Ukraine Fun & Games

[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.

[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