Ukraine Fun & Games

[schnickelfritz]

I've been thinking about the Ukraine-Russia situation, and while not wanting to start WW3...at least until I can take one last vacation to Orlando, LOL, I'm starting to tire of the bully routine I see from old "Pooty-Poot."

I'm wondering if we need to look seriously at a "Desert Shield" scenario with a line in the sand (mud, whatever), backed not necessarily with ground troops, but by aircraft with a known anti-tank mission.

What my thought was is that the Ukrainians would set up a AAA umbrella using the Tankguska and ZSU-23-4 and whatever SAM's they have operational.

With that up, we would base A-10's and AH-64's from Ukrainian bases, probably with some F-15/F-16 support. F-22's would be available should it really get bad out of Turkey.

Communication with the Russians would be important....basically..."you go no further." "Take your forces and go home and we do the same."

I would also encourage the Poles to base some assets there and provide more military assistance to them in the form of better fighters. I doubt they want to feel a neo-Soviet boot on their necks either.

Thoughts?

Dave

[Targan]

Personally I'd love to see a scenario like that play out. Practically, not going to happen (sadly).

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by schnickelfritz

I'm wondering if we need to
I would also encourage the Poles to base some assets there and provide more military assistance to them in the form of better fighters. I doubt they want to feel a neo-Soviet boot on their necks either.

Thoughts?

Dave

The Polish and Romanians have shown some willingness to conduct a peacekeeping mission. Now, the source for that is Senator McCain, who is a big whooping warhawk, but what he said sounds plausible.

[stormlion1]

Not really going to work though. Russia is sitting on top of the Ukraine much less the Crimea while any other force would have to be flown in and would be vulnerable while they set up. The Russians could easily interdict any Desert Shield scenario. I honestly believe this is all over but the shouting.

[mikeo80]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Not really going to work though. Russia is sitting on top of the Ukraine much less the Crimea while any other force would have to be flown in and would be vulnerable while they set up. The Russians could easily interdict any Desert Shield scenario. I honestly believe this is all over but the shouting.

I agree with Stormlion. The Russians got what they wanted. No one is going to do much about it. Any one have a guess where the next "annexation" will occur?

My $0.02

Mike

[kalos72]

If this does happen/stay, which we all know it will, it will begin the down ward spiral for us world-wide. NATO / EU / US power will be severely reduced...

But what real options do we have? Send troops to the Baltic and try to force him out?

WWIII with Russia isn't a great scenario...sanctions and political crap are all we have.

Maybe someone will start working on a small fusion reactor now to reduce the dependency on oil.

[Webstral]

The only military solution with any teeth that I can see is an offer of NATO membership to the Ukraine. The Ukraine would have to accept, and a minimum of 250,000 NATO troops would have to go in as soon as logistical realities would allow. The end game would look much like West Germany with contingents from all of the NATO partners based in the country, plus a new set of POMCUS sites established. If the Russians intervene after Ukrainian membership in NATO has been made official, then there is a long term option regardless of how things go in the short term. At the very least, we'd get to find out if the engineering decisions made regarding the M1 played out favorably under less optimal circumstances than during Operation Desert Storm. We'd also get to find out who made the best choices regarding aircraft design.

[schnickelfritz]

How do you see this playing out now given the seizures over the last week?

It would seem the Ukrainians are doing everything they can...probably too much...to make sure they are not the aggressor here. Everyone knows who the aggressor is here...despite the old school Soviet PR campaign.

I am very much in favor of providing military assistance to the Ukrainians by way of something like getting more F-16's for Poland so they can then give their MiG-29's to the Ukrainian Air force, and providing parts and resources so they can get more of their on paper strength actually in the field.

I doubt Pooty wants to go into something and take appreciable losses in men, tanks, or aircraft. If the Ukraine can provide a credible threat to do that, I think he'll pull a Georgia and quietly back off.

The Crimea is gone, but I don't really want to see a good chunk of the rest of the country fly the hammer and sickle again...er...Russian colors.

Seeing the hammer and sickle waving at some of these protests is at best chilling.

I used to work with a proud Russian who was ironically born in Kiev (his Father was Russian in the Soviet Army) and he was proud to the point that it blinded him...wow. You'd think the Soviets beat Hitler with one hand tied to hear him tell it...repeatedly. It got to the point where I brought in figures of all the crap we gave them in WW2 and how many were lost getting it there. He thought it was all western propaganda...yeesh.

-Dave

[Webstral]

The Crimea is now Russian, for all intents and purposes. At this point, that situation can only be reversed by force of arms.

As for defending the rest of the Ukraine with NATO, it's really an effort for the logisticians. If the Ukraine were to accept NATO membership, and if NATO were to decide to commit fully to defending its new member from aggression, then the first bottleneck would be the rate at which troops could be deployed from NATO base areas to the Ukraine. Military aircraft could bring in the rapid deployment forces, but it would take heavy divisions to do the job properly. Air power alone won't cut it. It's either troops on the ground ready to fight or it's just another Western effort to substitute cash and technology for commitment.

I wonder who would be willing to provide ground forces for the Ukraine. Technically, every NATO member not on the front line ought to be sending forces forward. The Brits would pitch in, of course. The French probably would, too. Germany? Canada? Italy? Spain? Greece? The former Soviet satellites probably would be the most receptive to a request for troops.

[Sanjuro]

Is anyone else thinking "Sudetenland?"

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Is anyone else thinking "Sudetenland?"

Not the only one.

Now, you can take historical comparisons only so far, but this is what I thought once all this got kicked off.

A: Country Elects a Charismatic Leader, whose biggest point is a cult of personality that emphasises national pride and demonises anyone not one of them.

B: A economic recovery is started, based of either manufacturing or resources.

C: They back a section of another country that they claim, accurately or not, was part of them, and they move in on a pretext to secure that claim. The world does nothing.

D: In order to prove that they are the good guys, they host a really nice Olympics, putting on quite the show of openness and all that goes with the effort to sell themselves.

E: Meanwhile, in the Far East, a nation who believes they are being slighted and not given their just dues as a 'Great Power' props up a nasty neighbouring government, and needing a vast increase in natural resources, and knowing they can't take it from the north, starts looking south at various islands and nations as 'rightfully' theirs, regardless of what the locals say of the idea.

F: Once the Olympics are done, and reacting to the 'Locally Formed Uprising' and the 'Spontaneous Demands' of an ethnic minority in a neighbouring country, the stage a pretext to bite off a large chunk of it, all in the name of peace and fulfilling the wishes of the local oppressed majority of the region, and make it part of the greater nation.

G: World goes ape: they all demand that the country in question fly right, and get it together. They have a big meetings, and they all agree 'Something Should Be Done' if it happens again. Meanwhile, the county of evil-doers start making noises saying the rest of said country is being mean to a ethnic brothers and sisters, and we might have to do something about this, but don't worry, all those troops we have on the border, they are just there for some sunshine. Oh? And Country C? Don't get ideas about treating our co-ethnic people bad, I know you are allied with some pretty strong countries, but you know they don't really have your back, after all, what have they done for their other friends?


Now again, can only comparisons so far, but as this one goes, pretty darn scary. For in this case, we have the following:

A: Germany elected everyones favourite Bavarian Corporal, and Russia Elected Putin.

B: German Manufacturing took off, and Russia started selling gas and oil hand over fist.

C: Ruhr/Rhine from France, and Georgia lost a few provinces. Granted, at least Germany was in the right here.

D: Berlin 36, Sochi 14

E: Japan/Manchuria late 30's, China/North Korea Now.

F: Sudetenland, and now the Crimea.

G: Right now he is making serious noise about the rest of the Ukraine, at least the eastern parts, and western leadership - with two loud exceptions - are looking for a piece of paper to wave. The two exceptions? Poland and Germany: they both know how this movie worked out the last time, and don't care to watch the sequel. Also, Putin has been making noises about the Baltics, and here, they have allies: in fact, they are NATO members. So, to carry the comparison, they are taking the role of Poland in 39.

So yes, this is a bit of history we have seen before, clearer than most, that we need to pay attention too. Germany is: they have pretty much locked in the European Leadership by financing away the economic crisis and they see where this can lead all to easily. Poland as well is looking to the east with great alarm: They never was fond of either the Germans or the Russians, but right now they can trust the defanged German people, and are quietly looking at beefing up - significantly - their armed forces according to friends of mine that work in a odd shaped five sided building down the road.

But thats my two cents.

[Targan]

Germany's actions post-1933 have some very interesting parallels with Russia's actions in this new millenia. Check out this excellent article by the Australian Broadcasting Commission: Hillary Clinton's comparison of Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler checks out

[stormlion1]

The only real route to get equipment is through Poland and everything would have to be trucked in. I can see the Russians moving in to cut Poland and the Ukraine off from each other using almost the same scenario. "Ethnic Russians" and threats of force because in the end the Russians can lay claim to the Ukraine as full of "Ethnic Russians" because they were part of the USSR only a few decades back. Sanctions do work, but there a long term effect and will not do anything that the Russians won't be able to work around. I honestly expect the Ukraine to be forced to rejoin the Russians new Empire within the decade. Poland is going to have to start worrying as well as NATO is a paper tiger at this point. Which is why they want the US to send its Tanks back now, even though we withdrew them last year from Europe as a whole. Can the EU hold off the Russians without the US?

[Webstral]

The West today is in a much better position than the Anglo-French were in 1938-9. Granted, the internal divisions and legislative paralysis being experienced by the US is uncomfortably similar to the French political situation during the run-up to the Battle of France. That much said, NATO is in a better position vis-à-vis Russia. I write this while trying to bear in mind that overconfidence kills.

Regardless of what happens in the Ukraine, NATO includes the Baltics, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. Russian military action against any of these states mandates action by the rest of NATO. Regardless of what one thinks of a particular Western leader, NATO obligations provide a clear-cut cover for military action up to and including full scale mobilization and war—even nuclear war. While I don’t have access to a psychological profile of Putin such that I could make a definitive statement about his willingness to test the commitment of the Western powers to NATO, I’m reasonably confident of the long term outcome of any conventional confrontation between NATO and Russia. (NATO v Russia simultaneously with a US-led alliance against China is a different story, if such a story is relevant to tell.)

I do think the tanks have to go back in. I would go so far as to say that the tanks have to be pushed forward to Poland and Romania. In fact, the whole NATO posture needs to be pushed eastwards at this point—if only to demonstrate that NATO means business about defending all NATO members from extralegal action by outside agents. I’m no more anxious for war than anyone else who has looked war in the eye as a rifleman. That much said, I’m perfectly aware that actions speak louder than words; combat units show a far greater commitment to one’s allies than economic sanctions. We want the Poles, the Balts, the Romanians, and the others to feel completely confident that we will go to the mat for them if that’s the way Russia wants to play. Putin may or may not be moved by the loss of revenues from alienating his European clients. He’s far more likely to be moved by the permanent stationing of a half dozen heavy divisions in Poland and another 2-3 in Romania. This number would be too small to invade Russia, but it would be enough to prevent any sudden and rash acts by Russia. This number is not insuperable when spread amongst the NATO allies.

None of this will be helpful to the Ukraine in the immediate future. I suppose some value might be derived from keeping Putin guessing about what is intended by the push eastward, but the short term effect might actually be to raise the temperature and bolster Putin’s domestic support. So be it. Politicians and diplomats dream of solutions that give them the theoretical maximum reward. Soldiers must be more pragmatic. Putin’s support in Russia can go through roof for all I care, so long as every time he looks at our allies he’s looking down a thicket of 120mm barrels.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Some things to keep in mind, the US does not do a lot of trade with Russia so it can't get a lot of leverage from that but... if the US does try to enforce sanctions against Russia, we all better get use to not having GPS, satellite comms, restricted weather forecasting and other things.

NASA is wholly reliant on Russia for the supply of engines for it's main launch vehicle, the Atlas V rocket. The RD-180 engine is considered by some to be the best of its type in the world due to a combination of low cost and good efficiency and it's supplied by NPO Energomash in Russia.
Kick Putin hard enough, he might just ban the sale of RD-180 engines.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Some things to keep in mind, the US does not do a lot of trade with Russia so it can't get a lot of leverage from that but... if the US does try to enforce sanctions against Russia, we all better get use to not having GPS, satellite comms, restricted weather forecasting and other things.

NASA is wholly reliant on Russia for the supply of engines for it's main launch vehicle, the Atlas V rocket. The RD-180 engine is considered by some to be the best of its type in the world due to a combination of low cost and good efficiency and it's supplied by NPO Energomash in Russia.
Kick Putin hard enough, he might just ban the sale of RD-180 engines

Wikipedia had this to say on the U.S. use of the RD-180 engine:

During the early 1990s General Dynamics Space Systems Division (later purchased by Lockheed Martin) acquired the rights to use the RD-180 in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) and the Atlas program. As these programs were conceived to support United States government launches as well as commercial launches, it was also arranged for the RD-180 to be co-produced by Pratt & Whitney. However all production to date has taken place in Russia. The engine is currently sold by a joint venture between the Russian developer and producer of the engine NPO Energomash and Pratt & Whitney, called RD AMROSS.

Jerry Grey, a consultant to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Universities Space Research Association and a former professor of aerospace engineering at Princeton University, suggested using the RD-180 for a prospective NASA heavy-lift launch vehicle. For those who might be concerned about too much reliance on Russia, he pointed out that RD Amross was "very close to producing a U.S.-built version of the RD-180, and with some infusion of NASA funding could be manufacturing that engine (and perhaps even a 1,700,000 lbf or 7.6 MN thrust equivalent of the RD-170) in a few years."[4]

Despite the availability of necessary documentation and legal rights for producing RD-180 in the United States, NASA is considering development of an indigenous core stage engine that would be "capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built engine." NASA considered in 2010 to produce a fully operational engine by 2020 or sooner, depending an partnership with the U.S. Defense Department.[5]


My guess is that whatever work they're doing on producing a replacement engine just got accelerated...

[kato13]

I was reading an article today that said the following.

The US could have production of a local RD-180 going in about a year for a cost of about a billion. (ok lets realistically say 2 years and 10 billion it is still a drop in the bucket compared to non critical expenses)

There is also a replacement in the works with several planned flights coming before 2017.

The GPS sats are actually lasting longer than expected halving the need that was expected for their replacement.

There are enough RD-180 engines to last until 2016 currently in the US.

[Panther Al]

Another interesting tidbit regarding how Europe is reacting to the New Russian Empire:


Finland *and* Sweden have quietly began talking to us - and NATO of course - about seeing if there is a spot in NATO for them as well.


Which speaks volumes when you consider how hard they tried to stay more or less - usually less - neutral during the first Cold War.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Another interesting tidbit regarding how Europe is reacting to the New Russian Empire:


Finland *and* Sweden have quietly began talking to us - and NATO of course - about seeing if there is a spot in NATO for them as well.


Which speaks volumes when you consider how hard they tried to stay more or less - usually less - neutral during the first Cold War.

That's not surprising at all, they might know a thing or two that we don't....or, more likely, just like the other European countries like Poland and Germany, they've seen this movie before and they're in no rush to see the sequel, like you said.

Thing is, the other NATO countries have been letting things slide militarily for too long and have slashed most of their defense budgets almost to a minimum, I'd argue that a lot of NATO's military are currently almost reduced to palace guards in terms of any capability, look at all the trouble they've had just to sustain operations in Afghanistan, much less Libya and the rest of Africa.

And we haven't even yet discussed further defense cuts the Obama administration was proposing in the U.S. prior to this. Methinks, or rather I hope, they'll be taking a second look at things now that Russia's back, but Obama was just recently quoted as saying Russia was "weak" and a "regional power, not a global power". Uh, sorry, but someone's in serious denial here. Having global nuclear reach for starters, along with a rejuvenated military that's been getting rapidly modernized, and an economy that basically can hold Europe by the balls by being it's primary source of petroleum and gas speaks volumes, and I would think elevates it a bit above "regional power" status.

Point is, Europe, other than the usual rumblings in parts like the Balkans, did seem to finally settle down for a while, but now their history is coming back to bite them in the ass again, this time with the "new" Russian empire. The vacation is over.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

So yes, this is a bit of history we have seen before, clearer than most, that we need to pay attention too. Germany is: they have pretty much locked in the European Leadership by financing away the economic crisis and they see where this can lead all to easily. Poland as well is looking to the east with great alarm: They never was fond of either the Germans or the Russians, but right now they can trust the defanged German people, and are quietly looking at beefing up - significantly - their armed forces according to friends of mine that work in a odd shaped five sided building down the road.

But thats my two cents.

I like what they said in the movie "To Be or Not to Be" (odd how I keep quoting that movie):

"Poland...the doormat of Europe! If it's not the Russians, it's the Germans!"

[schnickelfritz]

Seeing the idea of moving heavy units back into Europe, I'm really interested as to how that would work.

My chief concern is that (speaking as a Liberal Libertarian), I sadly do not see the current administration having the wherewithal to focus on anything but its domestic agenda. That concerns me a lot.

I believe we would need to see, and perhaps Hagel can pull this off, a top to bottom analysis of what would need to be added or removed from the US Military's TO&E to make something like this happen. Fantasyland projects (lightweight HMG's anyone?) need to get the axe RIGHT NOW. The resources that could be there or are there need to be used to maximum effect. I don't see much additional $$$ coming, and indeed they were making loud noises about reducing the military just weeks...days before the Ukrainian deal kicked off.

I believe the phrase to be used is..."D'OH!!"

I've thought for years that the drawdown, with the deactivation of the 3rd AD, 5th, 8th, and 24th ID (M) were at best some form of sick joke...there are others, but those really hit home for me.

The last thing I would like to see is something kick off of any size over there and spread...there is no endgame there that isn't just terrible. I just don't see the USSR, er, the Russian Federation, having the manpower and equipment to be able to conduct a Red Storm Rising/T2K land campaign without having an Oh Sh!t moment and realizing they need nukes to forestall defeat. For me that is the terrifying part.

The semi- or completely obsolete hordes they were counting on to do most of the fighting for the Category 3-4 divisions (some Cat 2's as well), the T-55/T-62, BMP-1, and early BTR's are either rusted into uselessness, stripped of anything valuable by vandals (wiring in particular, but aluminum and brass too), so as to require massive resources and time to bring online.

That's beyond the fact that the modern NATO MBT's would cut them to pieces.

Let's not forget that their Pacte-era battle plans involved a lot of East German, Polish, and Czech troops dying for them.

With all that said, I would be very interested in hearing what others would think we'd need to make up the US component of a credible deterrent force.

I'm thinking the 3rd AD, 5th and 8th ID(M), and an ACR in Poland, with the 24th ID (M), an ACR, and some lighter units (Stryker Brigades?) and maybe an Air Assault/Airmobile Brigade in each country. I'm thinking that the lighter units would be more applicable to the mountains or Romania. Other nations could/should add to this, and we should get into the habit of NATO exercises with all of the members to improve morale and effectiveness in the former WP countries.

I also would push hard for the Germans to provide Leo 2A4's or better to the Poles. Even heavily upgraded T-72's just won't cut it. They need a MBT that will take what it gets and give it back like an M1/Leo2/Challenger/Leclerc.

I also think the US Army needs to address its most glaring weakness....mobile short range AA support. The Ukrainians have Tanguskas....it's the best I've seen, and we need to get some, analyze them, and develop a similar machine, probably based off the Bradley running gear. You will need to blast the Frogfoot, Fencer, and Mil-28/Ka-50 out of the sky and live to tell about it...repeatedly.

We also need to look at restarting the Ground Combat Vehicle program, even scale it back until what we produce is a better form of the current M2A2/3. Better hull shape, a couple more men, the 30 or 35mm Bushmaster...

I could ramble on more, but I'd need beer and the stomach acid won't deal with that tonight. Sucks getting old...

My $0.10...
Dave

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by schnickelfritz

We also need to look at restarting the Ground Combat Vehicle program, even scale it back until what we produce is a better form of the current M2A2/3. Better hull shape, a couple more men, the 30 or 35mm Bushmaster...

I could ramble on more, but I'd need beer and the stomach acid won't deal with that tonight. Sucks getting old...

My $0.10...
Dave

*cough* CV9030 or CV9035 *cough*

[schnickelfritz]

"blah blah blah...not invented here...blah blah blah"

Yeah, I bet we'd hear that tired line again.

Dave

[stormlion1]

Anyone know if the Russians are still producing tanks of any type? I know the US hasn't produced an Abrams since the late 80's. Could the Russians do a blitz for the Atlantic before the US could respond with reinforcements from the Continental United States? Because that's where all the heavy gear is now. Could they interdict the Middle East and stop Oil flow? It would be a fight if nothing else.
Honestly I don't think the current administration has the guts to deal with the problem, they just don't. They won't increase the military budgets or send gear back to Europe unless war were declared and even then they would do everything in there power to make it a EU game. They cancelled the replacement for the shuttles knowing that the only option was to rent space on Russian missions. Even worse is the fact that the shuttles weren't mothballed for later use but stripped of essential systems and parceled out to museums. They couldn't be restored for love or money at this point, and they probably sold the excess parts like they sold the support equipment for the Shuttle Program for a quick buck. A damn shame getting rid of a system without a replacement.

[Raellus]

I'd really like to see what the NATO intel services' Putin psych profiles. He's pretty smoothly gotten the Crimea without spending hardly any of Russia's blood or treasure and it looks more and more like he could have east Ukraine too if he wanted it badly enough. How badly does he want it?

A smart man would stop while he was ahead. A gambler with delusions of grandeur likely would not. Which one is Putin?

At this point, I'd like to bring up the A-word. Up to this point, NATO has basically shown Putin its entire hand- talk, mostly, and not even very tough talk; at least, not backed up by much. Militarily, there's been a joint U.S.-Poland air exercise and that's it, AFAIK. Targeted sanctions won't hurt Putin, just a few of his lesser cronies by the looks of it. Western Europe seems to want Russian gas more than it wants Crimean/Ukrainian sovereignty. Without wider, deeper sanctions and NATO shifting significant ground forces east (into Poland and the Baltics), there's really nothing there but so-far-idle-threats to keep Russian forces out of East Ukraine. Putin is aware of this. If his eye is still on east Ukraine, he's got to know that his hand is a lot stronger than NATO's.

It really is Munich-style appeasement all over again. And what choice does the West really have? As a pragmatist, I'm not condemning NATO here. It's one thing to resurrect the dirty A-word and look back at the troubling historical lessons of the late 1930s. It's another to decide to fight to stop a bully who has, so far, only demonstrated modest regional aspirations. Does the west have the will to fight for east Ukraine? I don't see public support here in the States, nor did I see any in the UK. Do senior NATO member nations have the financial wherewithal to support a Cold War style conventional military expansion? No. The U.S., at least, has just begun some serious defense cutbacks. Russia, meanwhile, has increased spending on its conventional forces. I just don't see public opinion here supporting a more bellicose (and expensive) position vis-à-vis Russia's recent behavior. There's no big Crimean lobby here in the U.S. (not like the China lobby back during the 1930s). In fact, if any Americans or western Europeans have a vested interest in the long-term outcome of the crisis in Ukraine, it's the folks that have Russian-based investments in their stock portfolios. Are they supporting tough sanctions or credible threats of military intervention? Hell no. Yes, the Baltic states and Poland are probably quite nervous right now but, on their own (i.e. without help from the U.S., UK, and Germany) they couldn't do much to stop the Russians, militarily speaking.

And yes, NATO's senior members have an obligation to assist any NATO member that is attacked but that doesn't guarantee anything. Would the OG NATO nations fulfill that obligation if the Russians rolled into Ukraine. No, Ukraine's not even an EU member. What if Russia attacked Latvia or Lithuania, even accidentally- would NATO use force then? It's not a definite yes. Britain and France had treaty obligations to go to Poland's aid in 1939 but they didn't really. Instead, the world got months of "Sitskrieg" while Poland was partitioned and annexed by Hitler and Stalin. I'm aware that it's not a like-for-like comparison- the point I'm trying to make here is that a treaty is only as good as the willpower and strength required to back it up. I just don't know if NATO has either at the moment.

If NATO moved a couple of heavy divisions into Poland, the message would be clear: "we are willing and able to use force to defend any and all of our signatories". This Crimean crisis started weeks ago and even post-annexation, this hasn't happened. The silence, as they say, is deafening.

The ball is squarely in Putin's court. I just hope Putin doesn't try to overplay his hand. The way things are going right now, I could see east Ukraine as part of the Russian federation a month, a year, a decade from now.

[Webstral]

I think it's very easy to confuse partisan mudslinging for reality. There is no compelling evidence that the current White House Administration would not live up to the treaty obligations of the United States. None. There's plenty of bellyaching in some circles about how the President hasn't stood his ground or gone to war or all of that nonsense--almost all of it from people who either have money in the defense industry, who stand to gain financially from one war or another, or who expect to be provided with top-notch entertainment at the cost of American lives and treasure. If Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have taught us anything it should be that getting rid of the old regime doesn't make the emergence of a good republic an automatic or even terribly likely outcome. Our interventions should tell us that for all our power we are incapable of generating the outcomes we desire based on the resources we are willing to commit and the mindset we bring to the task. While the current developments suck for the Ukraine, there was never any real chance of the United States intervening in the Crimea. There are limits to our powers. I would hate to see 16,000 good paratroopers sacrificed on fool's errand to prop up our pride in an area that is simply outside our sphere of influence.

I do think we need to do more to reassure our newest NATO allies that we are going to stand by our treaty obligations. Europe will follow if we lead. Certainly, Europe will not act in anything like a decisive fashion without our lead. Everybody who has an alliance with the United States is watching to see what we will do to back our allies. We may not have the ability to safeguard the Ukraine, but we are obliged to shed blood and treasure to safeguard Poland, Romania, and the Baltics.

The composition of a new army group (EastAG?) in Poland would depend a great deal on the results of negotiations among the NATO members. It would be great to have a German heavy division or two, but I don’t know how possible that is. The German constitution places limits on sending German troops outside the country. The Poles might be uncomfortable with the idea, too. The French ought to be able to send a division, but it’s hard to say how reliable they are. The Brits ought to be able to send a division, but it’s hard to say whether they can pay for it. The Netherlands and Belgium probably ought to be able to send a brigade, but it’s hard to say whether the voting public will be willing to finance such a venture when it’s easier to let the Americans and the other large nations do all the dirty work. Spain could send a division, but I wonder if she could be convinced to send a brigade. Ditto Italy. The Czechs probably would take the situation seriously enough to commit troops forward, as would the Bulgarians. I don’t know about the Greeks, even if they had the money to send any troops forward. So while I think it needs to happen, I’m not especially sanguine about getting cooperation out of the Western Europeans in their current frame of mind. Still, one never knows.

[Targan]

^This. Everything Web just wrote +1.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Webstral

The composition of a new army group (EastAG?) in Poland would depend a great deal on the results of negotiations among the NATO members. It would be great to have a German heavy division or two, but I don’t know how possible that is. The German constitution places limits on sending German troops outside the country. The Poles might be uncomfortable with the idea, too. The French ought to be able to send a division, but it’s hard to say how reliable they are. The Brits ought to be able to send a division, but it’s hard to say whether they can pay for it. The Netherlands and Belgium probably ought to be able to send a brigade, but it’s hard to say whether the voting public will be willing to finance such a venture when it’s easier to let the Americans and the other large nations do all the dirty work. Spain could send a division, but I wonder if she could be convinced to send a brigade. Ditto Italy. The Czechs probably would take the situation seriously enough to commit troops forward, as would the Bulgarians. I don’t know about the Greeks, even if they had the money to send any troops forward. So while I think it needs to happen, I’m not especially sanguine about getting cooperation out of the Western Europeans in their current frame of mind. Still, one never knows.

I'm not actually sure the UK would be able to commit a Division any more. The Regular Field Army currently only numbers six combat Brigades (2 Armoured, 3 Mechanised, and 1 Air Assault). Assuming a Division is made up of either both Armoured and one of the Mech Brigades or two Mech and one Armoured, that leaves precious little for pre existing commitments / unexpected contingencies elsewhere (and assumes we manage to disengage from Afghanistan as planned, otherwise cupboard will be even more bare). And further cuts are planned between now and 2020.

So one, at a push two Brigades with the possibility of reinforcement from UK based units if the brown stuff hits the fan seems more likely...you could be generous and call that a Division on paper I suppose.

[stormlion1]

The real scary part is how low in priority the defense of European Nations have fallen since the end of the Cold War. The Russian military also went through this, much more badly and then pulled itself up by its bootstraps and is building up again. And European Countrys won't spend the money or don't have the will to do so. The US has withdrawn a lot of gear due to money and other commitments and that cannot be replaced quickly or cheaply so if something did happen it would be up to the various European powers to hold the line. And they can't. If the Russians snapped off a portion of Poland could Europe do anything at this point to keep up there treaty obligations?

[schnickelfritz]

[QUOTE=Webstral;58948]I think it's very easy to confuse partisan mudslinging for reality. There is no compelling evidence that the current White House Administration would not live up to the treaty obligations of the United States. None. There's plenty of bellyaching in some circles about how the President hasn't stood his ground or gone to war or all of that nonsense--almost all of it from people who either have money in the defense industry, who stand to gain financially from one war or another, or who expect to be provided with top-notch entertainment at the cost of American lives and treasure.

Yeah...I didn't vote for the guy...either time....but I think most of the "he's soft" garbage that he's catching on Putin is just that...garbage. I really don't know if anyone could or would have done better. I'm inclined to think not.

What DOES worry me is that the domestic agenda will suck every spare dime. I think we could bear the weight financially of sending a few divisions back once A-Stan ends. Given how that idiot/crook Karzai is, I'd just wrap it all up and come home. Unfortunately, the average Afghani will lose...again.

I would like to see the Pentagon conduct a thorough review of all of the major projects to see what can be ditched in favor of off the shelf gear. The whole GCV programs have yielded...squat...other than some prototypes unless I'm missing something.

Maybe then we can afford to send some gear back. Most of the Europeans are far too broke to pull anything off. Spain, Greece, Italy? Not fracking likely. And what has happened to the UK Military is just shameful....it's like the politcians didn't know better...

I'd recommend you read "Death By Design" by Peter Beale.

(Rant Ends)
-Dave