. It all comes down to what Putin really hopes to get at a price he’s willing to pay. There’s what Russia wants, consciously or otherwise, which is to reabsorb the Baltic Republics for their population, economy, and theater depth. Moving the border of Russia back to northern Poland would be a tremendous boon to Russian security. The question is one of method and cost. If Putin can get any territory rich in ethnic Russians back into the Russian fold, he will be a hero. If he can be seen to back NATO off or at least stand up to them, he will be a hero. If he can win a military engagement with NATO at a reasonable cost in treasure and, more importantly, Russian lives, he will be a superhero. Will he go for the smaller victory at a smaller cost, or will he go for the big win at great risk? I don’t the man well enough to make any predictions in this regard. It should be noted, though, that the little win is not necessarily a stepping stone to the big win.

If Putin decides to go the route of fomenting unrest in Estonia pursuant to annexing the Estonian Sudetenland, he makes some gains for some losses. This would be an extended effort. As others have pointed out, the likelihood of NATO troops being introduced for the purpose of peacekeeping, policing, counterinsurgency, or whatever one wants to call the mission grows with every incident between ethnic Russians and ethnic Estonians in Estonia. Once NATO troops go in, the option for a quick conquest of Estonia with minimal risk of a wider war with NATO goes off the table. Whatever contempt one may have for our European allies, I think it’s unreasonable to expect that they would shrug off a Russian diplomatic effort supposedly conducted for the purpose of deciding the fate of Russian Estonia that turns into an outright invasion and annexation of all Estonia which kills or captures a sizeable body of NATO troops assigned to peacekeeping missions in Estonia, a NATO member. This would be classic Russian thuggery, were Putin to go this route. In some ways, a diplomatic effort that ends in an invasion would be even worse than an invasion out of the blue because of the false pretenses and deaths among NATO troops sent to Estonia during the unrest. As a former KGB man, Putin would understand this.

So if Putin goes for annexing Russian Estonia through diplomacy (following fomented unrest, etc., etc.) he is tacitly taking the prospect of a flash invasion followed by a settlement off the table. This is not to say he couldn’t invade and win at any given point along the way. However, the first video of NATO troops being machine gunned by Russian fighting vehicles and/or the first NATO vehicles aflame with NATO troops hanging out the doors/hatches will inflame public opinion. While some will take this as evidence that NATO membership for Estonia was a bad idea to begin with and that Estonia ought to be cut loose, I believe a majority will view as an act of war hostile action against their troops by foreign troops as said friendly troops conduct lawful missions on the soil of an allied state. Public opinion does not suffer this sort of thing well, regardless of the place or time. History is replete with examples of how an aggressor thought a little bloodshed and an early setback would terrorize the other side, only to discover that the other side became more resolute, not less. Again, as a former KGB man Putin would be more sensitive to this trend than a former military man.

If Putin is willing to settle for a modest boost to his standing among his people, such that might accrue from adding Russian Estonia to Russia by diplomatic means, then he can go the route of deploying agitators and engaging in the extended theatrics that accompanied splitting the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. This is not without its downside, though. The Europeans are even more likely than we are to see Hitler’s methodology at work. The other Baltic Republics and Poland are quite likely to demand a summit with NATO and demand to know whether membership in NATO is worth a flying [expletive deleted]. If NATO replies that membership does count for something, the newest members naturally will ask for proof. It’s hard to see that said proof will not result in the forward deployment of NATO assets. Thus far, NATO has avoided thus under, I believe, the thesis that moving significant numbers of NATO troops into Poland in a replication of the garrison forces of West Germany would antagonize the Russians unnecessarily. Whether this policy would hold up under the stress of Russian demands on Estonian territory and subsequent Balto-Polish demands that NATO show the colors more flagrantly is an unknown.

Tangentially, it’s possible that the more thoughtful Europeans might make some arrangement to forestall Russian territorial demands on the remaining Baltic territory and/or Poland by moving the remaining Russians out. The Russian minority in Poland is very small in numbers and as a percentage of the population, but the number in Latvia is very significant. In Latvia, more than 500,000 Russians comprise more than a quarter of the population. If Putin is able to absorb Russian Estonia, there is no reason to believe Latvia won’t be the next target. If Putin’s goal is to bring ethnic Russians back to Russia (as he has stated in the past), and if doing so nets him political gains, then it may be possible for the EU to provide funds to “buy out” Russians in Latvia and move them to Russia, among other possible ideas. If, on the other hand, Putin wants to capture territory or believes he needs to capture territory, then any buy-out/move-out scheme will meet resistance.

Swinging back the other way, I find it hard to believe that Putin wants outright war with the West. If he were hungry for war, he could have invaded Ukraine already. This would have been a good way to put his forces through their paces before starting the big show. I’m sure a pretext for war with Ukraine could have been found or fabricated. It’s entirely possible that Putin as a Russian could find himself in a position to believe that war with the West is a necessity for creating a better territorial situation in northwest Russia and far southern Russia.

Raellus

11-26-2014, 01:32 PM

I agree with you, Stormlion1, but I wonder whether both sides wouldn't try to keep the conflict regional. Web already pointed out some practical issues with this, and I tend to think that it would quickly boil out of control, but, at first, I think that both sides would try to limit the scope and intensity of the fighting. I think Russia would frame it as an internal issue, claiming that large chunks of Estonia and Latvia are geographically, historically, and ethnically Russian. It's very much the same position they've held regarding the Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, and other bits and pieces of the former Russo-Soviet Empire. The idea here would be to keep the conflict contained because I don't think that either side is ready to engage in a large-scale conventional war, and the spector of nuclear war which looms over any potential armed conflict between atomic rivals.

To illustrate what I mean by keeping it regional, I think that Russia might not attempt to inderdict shipments of U.S. troops and material in the Atlantic, at least not initially. Instead, I think they would do all that they could to stop said shipments within the territorial waters/econ. exclusion zone of the affected Baltic States, focussing on the Gulf of Riga. Now, if the U.S. started striking targets within Russia proper, I think that all bets would be off. Similarly, if it looked like NATO had the will to launch a large-scale liberation operation in support of the Baltic States, then perhaps Moscow would green light the wider interdiction of the means said op.

In my soon-ready-to-be-shared (I hope) WWIII scenario, the war starts in Estonia but expands quickly, and the Russians have a big hand in that.

Raellus

11-26-2014, 01:40 PM

First off, Web, let me just say that I find your posts (forum-wide, but in this threat, in particular) thoughtful, erudite, and well-written. For whatever it's worth, I find that I agree with most of your points.

I don't see a buy-out/move-out scheme happening. It's just too reminiscent of the ethnic cleansing campaigns of the 1930-'40s and the more recent Balkans conflict.

Second, Ukraine and Estonia are two different beasts. Ukraine is a much larger, more populous nation, and, at its westernmost extent, has a much longer shared border with established NATO nations. Estonia is small, even weaker militarily, and only borders one other small, similarly weak NATO nation. An outright annexation of Estonia is much more plausible, militarily, logistically, economically, and politically, than an outright annexation of Ukraine. I'm not saying that the Russians couldn't do it, but it would be more difficult, more expensive, and probably more diplomatically damaging, despite the fact that Ukraine doesn't have any NATO ties.

Raellus

11-26-2014, 05:15 PM

This is more like it. Unfortunately, the article doesn't say which "Eastern European country" the tanks will be based in.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1637309/u-s-army-sending-tanks-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-aggression/

RN7

11-27-2014, 12:50 AM

The brunt of any initial NATO response to a Russian invasion of Estonia would likely be borne by the German and Polish armies. The British Army would probably contribute their two armoured brigades still based in Germany, but other NATO members would likely only contributing some rapid reaction infantry battalions or the odd armoured and artillery regiment. However even the German and Polish armies have shrunk dramatically in size over the past two decades. The German Army has downsized to just two armoured divisions, one special operations division, and some German infantry and support contingents in European multinational formations such as the Eurocorps. The Polish Army fields just three divisions and some independent brigades and regiments. On mobilisation NATO nations would likely begin to reactivate formations that were disbanded in the drawdown after the end of the Cold War.

The US Army would have to reactivate forces that were disbanded in the drawdown after the end of the Cold war. Unlike in the Cold War when there was nine US Army divisions based in Germany along with a bunch of brigades and cavalry regiments, today there are just three US Army combat units in the whole of Europe; the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade in Germany and the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy. There are some air defence, engineer, signals, military police and training units in Germany, but nothing even resembling the component of even one heavy division. The US Army still maintains POMCUS equipment sets in Europe, although no known ones remain in Germany. POMCUS military material configured to fill four brigades under Combat Equipment Group-Europe (CEG-E) are located at four sites in the Netherlands, and two sites in Belgium and Luxembourg. CEG-E also maintained a field artillery battalion set in Norway. During the Cold War POMCUS held equipment sets for four divisions in Europe.

In the 1980's the US planned to rapidly reinforce NATO with land and air forces by using US and NATO ships and aircraft. Within ten days of hostilities with the Warsaw Pact the US planned to reinforce Europe with over 5 US Army divisions,1 US Marine brigade and 60 tactical fighter squadrons. 300 USAF transports were earmarked to land US troops in Europe within 24 hours of hostilities. 80 NATO military transports and 300 US civil airliners were added to this fleet to transport additional troops to Europe within 72 hours of hostilities. Within 12-15 days of hostilities 50 US military sealift and Atlantic Ready Reserve Force ships would arrive with the first major shipment of heavy equipment. From one to three months after hostilities up to 240 US National Defence Reserve Fleet and US civil cargo ships would be assigned to transport US forces across the Atlantic, with another 600 NATO civil cargo ships. An additional 19 US Army divisions and 20 brigades were available for deployment in the US along with 4 Marine Divisions, 74 USAF tactical fighter squadrons, 3 Marine air wings, a Canadian Army brigade and two Canadian tactical fighter squadrons.

IISS Military Balance lists the US Army (including NG and Reserve) with 10 combat divisions (2 armored, 5 mechanised), 4 combat brigades (2 armored, 1 mechanised) and 2 armored cavalry regiments excluding special forces and aviation, artillery and support brigades and battalions in 2013. There are also 3 Marine divisions. The USAF also has 368 heavy and medium transport aircraft in active service, and the US Navy has 29 principal amphibious ships with 12 more in the naval inactive fleet. US Navy Military Sealift Command operates 34 ships in the combat logistic force, 30 maritime preposition ships, 18 strategic sealift ships (at 4 days readiness), 16 special mission ships, and 14 service support ships. The National Defence Reserve Fleet operates 82 ships, with 48 ships in the Ready Reserve Force (30 days readiness).

The USAF still has substantial combat assets in Europe with the Third Air Force in Germany, Britain and Italy, with support forces based across Europe. The USAF also maintains Munitions Support Squadrons (MUNSS) at geographically separated units in Germany, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands. In the event of a war today with Russia over Estonia, the main US contribution to a NATO liberations of Estonia would be the USAF at least at first. The first US heavy land forces to be deployed against the Russians might now be US Marines before the US Army can bring its force to bare.

Raellus

12-04-2014, 09:29 PM

Maybe NATO doesn't enjoy quite the edge in the air that we thought we did...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

Webstral

12-04-2014, 09:44 PM

An East-West confrontation that goes hot will have surprises for everyone.

bobcat

12-07-2014, 08:19 PM

What non-nuclear EMP technology does NATO use and what is it's range?
What computer viruses would NATO use to degrade Russian command and air defence systems?
What defences against Russian computer viruses do NATO command and air defence systems have?

these three questions are easiest to answer.
1: We have a number of systems of varying range available. most are generally used to test equipment for combat suitability(you don't want to feild gear that can be shut down with a COTS pinch). but the rusians likely do the same testing which means that attack mode is out of the question.

2: Officially we do not engage in cyber warfare. ;)

3: We do have countermeasures for if networks are taken out by viruses, surgical strikes, environmental factors, etc. unfortunately IMHO we do not train as effectively as we should to conduct missions in this manner.

in summary NATO capabilities in these areas need significant training. mostly training senior leaders to allow subordinate commanders to actually make decisions. but that's always the case for every unit. which is why big army sucks at unconventional warfare.

bobcat

12-07-2014, 08:29 PM

RN7

12-07-2014, 08:51 PM

these three questions are easiest to answer.
1: We have a number of systems of varying range available. most are generally used to test equipment for combat suitability(you don't want to feild gear that can be shut down with a COTS pinch). but the rusians likely do the same testing which means that attack mode is out of the question.

And what are these systems? Have they been weaponised? What is their effective range? How would they be deployed against Russian forces? ie on aircraft, missile or on land?

2: Officially we do not engage in cyber warfare. ;)

3: We do have countermeasures for if networks are taken out by viruses, surgical strikes, environmental factors, etc. unfortunately IMHO we do not train as effectively as we should to conduct missions in this manner.

in summary NATO capabilities in these areas need significant training. mostly training senior leaders to allow subordinate commanders to actually make decisions. but that's always the case for every unit. which is why big army sucks at unconventional warfare.

I have to say this doesn't fill me with too much confidence.

RN7

12-07-2014, 09:02 PM

and while everyone is considering the cost-benefit ratios for conventional military strike let me remind you the US and the UK have a large number of military age males that fight dirty. be it sneak into the Cosmodrome and arrange for the propellant and oxidizer tanks cross feed and ignite which would prevent launches of space based systems. or a number of very small cells attacking Russian airfields(a little bit of the right compounds properly dispersed could destroy a large number of aircraft in short order.). even dropping off sabotaged ammo in ASP's could destroy moral. Less than 1000 men with the right training could cripple an entire army faster than the first gulf war.

And how would all these commando's be deployed into ultra paranoid and heavily defended Russian territory undetected? And how would they then travel across the vast distances that is Russia to target different bases and facilities widely dispersed across the length of Russia and allied territory?

and while everyone is worried about how long it would take to field heavy units in Europe let us not forget the lessons our Finnish friends taught us during the winter war. you don't need tanks to fight tanks in the mountainous regions of Eastern Europe. small squads roaming the hills at will could easily damage/destroy road-bound heavy armor. whether they fight with javalins and goose guns, or IED's and my favorite drink. when in rough terrain the tank is useless.

But Estonia and the Baltic states, and Byelorussia, and most of the Western Ukraine and Russia and also the northern half of Poland and Germany are located on the Great European Plain which extends from the Pyrenees Mountain in France to the Ural Mountains in Russia. Its the largest mountain-free land form in Europe and is renowned tank country!

Webstral

12-08-2014, 02:52 PM

RN7 is absolutely correct that the Winter War experience will be very difficult to replicate in the Baltics. With the right number of troops doing the right thing the right way, Baltic urban areas can be turned into very hard nuts to crack. Under the current circumstances, however, the Russians will overwhelm the Baltics at will.

Getting 1000 special operations types into position to hit dozens of targets simultaneously would be hard enough if we were talking about attacking the DR Congo. Attempting to put them into position in western Russia would be an act of folly. If we were not currently at war, the Russians would view such an act as an act of war. If we were at war, I think the challenges of penetrating Russian airspace on a scale necessary to get these people to their drop/landing zones would be insuperable barring air supremacy. Getting them in overland… It’s hard to imagine that SACEUR would treat such a priceless resource so carelessly. Then there’s the little matter of getting them back out, unless one is content to have them killed or captured.

This is not to say that some special operations actions cannot be undertaken. But they can hardly substitute for action by the USAF and allied air forces.

bobcat

12-08-2014, 04:08 PM

sending 1000 "exchange students" to russia would actually be rather easy on a modern timeline. now doing so at the height of the cold war would take a bit more planning but it's doable. and lets face it you don't need tier 1 operators for that kind of work, any appropriately trained engineering or chemistry student will do. heck i've caused similar havok with POG's playing OPFOR (lets face it nobody ruins your day like army finance, nobody).

as for locking down the Baltic cities yes it would require a bit of warning before the balloon goes up. but it doesn't matter whether your in mountains, forest, deserts, or those rainy plains in Spain light forces are far better at holding ground than heavy armor. and tank country also is artillery country. it doesn't matter if soviet SHORAD can keep the A10's off if you've got an FO dressed like a shrubbery directing 105MM DPICM onto their armor and supporting infantry. especially if his rather bored PSD(those infantry dudes) remembered to bring the ATGM's that the FM's keep saying are supposed to be pushed down to platoon level.

not to say that tank's aren't useful it just that they are better suited to offense rather than defense. so getting them on site while we're just holding the line isn't as critical as having someone there to hold the line initially.

RN7: as for EMP devices they range so widely that it's hard to say.
heck you can buy them here even: http://www.amazing1.com/emp.html
and they're tactically useless anyway for reasons i have already explained.

Raellus

12-08-2014, 05:03 PM

I see your point, Bobcat. Hezbollah has demonstrated how deadly current generation ATGMs can be against amor in difficult terrain and urban settings. But current generation MBTs are rolling out new active point defense systems that can, to some degree, protect from anti-tank rockets and missiles. It's a constantly evolving game of cat and mouse. The advantage seems to shift every few years. Based on the success of Trophy and other Israeli point defense systems during the latest round of fighting in Gaza, the advantage currently appears to lie with the modern AFV. A few years prior, in southern Lebanon, it looked like the modern ATGM had the upper hand. My point is that modern ATGMs are not a trump card (neither are MBTs, to be fair). I'm eager to see what kind of defenses the new Russian ARMATA series of advanced AFVs, especially the MBT version, will feature (it's supposed to roll out on May Day this year).

As for artillery, the Russians have long been big believers in the liberal application of artillery, tube and rocket both, on the battlefield and light infantry are very vulnerable to its effects. Unfortunately for our Estonian and Latvian allies, their stocks of artillery are neither numerous or particularly capable. NATO light brigades do have their own organic artillery, but usually nothing heavier than 105mm howitzers and 120mm mortars. Russian mechanized forces have tube and rocket artillery that can easily outrange and outweigh (in terms of explosives delivered per shell/barrage) NATO light artillery.

For the reasons cited above, if I had to put my money on a defending light infantry force or an attacking heavy mechanized force on a conventional battlefield, I'd put it on the latter. Recent history supports my decision. Although insurgents in Fallujah c. 2004 didn't have access to their own heavy artillery, nor did the Chechen rebels in Grozny, both were fighting from carefully prepared urban positions, and both had access to prodigious quantities of AT rockets, land mines, IEDs, etc. Although both put up a valiant fight, neither could hold their city against combined arms attacks by forces employing armor, heavy artillery, and air power.

The best a light infantry force could hope to accomplish in the Baltics is slow down the Russian mechanized forces long enough for friendly mechanized forces to arrive. I think we've already adequately addressed the difficulties of getting heavy units to the northern Baltic states in anything like the numbers required to beat back a determined Russian all-arms assault.

Webstral

12-08-2014, 07:44 PM

Sending 1,000 undercover saboteurs into Russia is a very different matter than sending 1,000 operators into Russia. I don’t object to a change of subject as long as we acknowledge that they are very, very different creatures.

Sabotage based on undercover operations is hard to pull off on the scale we’re talking about. Getting 1,000 people under cover to plan and execute simultaneous attacks against sensitive military or economic targets is no simple matter. There’s a lot than can go wrong with inserting a single agent into a society that still has a better internal security apparatus than we do. Inserting 1,000 is asking a very great deal of our luck. Human operations is not our strong suit. We might be better off planning to hit those targets with missiles and manned aircraft than trying to infiltrate Russian civil society with so many people trying to execute attacks on important targets.

but it doesn't matter whether your in mountains, forest, deserts, or those rainy plains in Spain light forces are far better at holding ground than heavy armor.

I’m not quite sure how to address such an egregious overstatement of the power of light infantry in a fashion that separates my response to the idea from my respect for the individual. The nature of the terrain makes a huge difference in the effectiveness of light infantry on the defense. As a rule, light infantry is not very effective at defending against mechanized forces (which is what the Russians would bring to bear) on open ground. Light infantry cannot maneuver in the face of enemy mechanized forces without sacrificing any advantages derived from fortifications and virtually all advantages derived from defending restricted terrain. The ability of mechanized formations to maneuver gives the mech commander the initiative, which in turn enables him to decide whether to fight or whether go around enemy strong points. Superior mobility enables the mechanized force to concentrate at the chosen point of attack, such that sheer weight of numbers and firepower can achieve a breakthrough, which in turn renders the defensive line of the light force inert. Superior mobility enables the mechanized force to seek out and exploit weak points in the defense. Superior firepower enables the mechanized force to prepare a chosen place for breakthrough.

An armored force is very powerful on the offense, but it’s even more powerful on the defense, all things being equal. A tank in a hull down position, whether in a prepared position or firing from behind the crest of a hill, possesses an enormous advantage over a tank making an assault on that position. Obviously, the position has to be selected to exploit the field of fire of the tank. However, since that’s true of any weapon sited for defense, I won’t elaborate. In an ideal world, the defending tank can hide in a turret-down position and not even be seen by the enemy until he moves into his firing position. Once there, he can fire on an oncoming enemy’s full silhouette, whereas the attacker is forced to engage only that part of the tank exposed by giving a fire line of fire from the gun of the tank to the target. Depending on the type of tank and whether the tank is defending from a position prepared by engineers or from an unprepared position behind the crest of a terrain feature, the amount of defending tank exposed ranges from 50% of the full frontal silhouette to 20%.

The defending tank is much less vulnerable to the enemy’s supporting barrage than defending infantry, DPICM notwithstanding. Since DPICM is expensive and still comparatively rare, it’s not realistic to assume that artillery supporting the attack is going to be firing DPICM under every circumstance. To this day, most artillery rounds are HE, while most of the remainder are smoke. Under their armor, the crew of a tank is invulnerable to HE shock and concussion that would incapacitate light infantry—even in good fighting positions. Depending on the type of tank, the tank crew is also significantly less vulnerable to chemical weapons. The optics of a modern tank enable the defending tank to retain good visibility even in inclement weather and under conditions of an enemy smoke screen.

The main gun of a tank can service targets at a much greater rate of fire than can ATGM. An M1A1 can put more than three times as many rounds downrange in the first minute of an engagement as a Javelin crew with an equal chance of scoring a hit with each round. Depending on what kind of tank is doing the defending and the quality of the defensive position, the defender may get off 10 rounds before the attacker comes in range.

Just as importantly, a tank can displace in the face of the enemy’s attack. Once the attack of an enemy mechanized force starts, it’s very difficult to suicidal for a defending infantry force to move back to another firing position. The infantry can defend in depth, but is not the same as being able to move a unit back to a new firing position.

In short, under almost any circumstances the superior firepower, survivability, and mobility of the tank makes it a much superior weapon of defense than the infantry. Whether it is cost effective to use tanks for the defense under a given set of circumstances is another matter entirely.

Raellus

12-10-2014, 07:41 PM

This article about a recent Israeli air strike inside Syria contains some interesting reporting concerning the cat-and-mouse game between modern strike aircraft and SAM systems. Although the Syrians are using some fairly sophisticated Russian-made SAMs, their AD network doesn't appear to be all that advanced. Still, they managed to shoot down one of the Israeli guided munitions.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/four-israeli-f-15s-dodged-syrian-missile-fire-to-attack-urgent-targets-a28cff11323d

It's also pretty telling that the latest defense appropriations bill asked for a substantial sum in order to purchase a number of Super Hornet variants specializing in defense suppression (aka "Wild Weasel" missions).

Raellus

12-11-2014, 08:59 PM

The hardware and tactics described in this piece might help NATO establish a sustained presence over/around/near a beleaguered Baltic State after a Russian invasion.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-pentagons-flying-decoy-super-weapon-is-about-to-get-1669729445

The Israelis effectively used a similar tactic against Syrian air defenses in the 1982 air campaign over the Bekaa Valley, using Pioneer drones to trick the Syrian SAM crews into turning on their targeting radars before Israeli Wild Weasel's swept in to take them out.

I wonder if the Russians have any countermeasures for this sort of tactic.

Webstral

12-28-2014, 05:58 PM

It would be very interesting to see how the different strengths of the air forces involved played out over western Russia. The surprises would go on and on. Over the course of time, I would expect the surprises to level out and the core strengths of the air forces involved to become prominent. This would probably play to the advantage of the Western air forces. Even if we imagine that the Russians have learned how to be as adaptable as the Westerners, the NATO conglomerate has several different national commands working together. We can expect them to try a variety of ideas, the most successful of which would rise to the fore. Also, the willingness of the different Western air forces to try their own ideas would complicate the Russian mission of devising standard tactics for defense.

RN7

01-04-2015, 07:34 PM

Hey Raellus the Ruskies are at it again...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/04/us-russia-era-nuclear-rivalry

Raellus

01-05-2015, 06:26 PM

It's deja vu all over again.

Raellus

01-06-2015, 01:26 PM

unkated

01-20-2015, 01:25 PM

I find this one odd, in that I started looking at this in Wikipedia. The entry was recent, starting with dates in Sept-2014 (to be expected).

The last updates are from... yesterday. Someone is updating this about as often as the BBC posts an update. I just find that a bit bizarre.

Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport)

Most of the last paragraphs (for the last few days) include "alleged" and "'X' said that..." with no real facts.

So why is it in Wikipedia if this is still an ongoing event?

The description sounds at points like Stalingrad, with one side holding the second floor (we have not been ejected from the building!) and the other holding the third floor and the basement.

My son plays Call of Duty; this sounds like one of the locations for that game.

The BBC coverage includes published drone flight purportedly from the Ukrainian armed forces over the Donetsk airport, which may be more appropriate for the apocalyptic imagery file (trashed building exterior and interior):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30876223

It also includes some shots of tanks and individual soldiers, including one with what I believe is a WW2 Russian ATR, a PTRD or PTRS (I can't tell as the gunner covers his end and the muzzle is out a window).

Addition: I guess it is the PTRS-41, and that I am not hte first one to see it video from Donbass. This was on the PTRS-41 page, at the bottom:

" These rifles have been seen in use by pro-Russian militiamen in Eastern Ukraine, during the Donbass War. One of the rifles was fitted with a nonrganic muzzle brake from PTRD"

Uncle Ted

headquarters

01-21-2015, 12:19 PM

The source of a particular wiki is not the product of careful editing I am told. Content may be biased.

unkated

01-21-2015, 12:49 PM

Hmmm. Let's see.

1. Facts not multiply verifiable.
2. Situation still apparently fluid, activity on-going.
3. No independent or non-partisan reporting

I didn't mean to imply that the Wiki was completely accurate; more that i was amused that Wikipedia was being used as a war diary, more or less.

Which means that it is being followed by someone with a current interest, which leads me to assume that there is some spin included; the higher level of detail seems to be form the Ukrainian government side.

Personally, I'd rather not see anything in Wikipedia until say a year from now, when somebody can take a longer look back than 12 hours ago.

I almost got the feeling that I was about to read "Esteban just told me he reached the men's room on the second floor near the West end stairs in the new terminal, and that he can fire down the corridor into the old terminal!"

Uncle Ted

Raellus

02-20-2015, 03:36 PM

Both sides' strategy and capabilities are evolving.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2015/02/19/russia-armor-tank-ukraine-europe-poland-baltics-abrams-bradley/23555365/

Schone23666

02-27-2015, 07:49 PM

Meanwhile in Russia....

http://news.yahoo.com/prominent-russian-opposition-figure-boris-nemtsov-shot-dead-223512822.html

Putin being a bad boy as usual, from the looks of it.

And I'm rather unimpressed by this latest attempt at a so-called "cease fire". It seems the "rebels" may be just getting rested, rearmed and regrouped before launching another offensive in the spring. That's what NATO seems to be thinking and if I were leading the rebels, I'd probably do the same thing.

jester

02-28-2015, 12:13 AM

As well as giving the 5th column time to move in and stir things up. Last week there was a bomb in the West that killed two and wounded others. Probing the wire.

Silent Hunter UK

03-04-2015, 02:57 PM

One wonders just how much control Putin actually has over the rebels.

Schone23666

03-04-2015, 10:45 PM

According to NATO, if there are indeed well around several thousand Russian troops operating alongside "rebels" inside the Ukraine? The question of control may be fairly academic. Methinks the rebels know they wouldn't be getting very far if not for all the shiny toys and assistance Ivan's been giving them.

Adm.Lee

03-10-2015, 09:17 PM

Schone23666

03-11-2015, 07:21 PM

Rebels don't seem to be too worried about getting kicked out.

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/beauty-in-the-ceasefire-a-pageant-in-donetsk/387247/

Bet you never had one of these in your T2k game.

No....but it would be something rather ironic and interesting to run into....

Are the "girls" in question some baron or warlord's personal harem?

Are they there to perhaps entice all the sex-starved males that are probably around in this post-apocalyptic world, only to rob them, kill them, convert them into some crazy brainwashed cult or possibly worse (such as cannibalism)?

Are they not really "military/guerrilla pageant queens", but maybe part of some weird hybrid New Age militaristic "Amazon nation" formed from the ashes hoping to bring about a new order since the machinations of men have apparently failed spectacularly?

Hmmm, now that I think of it, that does give me an idea or two... :D

Adm.Lee

03-12-2015, 06:21 PM

Are they not really "military/guerrilla pageant queens", but maybe part of some weird hybrid New Age militaristic "Amazon nation" formed from the ashes hoping to bring about a new order since the machinations of men have apparently failed spectacularly?

Hmmm, now that I think of it, that does give me an idea or two... :D

Well, I think I've read that the Amazons were supposed to live in or near the Scythians, aka Ukraine.

Schone23666

03-12-2015, 06:34 PM

Well, I think I've read that the Amazons were supposed to live in or near the Scythians, aka Ukraine.

I'd heard that. I've also heard they may have been based out of what's now modern-day Libya, also possibly Anatolia (modern Turkey).

Really, in a Twilight 2000 post-apocalyptic world, I could see some sort of "Amazon nation" popping up somewhere. What are their aims? Their ideology? Religion (Would they resurrect Pagan worship, particularly of Artemis)? Form of government? How would they tolerate the other surviving governments, most of whom still governed mostly by men (a very open question)? It could make for a very interesting campaign, indeed.

Webstral

03-12-2015, 11:22 PM

An Amazon society is an interesting idea. The origin story could have a lot of variability. Lots of possibilities. The Last Submarine includes a female-dominated megapunk gang, the Black Widows. In my fantasy world, the Widows are more pro-woman than anti-man. I dream of the Widows being fit young women who have cast off the sexual repression of Judeo-Christian society and who need--nay, demand--regular servicing by the males among the Widows.

Medic

04-01-2015, 01:42 PM

An interesting piece on how Finland plays into the strategic calculations of both Russia and NATO. It could be a potential flashpoint for a conflict between the two powers as well.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/finland-just-say-no-nato-11978

To answer the question, the Finnish doctrine prior to the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines was to mine the hell out of most of the Eastern Finland (but keep tabs on every mine layed) and use the narrow avenues between the fields to drive the enemy under concentrated fire. However, things have changed with the ratification of the treaty (which many active reservists consider a bad idea due to the fact, our easternly neighbour has not done the same).

As for Nato, the Finnish Defence Forces has constantly been setting up gear so that it would function well with the gear Nato uses. Our special forces obtained bunch of FN SCARs just recently, to be used alongside the indigenous Rk62/95 -series. The older Rk62s are going to be upgraded so that they can mount the same optics (until now, they only had iron sights) and other paraphernalia, the Rk95 can.

As for the comments on Light Infantry versus Armour, there are certain tactics for that. Defense in depth with the forward units making guerilla strikes against the enemy columns and fading away before the enemy can react, only to allow the enemy to advance to the next ambush and the next and next, until the enemy has been worn down a notch and the final ambush with anti-tank mines, missiles, directional charges (that is, Claymores - we don't get to call them mines but directional explosive munition) and precission artillery strikes, and of course, conventional small-arms fire.

The limited offensive capability is based on the Armoured Brigade fielding Leopard 2A4's and 6's (including the Leopard 2 Marksman -systems that have the quite advanced Marksman ADA turrets with twin 35mm Oerlikons formerly mounted on T-55 chassis' that have now been phased out), BMP-2's, MTLB's and mechanized infantry riding the CV9030FIN. They are supported by the Finnish built Tampella 155mm's and MRLS units, not to mention their organic 120mm mortars.

Nato discussion, especially now that we're preparing for parliamentary elections, is flaring up and the Defence Minister outed himself with his opinion about the Russians not giving half of a dead rat's ass on whether Finland is neutral or not, if it suits their plans. With earlier cutbacks in the funding, the FDF has not had the chance to hold refresher training for most troops in the past few years which has caused some damage to the quality of the troops that will take a long time to repair.

With what has been going on in the Baltic, my best guesstimate is, Sweden will apply for membership in Nato within the next three years and Finland will most likely follow suit. We've been living next to, under and eventually next to Russia for a long time and fought a number of wars against them. There are some Finns, including a particular adjunct professor of the University of Helsinki, who spread bullshit about Finland in Russia to advance the goals of Putin's crew. Most Finns do strongly condemn that behavior.

p.s. Gentlemen, I'm back...;)

Olefin

04-01-2015, 01:52 PM

Welcome back Medic - nice to see you back on the forum

Schone23666

04-01-2015, 08:57 PM

Nato discussion, especially now that we're preparing for parliamentary elections, is flaring up and the Defence Minister outed himself with his opinion about the Russians not giving half of a dead rat's ass on whether Finland is neutral or not, if it suits their plans. With earlier cutbacks in the funding, the FDF has not had the chance to hold refresher training for most troops in the past few years which has caused some damage to the quality of the troops that will take a long time to repair.

With what has been going on in the Baltic, my best guesstimate is, Sweden will apply for membership in Nato within the next three years and Finland will most likely follow suit. We've been living next to, under and eventually next to Russia for a long time and fought a number of wars against them. There are some Finns, including a particular adjunct professor of the University of Helsinki, who spread bullshit about Finland in Russia to advance the goals of Putin's crew. Most Finns do strongly condemn that behavior.

p.s. Gentlemen, I'm back...;)

That really does say something apparently when the Finns and Swedes are that nervous, and now actually considering the possibility of foregoing neutrality and joining NATO. And what you mentioned with the professor is rather interesting as Russia is quietly, yet very busy setting up disinformation campaigns along with "sympathetic viewpoints" (or IMO, fifth columnists) in other countries.

Medic

04-02-2015, 12:22 AM

In this case, the said professor, however, is pushing disinformation, not in Finland but Russia. There has been some animosity about "the treatment of Russian-born children in Finland" as the Russian Child Rights official is claiming, with the said professor's support, the Finnish Social Services have taken kids from their parents simply because they were ethnic Russians. And yes, there are the fifth columnists, not to mention the troll factories in Russia that create fake Facebook profiles and feed BS on the public discussion in the Finnish newspapers' comment sections.

In the past two years, we've seen Russian military planes violating the Finnish territorial waters and (probably Russian) sub/subs violating Swedish archipelago. We've got military build-up along the Finnish border with the reopening of Alakurtti base and the placement of an Arctic Brigade there. They are not very far from the Finnish border and, being regular troops, are well equiped and can be put to readiness with little warning. And well, you've probably read about the military exercise the Russians held up north - up to 80000 troops. Kind of hard not to be concerned...

Askold

04-02-2015, 05:17 AM

The afore mentioned associate-professor Bäckman is also the ambassador of "People's Republic of Donetsk" to Finland and from the embassy (which Finland has not acknowledged officially) gives orders to the Finnish press on things like that the Ukrainian government should be called only the "Fascist junta of Kiev" and claiming that the People's Republic is the only legal government in Ukraine... Then again, the press is also mainly ignoring him and the pro-Russian groups in Finland consider him an embarrassment, complaining that every time Bäckman opens his mouth, joining NATO gets more support in Finland.

But the Russian "trolls" have been busy for a year or so. Finnish newspaper actually had an article about them and apparently they are mainly based in Moscow and it really is a job. The main trolls are working for a living and need to meet quotas on how many pro-Russian posts they make daily.

Certainly there are other pro-Russian people but the "Troll-army" does most of the job spreading misinformation on the net.

rcaf_777

04-02-2015, 09:24 AM

To answer the question, the Finnish doctrine prior to the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines was to mine the hell out of most of the Eastern Finland

Actually the Fins can do this still as the Ottawa Treaty only covers non command anti personel mines, it dose apply to anti tank mines, claymores, the new XM-7 Spider Mines or booby traps

There is also nothing that prevents(Grey Area) thrid party from mining a coutry or storage of land mines by a non signing country.

In in theory the US could have a stockplie of it's own Army equipment (land mine) in Finland. As long as they are under US control the Fins claim could that the treaty is still enforced as it not their stockplie, and they are for use by the US which did not sign the treaty.

The Treat also states that each country can have a "small" number of land mines for training purposes, so have 40,000 no stock for training, that one per regular solider.

In Short there is not a document written by a man that another man can't find a way around.

Schone23666

04-02-2015, 10:45 AM

Webstral

04-02-2015, 11:55 AM

Schone23666

04-02-2015, 01:35 PM

It's interesting that countries which were neutral during the Cold War are now thinking seriously about joining NATO. Very interesting. For Sweden in particular to give up her neutrality would be a sea change in Swedish thinking.

Interesting, and also frightening. Something really has changed in Russia and the overall global equation if they're seriously considering this now.

Medic

04-02-2015, 01:35 PM

Actually the Fins can do this still as the Ottawa Treaty only covers non command anti personel mines, it dose apply to anti tank mines, claymores, the new XM-7 Spider Mines or booby traps

There is also nothing that prevents(Grey Area) thrid party from mining a coutry or storage of land mines by a non signing country.

In in theory the US could have a stockplie of it's own Army equipment (land mine) in Finland. As long as they are under US control the Fins claim could that the treaty is still enforced as it not their stockplie, and they are for use by the US which did not sign the treaty.

The Treat also states that each country can have a "small" number of land mines for training purposes, so have 40,000 no stock for training, that one per regular solider.

In Short there is not a document written by a man that another man can't find a way around.

Well, I do know that, but by removing the non-command detonated mines, the Finnish defense strategy changed completely.

The most useful mine in the Finnish arsenal was the Sakaramiina m/65, made of 60 grams (that's about two ounces for those who don't read metric) of TNT, a detonator and a three pronged pressure plate on top of the detonator. Until 1998, the pressure plate was made of bakelite or plastic and thus made the mine undetectable. The charge was enough to blow a tire or destroy a limb without killing, which was even better for the psychological effect on the enemy. The idea was, with anti-tank mines, one would deploy these smaller mines amongst them as a deterrent, so the enemy would think twice before trying to clear the minefield. Of course, nowadays we need to use a bit more drastic measures and use the Telamiina (Track Mine roughly translated), a 9kg pressed TNT-charge with a plastic center and the exactly same 60 gram charge in the middle with a pressure detonator without the plastic cap on the detonator so the mine will blow from far less pressure. With the cap, one could supposedly hop on the mine, but I would not test that. Without the cap, one steps on it and turns in to a mass of unidentified goo.

Now, I understand what you are suggesting about storing the mines for someone else or having them for training, but that won't fly. If the Finnish politicians are anything, they are far too honest in matters like these and dishonest in things they should be honest in. Perhaps not all of them, but the Finnish politics...well, that's enough about that.

FDF conducted research on the matter and could replace (at least in theory) all the aspects of an infantry mine, save for one - the psychological effect of walking in to a minefield.

It's interesting that countries which were neutral during the Cold War are now thinking seriously about joining NATO. Very interesting. For Sweden in particular to give up her neutrality would be a sea change in Swedish thinking.

The Swedish thinking has changed quite a bit, especially after that submarine incident. The Swedes dismantled their conscript army and turned it in to a small force of professional soldiers. However, they ran in to a bit of a problem - they could not get enough professional soldiers in to service. They have a Homeguard (Hemvärnet) that is a bunch of volunteers who train once or twice a year as far as I know, but they are at the same type of situation, they were in the beginning of WW2. Back then their pride, the Air Defense Artillery, had ammo for about 17 minutes, after which it would have run dry. There has been talk about the Swedes returning to the good old conscript army soon, though it might be a bit more selective service than in Finland.

Schone23666

04-04-2015, 07:20 AM

Another interesting article, though I wish it was longer and a bit more detailed in regards to Russia establishing relations and close ties with anti-EU and anti-NATO parties on the right and left in Europe. By no means is it anything new, rather an old Soviet tactic, but still interesting nonetheless. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it."

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-gambles-populist-parties-anti-eu-campaign-180919227.html

Webstral

04-04-2015, 12:03 PM

I believe there is a quote about "useful fools", or words to that effect...

swaghauler

04-05-2015, 06:49 PM

Schone23666

04-06-2015, 03:08 PM

I never saw an "end" to the Cold War. It just shifted into an Economic and Political war in the mid 90's. Once Russia amassed enough "Petrodollars;" they simply picked up right where they left off. Their behavior in Yugoslavia in the 90's demonstrated this. Putin is NOT to be trusted, and I see NATO being drawn into WW3 through a series of "brushfire wars" (probably in the Balkans).

It's interesting you bring up the idea of the Balkans. Perhaps Putin tries something in Moldova and Romania, while simultaneously stirring up s**t in Poland and the Baltics as a feint to make everyone think he might go there next? Possible. I still think the Baltics is his next stop though. Or at least, Estonia along with Latvia and Lithuania seem to think so....

IMO, if Putin can have his trolls work effectively enough? Convince enough of the public and politicians in both Europe and the U.S. that "Is it really worth it to start WW3 with Russia over three small Baltic enclaves that probably belong in the Russian sphere of influence anyway?" Yes, I know, NATO policy says one thing, but it may not mean much if overall public opinion says another. I think that's Putin's rationale anyway. Then all he has to do is have his T-80's roll down the main street of the Baltic capitals, and claim another piece from there.

Or, not worry about NATO at all....and roll into Finland and Sweden instead while they're effectively neutral while their military has been reduced. NATO can't really say much about a country when it's "officially" neutral to begin with.

I like the comment one Pole who was interviewed made when the U.S. military convoy rolled through Poland after visiting the Baltic countries. "Why are they leaving? They should be staying here, not going back to Germany."

stormlion1

04-06-2015, 03:12 PM

The preference I think Putin has is of the Balkans coming under the sway of Russia economically. Ukraine had been moving away from Russia so he started what is going on there now. But I think he will be happy if they stay a buffer state with the economic ties closer ties to Russia than the west. If they move to far he will move militarily in such a way that the Balkan states will be under Russian sway permanently or undesirable to the West.

Schone23666

04-06-2015, 03:24 PM

Medic

04-07-2015, 12:51 PM

Raellus

04-09-2015, 05:42 PM

Now this is slightly off off topic, but would anyone be interested in writing the next Twilight future with me from the current situation onward? The most probable avenue of approach is taking the Ukraine situation forward, then escalating a conflict with the Baltic countries at some point (though possibly throwing in some conflict or two in the mix between the two). Finland would most likely be on the list, if not fully, then partially.

Rainbow 6 and I have already put together a fairly fleshed-out outline of how WWIII in Europe and Asia will start. We're tentatively calling it Twilight 2030. We haven't posted much yet, but I hope to have some time to get back to it this summer. Once a few finishing touches are put on it, we'll share it here.

Raellus

04-09-2015, 05:44 PM

This article seems to suggest an intermidiate state, somewhere between non-alignment and full NATO membership, for Finland in the near future.

http://news.yahoo.com/nordic-nations-agree-defense-cooperation-against-russia-213417125--finance.html

This one is broader in scope, with some new insights into Russia's current goals and strategy.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/09/russias-round-2-a-new-conflict-in-eastern-europe

Schone23666

04-10-2015, 09:43 PM

Another interesting development....this one from Germany.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32257543

stormlion1

04-10-2015, 09:52 PM

I look at a Leopard II and all I see is that shot trap.

Webstral

04-11-2015, 01:46 AM

I'll trust that some of the best engineers in the world with a good deal of institutional experience designing tanks know what they are doing until evidence to the contrary comes in.

The Ukraine may be a lost cause. We might have been able to do something if Ukraine had been included in NATO. The decision was made not to go this route. I'm not in a position to say whether this was the right decision. I can say that without NATO membership, Ukraine is very far forward. Even with NATO membership, Ukraine would require a major standing force with equally major stocks in place to defend against a significant Russian effort. Such a major force might elicit exactly the kind of response the West has been trying to avoid all along. Russia is looking a short distance down the road at an existential crisis. Ukraine is important to Russia in a way she cannot be important to the US. We have to ask very seriously if we are going to put the mortgage money on the table given the weak hand we have at that distance from friendly territory and the low value of the pot to us.

Askold

04-11-2015, 03:32 AM

Another interesting development....this one from Germany.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32257543

I am not surprised. Germany really let their military deteriorate and there have been embarrassing incidents in the news already as their lack of equipment, vehicles and weapons is apparent.

They have really good equipment available but simply do not have enough and since they are in a hurry to put the gear back in order bringing out the mothballed tanks seems like a good idea. (Although these presumably are older versions and they already have better LEO2 tanks available as well. It is just that building new tanks takes more time and money.)

stormlion1

04-11-2015, 11:37 AM

I have a feeling the various European country's are ramping up what production they have and preparing to buy what they can from overseas. The embarrassment during the one exercise where they had broomsticks in place instead of Machine Guns shows how unprepared the Germans are at the moment. I doubt many of the other countrys are in better shape.

They depended too much on the US the last few decades and are paying for it now.

Schone23666

04-12-2015, 09:51 AM

Another one, from Germany. Interesting that the German Left Party (which includes several "former" East German Communists) is demanding that the G8 be reassembled when the German Foreign Minister seems to be echoing sentiments that they'd rather stick with the G7 for now.

What was it that Webstral mentioned earlier about "useful fools"...?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/12/us-g7-germany-russia-idUSKBN0N30DK20150412

rcaf_777

04-12-2015, 03:31 PM

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-to-send-troops-to-ukraine-in-non-combat-role-1.2321894

One step closer to the end game

Webstral

04-13-2015, 12:04 PM

If Canada is on board, at least we can say we're backing the right horse. Whether we should be backing that horse or not is an open question. Still, since we appear to have decided on the fact of the backing if not how much money we're willing to stake on the race, it's good to know that Canada thinks this is the right horse to back. If things do go hot, it will be good for NATO morale to see the troops of 1/Lady Chatterly's Own Mounties standing shoulder-to-shoulder with 2/69 Cavalry.

Raellus

04-28-2015, 02:04 PM

Seems like a bit of an escalation. I don't see this going anywhere scary but I suppose it could.

http://news.yahoo.com/finnish-military-fires-suspected-submarine-baltic-140551985.html

Schone23666

04-29-2015, 06:44 PM

Seems like a bit of an escalation. I don't see this going anywhere scary but I suppose it could.

http://news.yahoo.com/finnish-military-fires-suspected-submarine-baltic-140551985.html

See....it's events like this that begin to disturb me. Playing peek-a-boo with foreign submarines possibly prowling around near or in territorial waters is one thing....but firing warning shots? That definitely sounds a bit like escalation to me.

Still, no harm done apparently. But if, say, those "warning shots" were to come to close and actually strike a vessel or submarine, that's when things begin to really escalate.

Schone23666

06-04-2015, 07:15 PM

Felt it was relevant to bump this thread again. Things are falling apart in Ukraine (again) and there appear to be some ominous signs coming from Moscow...

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/06/04/Putin-Threatens-Fight-Over-More-Sanctions-Ukraine

swaghauler

06-05-2015, 02:25 PM

How about the 2 Russian Spetsnaz that The Ukraine captured and had US news media interviewing yesterday?

Schone23666

06-05-2015, 06:39 PM

How about the 2 Russian Spetsnaz that The Ukraine captured and had US news media interviewing yesterday?

Oh no, they weren't Spetsnaz, they were just two local tourists who happened to be there on holiday. :rolleyes:

stormlion1

06-05-2015, 07:43 PM

I doubt Putin is overly worried. They can impose the sanctions they want, but when winter hits and Europe needs its natural gas those sanctions will be quietly abandoned. Europe cares about Ukraine only so far.

Schone23666

06-13-2015, 07:57 PM

It seems history does indeed go in circles. The Pentagon is gearing up to have equipment sent back to Europe, including AFV's and MBT's, supposedly. Sounds like a relatively small allotment so far, but who knows.

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-poised-store-heavy-weapons-baltic-eastern-europe-193411876.html

Note: The Yahoo user comments always crack me up, I wonder what the average age of a lot of these posters are?

stormlion1

06-13-2015, 11:33 PM

Schone23666

06-23-2015, 04:00 PM

It's now official, U.S. heavy weapons along with APC's and MBT's are being pre-positioned in six Central and Eastern European countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-pre-position-heavy-weapons-along-natos-eastern-001730545.html

As Stormlion said, I love how they made this big deal about "Look, we've pulled out the last of the heavy weapons from Germany, isn't that lovely?" a few years ago, and now, "Well, gotta send the tanks back to Europe...."

:rolleyes:

Damocles

06-23-2015, 05:43 PM

Reforger 2016 ftw!

Schone23666

06-30-2015, 06:13 PM

Reforger 2016 ftw!

It'd have to be named something differently, since the equipment's going to be stationed in countries like the Baltic States and Poland. Not to mention, it seems Germany is a bit more reluctant than some of the other NATO countries to get involved in this current debacle.

And speaking of the Baltic States, it appears the Russians are now "reviewing the questionable legality of their declared independence from the Soviet Union."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-reviewing-legality-baltic-states-200136322.html

StainlessSteelCynic

06-30-2015, 09:34 PM

It'd have to be named something differently, since the equipment's going to be stationed in countries like the Baltic States and Poland. Not to mention, it seems Germany is a bit more reluctant than some of the other NATO countries to get involved in this current debacle.

And speaking of the Baltic States, it appears the Russians are now "reviewing the questionable legality of their declared independence from the Soviet Union."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-reviewing-legality-baltic-states-200136322.html
And this also made for some interesting reading, particularly Russia's response to the possibility that Sweden might think about joining NATO...
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/sweden-is-boosting-its-military-after-russias-ominous-warning-2015-6

Schone23666

07-01-2015, 06:05 PM

And this also made for some interesting reading, particularly Russia's response to the possibility that Sweden might think about joining NATO...
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/sweden-is-boosting-its-military-after-russias-ominous-warning-2015-6

Not surprising, though interesting. There has been a recent change in Sweden's thinking in regards to it's neighbor to the east....which is unsettling considering that Sweden was comfortable with a neutral position during the Cold War.

Also, this rather sobering report by the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-warns-russia-china-military-threat-amid-growing-222850933.html

Tegyrius

08-11-2015, 05:26 PM

I'll just leave this here:

Operation Iranian Freedom (https://medium.com/the-bridge/2026-operation-iranian-freedom-d41b252d8f00)

- C.

.45cultist

08-11-2015, 06:35 PM

We have sent back equipment already. Equipment that TPTB made a big deal over removing a year ago. Pathetic. We should have sold it to the Europeans instead and we wouldn't be spending money to send it back.
Also aren't there container ships full of gear prepositioned for things like this? I know we used to have them in the Gulf.

They were in the game, POMCUS was to allow rapid deployment of U.S. stateside armored units. Fly the crews over and roll out in theory. I think the ships expand that capacity to a wider area of operations.

Raellus

08-12-2015, 07:16 PM

Apparently, due in large part to the troubles in Ukraine, the Poles are embracing paramilitary groups. Here's a 20-minute piece from Vice News on the phenomenon.

http://www.vice.com/video/paramilitary-in-poland-985

Raellus

08-15-2015, 06:44 PM

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pentagon-unsure-if-it-could-beat-russia-in-a-convention-1724226952

$600b a year in defense spending and we're still not sure we can beat the Russians?

Webstral

08-17-2015, 11:52 PM

Maybe if we trimmed the ranks of the general officers, that $600 billion might be better spent.

unkated

08-21-2015, 02:53 PM

The Koreans are at it again....

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/north-korea-turn-off-loudspeakers-by-5-p-m-tomorrow-o-1725666927

Raellus

09-04-2015, 07:06 PM

And a little more flexing from the PRC.

https://news.vice.com/article/chinas-new-video-about-kicking-americas-ass-is-more-than-meets-the-eye

-

Raellus

09-05-2015, 05:43 PM

I wish that I spoke Norwegian.

http://news.yahoo.com/norway-tv-show-russian-occupation-irks-moscow-034958550.html

Panther Al

09-05-2015, 11:33 PM

Heh... in the latest Army Times, they are talking about how the Army has decided to start repainting equipment - and getting new equipment in - the old Woodland pattern and not the desert tan.

Legbreaker

09-05-2015, 11:42 PM

I wish that I spoke Norwegian.

Subtitles...

rcaf_777

09-29-2015, 08:07 PM

Just found this with the title of Russian captures its first US Humvee from Ukraine forces. I personally think this a captured Georgia Army Humvee, taken during its war with Russian.

rcaf_777

09-30-2015, 11:06 AM

Official Press Release from Canada

Opening ceremonies mark the official start to military training mission

Article / September 29, 2015

Ukrainian and Canadian military personnel stood together on parade in two separate locations in Ukraine during dual ceremonies marking the opening of Canada’s military training mission to Ukraine on September 14.

At the International Peacekeeping and Security Centre in Starychi, Ukraine, the Commanding Officer of the International Peacekeeping and Security Centre, Colonel Ihor Slisarchuk, presided over the parade which included more than 200 Ukrainian and CAF personnel.

During this parade, the Commander of the Canadian Task Force, Lieutenant-Colonel Jason Guiney, spoke about the ongoing military partnership between the two countries and how lessons learned will be exchanged between both Canadian and Ukrainian military personnel in the coming months.

“Over the past few months, the Canadian Armed Forces has received outstanding support and warm hospitality from our Ukrainian military hosts. We look forward to training together and passing on our knowledge and our experience to our Ukrainian comrades in arms,” said LCol Guiney.

Meanwhile, at a small ceremony in Kamyanets-Podilsky at the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence Demining Centre, Canadian Major Matt Littlechild along with the Ukrainian Commander Colonel Rodikov, marked the start of training as Canadian and Ukrainian military personnel work on basic and advanced engineering skills ranging from tasks such as obstacle clearances to work on defeating improvised explosive devices (IED).

In addition to the tactical training that Canada will offer in Starychi and the engineering expertise CAF personnel will share in Kamyanets-Podilsky, Canada’s military training mission in Ukraine will offer training in the fields of military police, flight safety, military first aid, and logistics.

Although Operation UNIFIER is not Canada’s first military partnership with Ukraine it stands to be the most enduring and impactful military engagement between the two countries since Ukraine claimed independence.

The beginning of this training mission marks the continuation of Canadian and Ukrainian military co-operation. Canada has been a long-time friend of Ukraine with both militaries having worked closely together over the past 20 years.

Raellus

10-01-2015, 03:18 PM

pmulcahy11b

10-01-2015, 04:26 PM

As if things weren't tense enough in NE Europe, now there's this:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-begins-bombing-operations-in-syria-as-a-bigger-s-1733823079

The situation in Syria is starting to make those wacky Seven Armies in Jerusalem Book of Revelations prophesies look a little less wacky. God help us.

It's just a matter of time before US aircraft making strikes against ISIS and Russian aircraft protecting Assad end up in a tangle, with losses on both sides. Things could spiral out of control from there if our leaders aren't careful.

Olefin

10-01-2015, 05:02 PM

or better yet have US supplied guerrillas use a Stinger to shoot down an attacking plane thinking its Syrian and it turns out to be a Russian plane

Olefin

10-01-2015, 05:03 PM

and then we get to see what real life Twilight 2000 is all about and if armoring a car or truck with phone books really works

StainlessSteelCynic

10-01-2015, 06:07 PM

Sheesh, when I proposed my idea for a game of Twilight: 2020, I didn't expect Putin to take it seriously! :p

StainlessSteelCynic

10-01-2015, 06:27 PM

And some further reading although it requires some "between-the-lines" analysis to speculate on just what could happen,
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-is-egypt-buying-two-orphaned-mistral-class-aircraft-1732595299

So, France and Russia co-operated to build a Russian equipped French design. France prohibits the sale after the Russians stole part of the Ukraine.
Now Egypt looks to be buying the ships.
Since their relationship with the US was cooled by the current US administration, Egypt has teamed with both France and Russia for military equipment & assistance.

So to summarize the article - France won't sell the ships to Russia but will sell them to Egypt who will have Russian technicians to help maintain the Russian systems installed on the ship... lots of Russians with lots of chances to study the ship in detail.
Doesn't anyone in the US administration remember what happened to the Iranian F14 aircraft after the Iranians became great pals with the Soviets?
Surely this is exactly the sort of potential technology transfer the US needs to be preventing? Even more ironic given that the Egyptians have apparently placed orders for the MiG-29, the Soviet spin-off from their examination of the F14 courtesy of the ayatollah.

pmulcahy11b

10-01-2015, 06:40 PM

The article SSC put a link to mentions the Egyptians possibly buying Rafales. Some blurb I saw a few weeks ago says that the Vietnamese are dealing with the French for Rafales. The Vietnamese!

Targan

10-02-2015, 12:39 AM

It's just a matter of time before US aircraft making strikes against ISIS and Russian aircraft protecting Assad end up in a tangle, with losses on both sides. Things could spiral out of control from there if our leaders aren't careful.

I'm sure the Royal Australian Air Force is very worried about the possibility of Aussie Super Hornets ending up tangling with Russian Su-30s. That would likely end with very poor outcomes for the Super Hornets. Let's hope the F-22s flying overwatch can keep the Russian fighters at bay.

Adm.Lee

10-06-2015, 07:51 PM

And now we hear that the Russian Su-30s have wandered into Turkish airspace not once, but twice, over the weekend. Not a good time or place to have "navigation errors", comrade.

aspqrz

10-09-2015, 06:55 PM

I'm sure the Royal Australian Air Force is very worried about the possibility of Aussie Super Hornets ending up tangling with Russian Su-30s. That would likely end with very poor outcomes for the Super Hornets. Let's hope the F-22s flying overwatch can keep the Russian fighters at bay.

As has often been shown, historically, it is not so much the plane as the pilot.

Super Hornets flown by Aussie pilots with extensive flight hours of training vs. Su-30's flown by third world pilots with limited flight hours of training?

Bet on the Aussies.

(Remember the story in an old S&T of the Saudi F-4 [IIRC] Pilot, fully trained mind, who took off and who couldn't find/remember how to lower the gear for landing? So he ejected! His argument, 'The ground belongs to the King, the sky to Allah' ... so maybe he didn't get any more flying assignments, but he wouldn't have lasted long against the Israelis!)

Planes are expensive, training ... flight hours ... more so. And they come from two different pots of money. Most third world countries find the pot of money to buy the sexy new weapons system(s) but don't have the pot to fund their maintenance or training the guys in uniform to use it.

(Yes, First World countries can be as bad in many ways, but they have bigger pots of money to begin with)

And, of course, while Australia has the techs (and probably the spares) to keep those Hornets flying, does the TPLAC*?

* 'Tin Pot Little Asian Country', with apologies to Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Now, against the Russians, the evidence is that Russian pilots have fewer flight training hours than their western equivalents, though more than your typical third world pilot ... though ISTR reading somewhere recently that flight hours for most Russian AF units had been cut to the bone, less than 25 hours a year, but that was before the Ukrainian invasion, so maybe they've upped it.

And, of course, Russian tech is not as easily maintainable or as reliable as western tech and, unless things have changed dramatically, they don't have the Technicians on the ground to maintain the same sort of tempo that western air forces can. Especially over the long term.

All that would, of course, apply as much in a Twilight war situation as in real life.

Phil

unkated

10-12-2015, 11:04 PM

Now, against the Russians, the evidence is that Russian pilots have fewer flight training hours than their western equivalents, though more than your typical third world pilot ... though ISTR reading somewhere recently that flight hours for most Russian AF units had been cut to the bone, less than 25 hours a year, but that was before the Ukrainian invasion, so maybe they've upped it.

And, of course, Russian tech is not as easily maintainable or as reliable as western tech and, unless things have changed dramatically, they don't have the Technicians on the ground to maintain the same sort of tempo that western air forces can. Especially over the long term.

While i agree with most of what Phil said, I have to disagree on a couple of points:

Starting about 5-6 years ago, the Russian air force picked up its pace of training. While still well behind their most of their NATO counterparts, they are improved over the rates of flying in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Russian equipment is easier to maintain than most western equipment, designed to be maintained by less sophisticated technical crews. Accordingly it has rather high reliability. While they generally lag behind leading western designs, the Su-30 is a breakthrough design. OTOH, its electronics is still a couple steps behind western military electronics.

While i doubt Australian or other Western pilots have much to fear from Su-30s, I do worry that a tangle of Western and Russian aircraft over Syria can make a tangled situation much worse.

Uncle Ted

RN7

10-13-2015, 04:59 AM

Starting about 5-6 years ago, the Russian air force picked up its pace of training. While still well behind their most of their NATO counterparts, they are improved over the rates of flying in the 1990s and early 2000s.

They need to improve a bit more.

2014
Israel: not stated but probably between 200-300 hours a year
USA: 260 hours a year (USAF-bombers)
USA: 248 hours a year (US Marine/Navy fighter-attack aircraft)
Britain: 210-240 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
France: 180 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
India: 180 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
Italy: 180 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
Australia: 175 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
USA: 160-190 hours a year (USAF fighter-attack aircraft)
Japan: 150 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
Germany: 140 hours a year (+ 40 hours simulators) (fighter-attack aircraft)
China: 100-150 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
Russia: 60-100 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)

Russian equipment is easier to maintain than most western equipment, designed to be maintained by less sophisticated technical crews. Accordingly it has rather high reliability. While they generally lag behind leading western designs, the Su-30 is a breakthrough design. OTOH, its electronics is still a couple steps behind western military electronics.

Maybe what they export but the version of the equipment that goes only to the Russian Air Force is more sophisticated and less easy to maintain. Russian radars and AAM are also very advanced.

aspqrz

10-13-2015, 09:09 AM

While i agree with most of what Phil said, I have to disagree on a couple of points:

Russian equipment is easier to maintain than most western equipment, designed to be maintained by less sophisticated technical crews. Accordingly it has rather high reliability. While they generally lag behind leading western designs, the Su-30 is a breakthrough design. OTOH, its electronics is still a couple steps behind western military electronics.

While i doubt Australian or other Western pilots have much to fear from Su-30s, I do worry that a tangle of Western and Russian aircraft over Syria can make a tangled situation much worse.

Uncle Ted

Unless things have dramatically changed with Russian military tech, and as far as I am aware they have not, 'simpler' does not necessarily mean 'reliable' ... unless we're talking AKs or the like.

Anything sophisticated (like electronics, or jet aircraft ... hell, even tanks) the Russians field is generally far far less reliable than similar western equipment. Of course, it's usually cheaper, relatively, too, so they can field more of ... whatever ... and that means they can have many more of them in the field and hope to match the smaller numbers of western equivalents despite their r/s reliability.

And they have fewer techs to maintain and repair the stuff, and what they have are kept at higher organisation levels.

I guess they can keep the forces in Syria going, for a while, probably by cannibalising personnel and parts from all over Russia and shipping it there, but, even then I think the strain of doing so will soon become evident.

I'd hazard a guess their sortie rate will drop over time, and not because they are successful in wiping out IS, but simply because they won't be able to maintain it ...

In a real 3WW back in the day? Depends on how long it lasts. Short term? They might swamp the western allies, medium and longer? Probably not.

Now? With everyone drawn down dramatically, the relative balance of forces would be much the same ... so the Russians would be aiming for a quick victory and wouldn't be able to sustain their forces for long. Again, they might swamp the western allies, but probably not.

YMMV ... and, hey, it's not as if Putin's military are putting their maintenance and reliability data out there for everyone to see.

(However, the breakdown of that new AFV/APC in Red Square might be indicative that things may have become worse, not better ... the Moscow Divisions were always mostly for show, doing nothing but preparing for parades such as that ... and making sure there were no embarrassing breakdowns!)

Phil McGregor

Raellus

10-13-2015, 02:30 PM

A few of you might find this old thread interesting.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897

A lot of the arguments both for and against the Soviet military still hold true today for its Russian Federation equivalents.

Although a direct clash between U.S./NATO and Russians forces in/near Syria is unlikely, the potential for a clash between Russian and NATO weapons systems in/near Syria is a real possibility- for example, if the Syrian rebels get lucky and down a low-flying Russian Hind gunship with an American-made TOW ATGM, I'm sure Russia will have something to say. In effect, we could soon be looking at a sort of low-boil proxy war between Russia and the West in Syria.

RN7

10-14-2015, 01:37 AM

In regard to the intervention in Syria by Russia I think we can expect the Russians to be around for a while. There has been some discussion about the relative strengths and limitations of Russian technology and training standards, but there has been little discussion about their capabilities.

The Russian Air Force has capabilities at its disposal that no European or Middle Eastern air force can match. Russian long ranged bomber, ground attack, ISR, AWAC and logistics capability are far superior to any European air force, while Russia's fighter force is BVR (beyond visual range) specialised due to a heavy emphasis on Flanker derivatives. Whatever the training standards of the Russian Air Force are we can be certain that BVR specialised air regiments receive the best of their training, and BVR is exactly the type of air superiority that will be fought over the sky's of the Middle East.

Russian AESA radar, sensors and air-to-air and anti-surface missiles that are used only by the Russian Air Force are very capable, while Russian land based air defence systems are exceptionally dangerous. In the Middle Eastern Theatre the Russian Air Force would only fear Israeli involvement, and that is precisely the reason it informed Israel in advance of its attacks on anti-Assad forces in Syria. There is little prospect of NATO getting directly involved unless Turkish and Greek security is threatened by Russian aircraft, and European NATO air forces with the exception of perhaps the British will be outclassed by the Russian Air Force.

The USAF and other US forces can certainly match any Russian capability and they in fact exceed them, but don't expect America to be doing much while Obama is still in the Whitehouse. In fact the fact that Obama is still president is probably the reason that Putin has sent Russian forces to Syria.

Nowhere Man 1966

10-15-2015, 12:00 PM

CDAT

10-15-2015, 01:58 PM

I'm trying my best not to get too political here but I admit to some I might be getting close. I'll just say that under the current leadership we (The US in particular, NATO in general), we do not have the will or the "oomph" to counter Russia here. Despite cuts, we still have good equipment and people but without the leadership and where that leadership should be wise enough to let the generals take the lead, we cannot do much, nor should we at this point. To start something now will end up in a huge mess. The best we can do is hold the line although I'm dubious on that for now. If this was 1983 or so, we would have the will to show strength here, we do not now.

We would need a complete overhaul of leadership, including all the politicians who were stars on there shoulders. We have very few if any warfighters in the senior ranks.

Raellus

10-15-2015, 05:58 PM

swaghauler

10-15-2015, 08:06 PM

CDAT

10-15-2015, 08:25 PM

I'm kind of curious as to exactly what you guys- Nowhere and CDAT- think the U.S./NATO should be doing to counter Russia, that they currently "lack the political will" to do.

In Europe, various measures are being taken to address Russian militarism/aggression. New basing agreements, more armor and combat air power oriented eastward, and even the possibility of new additions to NATO.

In Syria, what could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed class between Western and Russian forces?

For me, it is that the senior leadership in the US military are not war fighters. My first deployment (03 ground war) my unit got bounced around from one unit to another. So I got to see lots of rules come down from the top. We were first attached to 1st MEF, and were required to salute all officer even in the field, this lasted tell the Brits complained and it came back down to only salute US military. We got transferred back to the Army and given to the 3rd ID, they got mad at us that we were not using our seat belts, we were barely on the seats sitting sideways weapons out. That way when we got attacked we could react faster, they did not care, they only cared that if we had a rollover we would be safe. In the almost two years of that deployment we had One roll over, we had hundreds of firefights. Later when 3rd ID went home got attached to the 1st AD, they were all about us not having out plastic doors on. All they did was keep us from being able to get in or out quickly, restricted our fields of fire and such. I do not remember who was our higher when we ran into some insurgents setting up an ambush. As we turned the corner they started to run off, we notified command by radio that we would be delaid as we were stopping to take care of this, and very shortly got a call from Command telling us to immediately leave and head back to base, someone else will deal with it. We were escorting combat engineers with there heavy equipment. We had everything we needed to deal with it right then and there but no our Battalion commander was scared someone might get hurt and that would not look good on his OER. I only worked with a few of our allies the Brits who were squared away, the Poles just a bit communication was fun but good guys, and then the super crazy Ausies. Maybe just there SAS are crazy but that is all we worked with and only for about a day. So for me it is not that our allies are not doing there job, it is that our leadership in the US military has failed us. In my admittedly limited experience I would say that most all officers at or above the rank of O-3 Captain are politicians first.

LT. Ox

10-15-2015, 10:56 PM

For me, it is that the senior leadership in the US military are not war fighters. My first deployment (03 ground war) my unit got bounced around from one unit to another. So I got to see lots of rules come down from the top. We were first attached to 1st MEF, and were required to salute all officer even in the field, this lasted tell the Brits complained and it came back down to only salute US military. We got transferred back to the Army and given to the 3rd ID, they got mad at us that we were not using our seat belts, we were barely on the seats sitting sideways weapons out. That way when we got attacked we could react faster, they did not care, they only cared that if we had a rollover we would be safe. In the almost two years of that deployment we had One roll over, we had hundreds of firefights. Later when 3rd ID went home got attached to the 1st AD, they were all about us not having out plastic doors on. All they did was keep us from being able to get in or out quickly, restricted our fields of fire and such. I do not remember who was our higher when we ran into some insurgents setting up an ambush. As we turned the corner they started to run off, we notified command by radio that we would be delaid as we were stopping to take care of this, and very shortly got a call from Command telling us to immediately leave and head back to base, someone else will deal with it. We were escorting combat engineers with there heavy equipment. We had everything we needed to deal with it right then and there but no our Battalion commander was scared someone might get hurt and that would not look good on his OER. I only worked with a few of our allies the Brits who were squared away, the Poles just a bit communication was fun but good guys, and then the super crazy Ausies. Maybe just there SAS are crazy but that is all we worked with and only for about a day. So for me it is not that our allies are not doing there job, it is that our leadership in the US military has failed us. In my admittedly limited experience I would say that most all officers at or above the rank of O-3 Captain are politicians first.

I admit we have different history, that being said, Bull!
I was and o-3 and all I had to do to get the 4 was go (getting paid all the time) and finish my degree, was that going to make me a political aspirant?
I remember some fours and fives that went on to lead the US in the field, names like Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.
I know a lot of enlisted and NCO personnel here and it is fun to knock the brass but I take exception to this line as it is a personnel attack against a number of men and women that cannot defend themselves.
Read the Wall and look at the name and find the ranks of all those there.
I’m sorry but I am a bit upset.

CDAT

10-15-2015, 11:17 PM

I admit we have different history, that being said, Bull!
I was and o-3 and all I had to do to get the 4 was go (getting paid all the time) and finish my degree, was that going to make me a political aspirant?
I remember some fours and fives that went on to lead the US in the field, names like Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.
I know a lot of enlisted and NCO personnel here and it is fun to knock the brass but I take exception to this line as it is a personnel attack against a number of men and women that cannot defend themselves.
Read the Wall and look at the name and find the ranks of all those there.
I’m sorry but I am a bit upset.

I am sorry that you are upset, but that does not change my experience. Are there some good ones out there, yes. But I do not think they stay in, I did not say all I said "I would say that most all officers at or above the rank of O-3 Captain are politicians first". Key word was most. It was not a personnel attack as I did name any specific person, as I do not know who made most of the decisions. However if I felt like it, I could see your reply being an attack. Saying I am doing this for fun, is it fun to see a organization go down the dumps , no. Is it fun to see a organization loose its focus, no. I joined to make things better, to defend my country not to be used for political experiments. I was forced to be my units EEO rep, and at the course for it they covered lots of different "political experiments" and ways that they were changing things to make things fit how they wanted it to be not how it really was. It does not change the fact that for us outside the wire it was bad calls. We did not get a say (not that we should) but at the same time they did not listen to what the boots on the ground were saying. The bean counters are running the shop. Now, even in 2003 the senior leadership is/was very different than in 1991 I do not think that Powell or "Stormin" Norman would make it to were there were today, but that is is a opinion only as we will never know. It is not only officer who this is the case, but in the touchy feely military of today where units spend more time in EEO, Sexual harassment, and such than they do combat training what can you expect. In between my deployment in 2003-4 and 2008-9 I never saw my weapon, we did no firearms training. Now one year of that was when I reclassed to EOD (2005). That is very different than when I joined and we were in the field every month. Over my time in I saw them move away from training for war to more of the touchy feely stuff.

RN7

10-16-2015, 12:05 AM

I'm kind of curious as to exactly what you guys- Nowhere and CDAT- think the U.S./NATO should be doing to counter Russia, that they currently "lack the political will" to do.

In Europe, various measures are being taken to address Russian militarism/aggression. New basing agreements, more armor and combat air power oriented eastward, and even the possibility of new additions to NATO.

In Syria, what could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed class between Western and Russian forces?

What could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed clash between Western and Russian forces should have been done a year ago Raellus. Western troops on the ground in Syria with air support to hammer ISIL and kick the remnants back into Iraq and the mountains. Instead what has been done? Cyber and electronic eavesdropping, drone strikes and a few morale boosting air strikes to look good, while Obama goes and signs a nuclear deal with Iran. And all the good it has done. ISIL are still there slaughtering innocent people. The Russians have moved into Syria who borders a NATO country (Turkey) and Israel right under the nose of the West and are attacking anti-Assad rebels. Iran is also sitting back and now laughing at the West, Israel and the Sunni Arab world.

Russia's motives are not driven by helping Assad, but are driven by their own agenda to undermine Western influence in the region. And while doing so they now strategically threaten the entire Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. If as I suspect Russia has S-400 SAM systems in Syria then they can threaten very effectively the entire air space as far as 400 kilometres east and west of Syria, and can hit aerodynamic targets up to 56 kilometres high depending on the missile variant. They also have anti-ballistic missile capabilities, and if Russia places anti-ship missiles and conventional ballistic missiles in Syria they can hit NATO warships and land targets in Europe. And they moved all of this into Syria via Iranian and Iraqi airspace right under the noses of NATO just after Obama signs a nuclear deal with Iran. What Putin thinks of Obama must be choice!

LT. Ox

10-16-2015, 12:59 AM

I am not, repeat not, attacking you. I strongly disagree with your statements.
I cannot fault nor will I infer they are not sincere and heart felt. I have had my share of Esperance with the type of experience you relate, I took the offer of an all-expense paid trip to Africa for which I had to resign my commission for similar reasons you express, remember I was in from ’66 to’70.
The politicals ran the war or more to the point the media who run the politicians directed the conduct of the war.
After a lot of time, and I cannot tell you how many hours of group and individual counseling, it sort of came to me (smile I am Irish and bit slow) I was blaming people that had no control over events and I was further condemning them without having all the facts they have to deal with.

I believe you may be in that boat.
I also know that I have heard your argument from Vets of WWII and Korea and Viet Nam and Gulf and I think…. you get my meaning.
We have perhaps the Best Military in the world it got that way by having some pretty good leadership.
Ah hell this is my last post on it.

Targan

10-16-2015, 02:17 AM

What could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed clash between Western and Russian forces should have been done a year ago Raellus. Western troops on the ground in Syria with air support to hammer ISIL and kick the remnants back into Iraq and the mountains. Instead what has been done? Cyber and electronic eavesdropping, drone strikes and a few morale boosting air strikes to look good, while Obama goes and signs a nuclear deal with Iran. And all the good it has done. ISIL are still there slaughtering innocent people. The Russians have moved into Syria who borders a NATO country (Turkey) and Israel right under the nose of the West and are attacking anti-Assad rebels. Iran is also sitting back and now laughing at the West, Israel and the Sunni Arab world.

Russia's motives are not driven by helping Assad, but are driven by their own agenda to undermine Western influence in the region. And while doing so they now strategically threaten the entire Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. If as I suspect Russia has S-400 SAM systems in Syria then they can threaten very effectively the entire air space as far as 400 kilometres east and west of Syria, and can hit aerodynamic targets up to 56 kilometres high depending on the missile variant. They also have anti-ballistic missile capabilities, and if Russia places anti-ship missiles and conventional ballistic missiles in Syria they can hit NATO warships and land targets in Europe. And they moved all of this into Syria via Iranian and Iraqi airspace right under the noses of NATO just after Obama signs a nuclear deal with Iran. What Putin thinks of Obama must be choice!

Utterly destroying ISIL is a very worthy goal, but western ground forces rolling into Syria? There's no legal basis, just as there wasn't any legal basis for rolling into Iraq in 2003. And rolling into Iraq in 2003 (and the subsequent really, really stupid decisions by the US governing administration in Iraq such as totally dismantling all Baathist institutions, the police and the Iraqi military) are what created ISIL in the first place. Like it or not, invading sovereign states without legal basis is a very slippery slope.

Russia's motives are more complicated than just to undermine Western influence in the region. Supporting Assad's regime is an entirely reasonable goal for Russia, if for no other reason that Russia's only Mediterranean naval base for its Black Sea Fleet is located in the Syrian port of Tartus.

RN7

10-16-2015, 11:10 AM

Utterly destroying ISIL is a very worthy goal, but western ground forces rolling into Syria? There's no legal basis, just as there wasn't any legal basis for rolling into Iraq in 2003. And rolling into Iraq in 2003 (and the subsequent really, really stupid decisions by the US governing administration in Iraq such as totally dismantling all Baathist institutions, the police and the Iraqi military) are what created ISIL in the first place. Like it or not, invading sovereign states without legal basis is a very slippery slope.

ISIL originated in Iraq and invaded Syria. Assad's government is also Baathist, and Russian and Iranian forces have been sent to Syria. And the West worries about a legal basis for intervention!

Russia's motives are more complicated than just to undermine Western influence in the region. Supporting Assad's regime is an entirely reasonable goal for Russia, if for no other reason that Russia's only Mediterranean naval base for its Black Sea Fleet is located in the Syrian port of Tartus.

Russia's naval base in Tartus is a small refuelling and maintenance facility. It cannot support any major Russian warship or nuclear submarine, and it would be completely indefensible in a conflict with NATO or Israel. Its lack of strategic importance was actually stated by the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on 26th June 2013. However Russia is using it as a basis for intervention in Syria, and Russian intervention is part of a larger strategy to undermine Western influence in the region and reinforce the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East, with Russia being the main backers of the Shia faction. Iran and Assad's regime in Syria is Shia.

Raellus

10-16-2015, 02:32 PM

ISIL originated in Iraq and invaded Syria. Assad's government is also Baathist, and Russian and Iranian forces have been sent to Syria. And the West worries about a legal basis for intervention!

So the West should send in ground troops as well? Forget political will, there's very little popular support for that sort of thing in the West. The West has been in Afghanistan for 14 years, with no positive endgame in sight. Aside from supporting the troops, there is very little desire among the American public for another long, drawn out counter-insurgency in the Middle East. Is sending ground forces into yet another majority Muslim country going to help the West win "The War on Terror"? How's that strategy been working out for us? It's all fine and good to talk about going in there with our full firepower and kicking ass, but it's too simplistic and short-sighted. It's another quagmire just waiting for a major power to get stuck in.

Russia's naval base in Tartus is a small refuelling and maintenance facility. It cannot support any major Russian warship or nuclear submarine, and it would be completely indefensible in a conflict with NATO or Israel. Its lack of strategic importance was actually stated by the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on 26th June 2013. However Russia is using it as a basis for intervention in Syria, and Russian intervention is part of a larger strategy to undermine Western influence in the region and reinforce the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East, with Russia being the main backers of the Shia faction. Iran and Assad's regime in Syria is Shia.

I agree with your strategic assessment here (although I think that the Tartus' important in terms of Russian national/military prestige is understated). I'd kind of like to see the West cede responsibility for fighting ISIS to the Russians. Yeah, the Assad regime will survive, but Russia will become the primary target of the jihadists. Let them spend 14 years trying to clean up Syria, with every international Islamist terror/insurgent sending its best and brightest there to fight the Russian invaders.

RN7

10-17-2015, 12:29 AM

So the West should send in ground troops as well? Forget political will, there's very little popular support for that sort of thing in the West. The West has been in Afghanistan for 14 years, with no positive endgame in sight. Aside from supporting the troops, there is very little desire among the American public for another long, drawn out counter-insurgency in the Middle East. Is sending ground forces into yet another majority Muslim country going to help the West win "The War on Terror"? How's that strategy been working out for us? It's all fine and good to talk about going in there with our full firepower and kicking ass, but it's too simplistic and short-sighted. It's another quagmire just waiting for a major power to get stuck in.

This regime of terror has publically murdered how many innocent Western journalists and aid workers (actually filmed their beheading)? Has burned a Jordanian air man in a cage live on film. Has thrown how many homosexuals off buildings and filmed it? Has brutalised, murdered, raped and enslaved how many thousands of Syrian Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslim? And then they brag about it! Saddam Hussein and the Taleban did not even do this. I think every decent person in the world would like to see them shot, blown to atoms, or crushed under the tracks of a tank. They are worse than the Nazis, far worse.

I agree with your strategic assessment here (although I think that the Tartus' important in terms of Russian national/military prestige is understated). I'd kind of like to see the West cede responsibility for fighting ISIS to the Russians. Yeah, the Assad regime will survive, but Russia will become the primary target of the jihadists. Let them spend 14 years trying to clean up Syria, with every international Islamist terror/insurgent sending its best and brightest there to fight the Russian invaders.

The Russian airbase at Latakia is far more important to them. The Russians are not sending ground troops to fight ISIL in Syria, just enough to secure their toehold in Syria plus some Spetznaz to scare ISIL away. And Russia has been a target for Jihadists for years and their well used to them, they have practically wiped Chechnya off the face of the Earth.

Raellus

10-17-2015, 08:35 PM

This regime of terror has publically murdered how many innocent Western journalists and aid workers (actually filmed their beheading)? Has burned a Jordanian air man in a cage live on film. Has thrown how many homosexuals off buildings and filmed it? Has brutalised, murdered, raped and enslaved how many thousands of Syrian Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslim? And then they brag about it! Saddam Hussein and the Taleban did not even do this. I think every decent person in the world would like to see them shot, blown to atoms, or crushed under the tracks of a tank. They are worse than the Nazis, far worse.

I agree. They're scumbags and should be eradicated. Sure pretty much every sane Westerner would like to see that happen. But put Western boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, enough to do the job and do it right? I think you overestimate the public's will to send their sons and daughters to that godforsaken corner of the earth to do that.

The Russian airbase at Latakia is far more important to them. The Russians are not sending ground troops to fight ISIL in Syria, just enough to secure their toehold in Syria plus some Spetznaz to scare ISIL away. And Russia has been a target for Jihadists for years and their well used to them, they have practically wiped Chechnya off the face of the Earth.

So you're suggesting that the West use Russian scorched earth tactics against Syria and Iraq?

Targan

10-17-2015, 10:55 PM

Webstral

10-17-2015, 11:03 PM

I think we can all agree that ISIS are bad people. Their badness does not lend itself to any solutions. However impassioned our pleas for intervention, the American people do not support another war in the Middle East. I’m not going back. I’m not going to support a plan to send American troops in with yet another quarter-baked scheme with “Hope for the best” underlined twice and highlighted in the mission statement. The American public cares about the victims of ISIS about as much as we care about any bloodletting in the media, which is to say that we care just enough to cry, “That’s awful” before getting back to the business of life. It’s shameful, but it underscores the absolute futility of getting involved without real commitment.

RN7

10-18-2015, 12:18 AM

I agree. They're scumbags and should be eradicated. Sure pretty much every sane Westerner would like to see that happen. But put Western boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, enough to do the job and do it right? I think you overestimate the public's will to send their sons and daughters to that godforsaken corner of the earth to do that.

Well if we won't do it then we can't complain about the Russians being there.

So you're suggesting that the West use Russian scorched earth tactics against Syria and Iraq?

No I'm telling you that they have had to deal with Islamic fundamentalists (mainly Chechen) on their doorstep and within their country for decades, and their answer to eradicating it has been to raise Chechnya to the ground. We can't judge Russia as we have only had to deal with still isolated terrorist incidents compared with Russia who has entire nations of hostile Islamists within their borders who have terrorised them, and they have retaliated by using brutal force against them in ways that no Western state would ever do.

RN7

10-18-2015, 12:20 AM

Targan

10-18-2015, 11:01 PM

Well lets applaud the Russians for being there no matter what their real motives are.

I'd be more inclined to applaud the Russians if they were going after ISIS and not just the US-backed rebel factions in Syria.

LT. Ox

10-19-2015, 04:44 AM

I'd be more inclined to applaud the Russians if they were going after ISIS and not just the US-backed rebel factions in Syria.

O Yes!

RN7

10-19-2015, 12:04 PM

I'd be more inclined to applaud the Russians if they were going after ISIS and not just the US-backed rebel factions in Syria.

Well they are according to themselves!

Webstral

10-19-2015, 04:48 PM

Well lets applaud the Russians for being there no matter what their real motives are.

We don't need to do that, either. We simply need to be honest with ourselves about the relationship between our rhetoric and our commitment.

RN7

10-20-2015, 01:30 AM

We don't need to do that, either. We simply need to be honest with ourselves about the relationship between our rhetoric and our commitment.

Well to be honest with ourselves we are (in Europe) reaping the effect of our lack of commitment. Our southern borders are now being besieged by refugees escaping the crisis in Syria and Iraq, plus many more from elsewhere taking advantage of this crisis. Most are also able bodied men and soon we will have at least one million more refugees living among us with millions more on the way. And there is no other way in saying this but Europe will face all sorts of problems stemming from this.

kato13

10-20-2015, 07:46 AM

Webstral

10-20-2015, 12:58 PM

Well to be honest with ourselves we are (in Europe) reaping the effect of our lack of commitment. Our southern borders are now being besieged by refugees escaping the crisis in Syria and Iraq, plus many more from elsewhere taking advantage of this crisis. Most are also able bodied men and soon we will have at least one million more refugees living among us with millions more on the way. And there is no other way in saying this but Europe will face all sorts of problems stemming from this.

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. It’s hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. I’m not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

RN7

10-20-2015, 01:43 PM

Unless Russia can can do something with its economy (like force up oil prices) I feel this adventure will be short lived.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11937348/Russia-retreats-to-autarky-as-poverty-looms.html

The most interesting quote IMO

Russian intervention in Syria has as a lot more to do with unsettling Saudi Arabia and the West as it has with aiding Assad. Saudi Arabia is the prime instigator in devaluing oil prices and its targeted as much against Iran and Russia as it is against US shale producers. Iran and OPEC (outside of the Gulf states) would be the main supporters of Russian intervention in Syria, and their hope would be that it will force oil prices back to pre-2014 levels.

It is quite obvious that Russia is supporting the Iran/Shia faction in the Middle East, and the fact that Iran is also intervening in Iraq, Syria (Assad regime is Shia) and supporting the Shia rebel faction in Yemen is targeted against Saudi Arabia who is now the leading Sunni Muslim state in the region.

If Russia fails to unsettle Saudi Arabia and force oil prices up then it could be in trouble. It hasn't got the finances to sustain a military build up without oil and gas prices rising to levels they were two years ago, and its economy is neither large enough or diverse enough to cushion the impact of falling revenues from oil exports. Russia could go the self-reliance route but unlike Germany in the 1930's it does not have the level of science and engineering excellence that existed in the German economy. However there is no trade ban with Russia. The Russians can still import what they need and try and produce the rest themselves which will be difficult. The role of China in all of this could be very relevant to Putin's scheming. China does have the financial reserves to support Russia, although with the trouble they are also having with their finances and economy it may not be as much as Putin hopes. But China can aid the Russian economy be exporting excess manufactured products. China produces many of the same products that Russia imports from Western countries such as Germany, just the quality and reliability of these products is not as good. But they are cheap, and Russia can also barter its military technology for most of what its needs from China or agricultural products from a whole range of countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

RN7

10-20-2015, 01:50 PM

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. It’s hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. I’m not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

No refugees from Iraq and Syria will be heading to America unless America allows them. Its Europe where the problem is. Thousands of refugees are walking through Turkey towards the Balkans or are being smuggled across the Mediterranean every day. Its a disaster on the scale of WW2 and nearly all are Muslim. All sorts of social, economic and political problems will come of this.

Rainbow Six

10-20-2015, 05:13 PM

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. It’s hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. I’m not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

We're not talking about the US / Mexico border, we're talking about the southern European borders here. Specifically the borders of certain EU member States as most migrants have no desire to stay any length of time in a non EU State.

Bullet Magnet

10-20-2015, 10:10 PM

Raellus

10-20-2015, 10:42 PM

No matter how vile they may be, no matter how vile they demonstrate themselves to be, western nations have a plentiful supply of people who will cry that they (ISIS) are human beings, etc., and scream that the US and other western nations are the "bad guys" for acting against them.

I don't think that's it. I think that it's this: In order to root these vile scumbags out and make sure they don't come back (from Iraq and, perhaps, Syria) means putting boots on the ground- lots of them. That's what the general public in the West isn't willing to do- put its young men and women on the ground in another hostile, Middle Eastern hell-hole, to fight a nationless state with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of its own young men more than willing to kill Westerners or die trying.

RN7

10-21-2015, 01:58 AM

OK so most of our American members hold the view that America doesn't want to send its soldiers into another Middle Eastern quagmire such as Syria.

So we still have the issue of Russia in Syria, and as Russia knows that it is there to stay as long as it wants it can also place whatever it likes in Syria. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that Putin as pulled off a masterstroke here. He can if he wants to help Assad or Iran target the entire Middle East and Europe from Syria. Russia already has Su-34 strike bombers at Latakia Airbase which has a combat range of 1,000 km. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Turkey and Greece are easily in range. So if Russia decides to place anti-ballistic missiles, a squadron of Tu-22M bombers with a combat range of 2,400 km, or enlarges their naval dock at Tartus to support nuclear submarines, and then decides to bomb anti-Assad forces outside of Syria what can be done about it?

aspqrz

10-21-2015, 03:32 AM

.45cultist

10-21-2015, 05:07 AM

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. It’s hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. I’m not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

It's been done. Both Middle East and Chinese have been found among the Mexicans scooped up. Those Chinese better off have children here, then return home. When the Hong Kong special status expires, these people have an "out". Most people only see "anchor babies" without remembering in the 1995-7 transition Hong Kong had 50 years to keep it's institutions as a special region. Terrorists have tried to sneak in through Mexico and found out they needed Mexican Spanish lessions.

swaghauler

10-21-2015, 12:34 PM

Well, we could wait until they're foraging in local dumpsters for food when neither Putin nor Assad can afford to either feed them or pay them any more - then offer them economy class airfare to somewhere in Eastern Europe where they can walk across the border home.

:D

Phil

The question becomes...how many Eastern European countries would take them? Just give them airfare back to Russia and cut out a level of expense (the bribes we'd have to give to the Eastern Europeans to get involved).

unkated

10-21-2015, 03:15 PM

The Russians have moved into Syria who borders a NATO country (Turkey) and Israel right under the nose of the West and are attacking anti-Assad rebels.

Moved in? No, same small Russian base and airfield have been there all along since the 1970s. The only recent difference has been an increase in ground troops as security raised from company to battalion sized, since the civil war, and the more recent ground attack air units.

Russia's motives are not driven by helping Assad, but are driven by their own agenda to undermine Western influence in the region. And while doing so they now strategically threaten the entire Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Strategically? I don't buy it. The base is not large enough to hold many strategic assets.

If as I suspect Russia has S-400 SAM systems

Have you access to intelligence and satellite resources? Again, it is not a large base, and has neither the deployment area, storage area or barracks area for enough weapons to amount to a strategic threat.

And if there are small numbers of the system in place, they or the previous S-300 have been emplaced for a while - say 30 years.

My point is this is not a change, and the Russians have not seized new 10 sq miles of land on which they have been building missile (SAM or SSM) emplacements.

Putin is trying to help his friend in the region who lets him keep the air navy bases. Yes, this friend runs a fairly vicious regime that has used nerve gas on his own people (before the civil war broke out and since) - I'm certainly not defending Assad or Putin.

But I don't believe this is a new strategic development.

Uncle Ted

Raellus

10-21-2015, 05:58 PM

So we still have the issue of Russia in Syria, and as Russia knows that it is there to stay as long as it wants it can also place whatever it likes in Syria. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that Putin as pulled off a masterstroke here. He can if he wants to help Assad or Iran target the entire Middle East and Europe from Syria. Russia already has Su-34 strike bombers at Latakia Airbase which has a combat range of 1,000 km. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Turkey and Greece are easily in range. So if Russia decides to place anti-ballistic missiles, a squadron of Tu-22M bombers with a combat range of 2,400 km, or enlarges their naval dock at Tartus to support nuclear submarines, and then decides to bomb anti-Assad forces outside of Syria what can be done about it?

That is possible, but Russia will have to all of that while fighting jihadists/rebels/freedom fighters. That is much easier said than done.

If Russia wants to take its place as greatest of all the "great satans", why try to stop them? Let them deal with what Western Coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been dealing with for the last 14 years- a seemingly unstoppable stream of very persistent local and foreign insurgents/jihadis dedicated to their destruction.

Also, any Russian strategic assets based in Syria will be fairly isolated and nearly surrounded by unfriendly parties- Turkey to the north, Israel to the South, NATO's Mediterranean assets to the west. I see that as more of a strategic liability than a strategic asset.

The alternative to Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War is what? More NATO muscle-flexing? Ultimatums? More sanctions? Then what? A tussle between NATO and Russian combat aircraft in Syrian airspace? The place is a tinderbox under a powder keg. You've got Iranian interests at play there, which the Saudis will no doubt act to counterbalance, you've got NATO, you've got ISIS, you've got Kurdish rebels, you've got Hezbollah, you've got a very nervous, very jumpy Israel watching from next door...

There's no easy solution, especially a military one.

RN7

10-22-2015, 12:45 AM

Moved in? No, same small Russian base and airfield have been there all along since the 1970s. The only recent difference has been an increase in ground troops as security raised from company to battalion sized, since the civil war, and the more recent ground attack air units.

Russia is estimated to have 34 fixed-wing aircraft based at Latakia. A mixture of types comprising 12 Su-25s, 12 Su-24M2s, four Su-30SMs and six Su-34s. Basically an entire air wing. I don't recall Russia ever basing that many aircraft in Syria or deploying advanced aircraft such as the Su-30SMs and Su-34's to Syria.

Also if Russia has no intention of increasing its military capability in Syria why did it launch 26 Kalibr-Nk naval cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea at targets in Syria before/while they were established an air strike capability at Latakia.

Strategically? I don't buy it. The base is not large enough to hold many strategic assets.

Look at the length of Latakia's runway unkated. It is 9,175 feet. Large commercial cargo planes (Boeing-747F) need about 9,000 feet to safely land or take off fully loaded. Big military cargo planes like the C-5 and An-124 can probably do it a bit shorter, but not that much when loaded up. Latakia is precisely the right length for the Russian An-124 to use. Yes it is very strategic for the Russians.

Have you access to intelligence and satellite resources? Again, it is not a large base, and has neither the deployment area, storage area or barracks area for enough weapons to amount to a strategic threat.

And if there are small numbers of the system in place, they or the previous S-300 have been emplaced for a while - say 30 years.

No do you unkated. But it would make perfect sense for Russia to do so and it would not exactly be hard for them to do so.either. An-124s can transport tanks, helicopter gunships or a S-400 battery with ease. And the Russians when sending their An-124 cargo planes to Latakia would be mindful of exactly when the US ISR satellite in orbit is passing overhead, and will be unloading their cargo well before they are seen.

My point is this is not a change, and the Russians have not seized new 10 sq miles of land on which they have been building missile (SAM or SSM) emplacements.

I don't think the Russians are interested in expanding their base just increasing their capabilities. Does anyone know for certain that some of the S-300 batteries have not been upgraded with S-400 systems?

RN7

10-22-2015, 01:07 AM

That is possible, but Russia will have to all of that while fighting jihadists/rebels/freedom fighters. That is much easier said than done.

If Russia wants to take its place as greatest of all the "great satans", why try to stop them? Let them deal with what Western Coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been dealing with for the last 14 years- a seemingly unstoppable stream of very persistent local and foreign insurgents/jihadis dedicated to their destruction.

Russia is very good friends with Iran, the nation that termed America the Great Satan. And I don't think the Russians will be sending their soldiers to Syria, just enough to deter any nosy Jihadis well away from Latakia.

Also, any Russian strategic assets based in Syria will be fairly isolated and nearly surrounded by unfriendly parties- Turkey to the north, Israel to the South, NATO's Mediterranean assets to the west. I see that as more of a strategic liability than a strategic asset.

The alternative to Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War is what? More NATO muscle-flexing? Ultimatums? More sanctions? Then what? A tussle between NATO and Russian combat aircraft in Syrian airspace? The place is a tinderbox under a powder keg. You've got Iranian interests at play there, which the Saudis will no doubt act to counterbalance, you've got NATO, you've got ISIS, you've got Kurdish rebels, you've got Hezbollah, you've got a very nervous, very jumpy Israel watching from next door...There's no easy solution, especially a military one.

Russia already is isolated in Syria. But Israel won't attack the Russians as there are links between both countries that transcend the Arab/Islamic-Israeli/Jewish conflict. Russia has a lot more in common with Israel than it does with any Muslim state. The Muslims just buy a lot of their weapons. Israel prefers American weapons or making its own. But what has Turkey or the rest of NATO (without America) got that could threaten the Russians, and would Turkey attack Russian forces in Syria when it faces Russia across the Black Sea?

What can the West do. They could do what Russia is doing on a bigger scale. ISIL is not a particularly powerful organisation and has no support outside of the Sunni Muslims in Syria. America if it wanted could slaughter it and very publically too. However you are right about Iranian and Saudi involvement. Obama I think tried to do get the Iranians on his side in Syria but Putin stepped in and threw a spanner in the works. America really needs to deal with the Saudi's effectively. They export terrorism, have an appalling record on human rights and have been causing no end of trouble in the worlds oil industry with their manipulation of oil prices to harm rising US shale producers and rival OPEC members such as Iran and of course Russia.

SquireNed

10-22-2015, 07:29 AM

Russia is very good friends with Iran, the nation that termed America the Great Satan. And I don't think the Russians will be sending their soldiers to Syria, just enough to deter any nosy Jihadis well away from Latakia.

Russia already is isolated in Syria. But Israel won't attack the Russians as there are links between both countries that transcend the Arab/Islamic-Israeli/Jewish conflict. Russia has a lot more in common with Israel than it does with any Muslim state. The Muslims just buy a lot of their weapons. Israel prefers American weapons or making its own. But what has Turkey or the rest of NATO (without America) got that could threaten the Russians, and would Turkey attack Russian forces in Syria when it faces Russia across the Black Sea?

What can the West do. They could do what Russia is doing on a bigger scale. ISIL is not a particularly powerful organisation and has no support outside of the Sunni Muslims in Syria. America if it wanted could slaughter it and very publically too. However you are right about Iranian and Saudi involvement. Obama I think tried to do get the Iranians on his side in Syria but Putin stepped in and threw a spanner in the works. America really needs to deal with the Saudi's effectively. They export terrorism, have an appalling record on human rights and have been causing no end of trouble in the worlds oil industry with their manipulation of oil prices to harm rising US shale producers and rival OPEC members such as Iran and of course Russia.

One thing to remember about Iran is that it's Shi'ite, while the majority (or at least decently sized portion) of other states in the region are Sunni (Iraq is currently Shi'ite-aligned, but has some internal division over religion). ISIS is Sunni, and Syria is primarily Sunni with Shi'ite leadership. (I may be getting the terms wrong, because I'm not good with Arabic terminology)

As far as partners in the Middle East, there's a little bit of interesting tension there. We've worked with a lot of the states, notably Egypt, that we no longer really work with any more. We're not quite as close with Israel as we used to be, but they don't really do international interventions (especially not with current conflict). Most of the people we're aligned with have some fairly dirty laundry; more or less the only country that doesn't have some huge elephant in the room is Jordan.

Interestingly, I attended a speech by Reza Pahlavi just last week, and he feels that Iran could be the next great Western ally in the region, but only after the fall of the current regime. We've seen instability come and go there, so hopefully if it comes again we'll see an outcome more favorable to us.

Webstral

10-22-2015, 03:22 PM

So we still have the issue of Russia in Syria, and as Russia knows that it is there to stay as long as it wants it can also place whatever it likes in Syria. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that Putin as pulled off a masterstroke here. He can if he wants to help Assad or Iran target the entire Middle East and Europe from Syria. Russia already has Su-34 strike bombers at Latakia Airbase which has a combat range of 1,000 km. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Turkey and Greece are easily in range. So if Russia decides to place anti-ballistic missiles, a squadron of Tu-22M bombers with a combat range of 2,400 km, or enlarges their naval dock at Tartus to support nuclear submarines, and then decides to bomb anti-Assad forces outside of Syria what can be done about it?

This is really not much different than it was during the Cold War. All those possibilities existed in one way or another. If the Russian presence in Syria brings peace to the country, let the Russians stay. They already have the means to attack all of the countries neighboring Syria. Adding short-range bombers to the list of assets that can attack Syria’s neighbors doesn’t change very much. I would view a Russian air attack on Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States as a godsend. If we were all very, very lucky the Russians would knock 20% of the oil production out. Prices would rise precipitously, and we would invest in other energy.

If the Russians want to cross the border to attack ISIS, I’d be willing to send the ground crews a keg of beer.

It's been done. Both Middle East and Chinese have been found among the Mexicans scooped up.

To quote my hazmat instructor, “We worry about two things: volume and concentration. If neither meets the threshold, we have other things to worry about.”

Terrorists have tried to sneak in through Mexico and found out they needed Mexican Spanish lessons.

No surprises there.

Webstral

10-22-2015, 03:25 PM

America really needs to deal with the Saudi's effectively. They export terrorism, have an appalling record on human rights and have been causing no end of trouble in the worlds oil industry with their manipulation of oil prices to harm rising US shale producers...

All very true.

unkated

10-22-2015, 03:53 PM

Russia is estimated to have 34 fixed-wing aircraft based at Latakia. A mixture of types comprising 12 Su-25s, 12 Su-24M2s, four Su-30SMs and six Su-34s. Basically an entire air wing. I don't recall Russia ever basing that many aircraft in Syria or deploying advanced aircraft such as the Su-30SMs and Su-34's to Syria.

They have done it for exercises in the 70s and 80s. They have obviously done it now for air strikes. Or are you suggesting that this is to be a permanent reassignment? Not a very useful one with a limited sortie capability - I see the capability for 1 raid at a time, small air defense capability.

Also if Russia has no intention of increasing its military capability in Syria why did it launch 26 Kalibr-Nk naval cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea at targets in Syria before/while they were established an air strike capability at Latakia.

Not following where this is relevant. Obviously, they fired these because the air assets were not in place. How do expended cruise missiles equal expanded capability in Syria?

Look at the length of Latakia's runway unkated. It is 9,175 feet.

But it is no longer than it was two months ago. Or 10 years ago. I still am not tracking where you see a sudden expanded strategic threat. Are they building more hardened hangars, expanding the base? More magazines?

And the Russians when sending their An-124 cargo planes to Latakia would be mindful of exactly when the US ISR satellite in orbit is passing overhead, and will be unloading their cargo well before they are seen.

Except they would have to fly through corridors well covered by Turkish/NATO ground-based radar.

No major increase in transport ops.

When the US built up for Desert Storm and Desert shield, it was very noticeable due to the large number of aircraft required to bring in the equipment. At 2-3 vehicles per trip, even bringing in a company's worth would be noticeable. And yes, even an Antonov is limited to carrying no more than 3 APCs.

I don't think the Russians are interested in expanding their base just increasing their capabilities. Does anyone know for certain that some of the S-300 batteries have not been upgraded with S-400 systems?

Do you know if there were any S-300s in the first place? Note, I said "if."

Other than a small air unit in total smaller than two squadrons that cannot maintain much of a tempo of air ops, I don't see a basis for your fears on a strategic level.

I'd rather they not be present, and would relish if a soviet aircraft or two was hit with an SA-27 or some other relic of Soviet support. But I don't think they constitute a new strategic level threat.

Are you worried about Russian units being placed in Cuba, too? I don't know of any report that they have not done so.

Uncle Ted

RN7

10-22-2015, 10:22 PM

They have done it for exercises in the 70s and 80s. They have obviously done it now for air strikes. Or are you suggesting that this is to be a permanent reassignment? Not a very useful one with a limited sortie capability - I see the capability for 1 raid at a time, small air defense capability.

It looks fairly permanent to me. Maybe not for 50 years but certainly for the next five.

Not following where this is relevant. Obviously, they fired these because the air assets were not in place. How do expended cruise missiles equal expanded capability in Syria?

Because they had no capability to launch air strikes in Syria at the time and wanted to make a forceful statement. Now they have 34 combat aircraft in Syria which are mainly focused on air strikes.

But it is no longer than it was two months ago. Or 10 years ago. I still am not tracking where you see a sudden expanded strategic threat. Are they building more hardened hangars, expanding the base? More magazines?

You asked for intelligence and satellite resources. Here have a look and reach your own conclusion...

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/14/this-satellite-image-leaves-no-doubt-that-russia-is-throwing-troops-and-aircraft-into-syria-latakia-airport-construction/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-expands-military-its-presence-in-syria-satellite-photos-show-1442937150

Except they would have to fly through corridors well covered by Turkish/NATO ground-based radar.

No major increase in transport ops.

When the US built up for Desert Storm and Desert shield, it was very noticeable due to the large number of aircraft required to bring in the equipment. At 2-3 vehicles per trip, even bringing in a company's worth would be noticeable. And yes, even an Antonov is limited to carrying no more than 3 APCs.

But Iran has opened its airspace to Russian flights in response to Greece and Bulgaria closing their airspace to Russian military aircraft. A lot more direct now for the Russians to fly into Syria via Iran and Iraq. And the An-124 can carry between 120 and 150 tons of cargo depending on the model. More than a C-5 or any version of Boieng-747 freighter.

Do you know if there were any S-300s in the first place? Note, I said "if."

Other than a small air unit in total smaller than two squadrons that cannot maintain much of a tempo of air ops, I don't see a basis for your fears on a strategic level.

I'd rather they not be present, and would relish if a soviet aircraft or two was hit with an SA-27 or some other relic of Soviet support. But I don't think they constitute a new strategic level threat.

Are you worried about Russian units being placed in Cuba, too? I don't know of any report that they have not done so. Uncle Ted

How about you go and google it. Here are a few references to it........

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22652131
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoots-down-israeli-warplane-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters/5471009
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/30/assad-russian-s300-missiles-syria

http://theaviationist.com/2015/10/02/heres-an-interactive-map-of-all-the-russian-airstrikes-in-syria/
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/bombs-away-why-russias-air-war-syria-so-impressive-14080
https://www.rt.com/news/318122-russian-military-syria-isis/