Ukraine Fun & Games

[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