Posted on 02/10/2017 8:44:34 PM PST by MtnClimber
When Jürgen Bornemann was a junior army officer in West Germany’s Bundeswehr, he spent many months of every year practicing getting his unit from its base to likely conflict zones near West Germany’s border with East Germany. His unit was not alone. “Entire divisions were moved within West Germany,” Bornemann, who went on to become a lieutenant general and director general of NATO’s international staff, told me. (A division consists of some fifteen thousand soldiers.)
Practicing movements involving tens of thousands of troops towards potential hot spots was, in fact, a main component of NATO’s Cold War defense planning. “NATO was constantly practicing, fine-tuning deploying fifty thousand troops across the Atlantic and moving them across Europe,” said Ian Brzezinski, an assistant secretary of defense under George W. Bush. “It was a demonstration, but it was also a way of making sure the wheels were always greased.”
When Jürgen Bornemann was a junior army officer in West Germany’s Bundeswehr, he spent many months of every year practicing getting his unit from its base to likely conflict zones near West Germany’s border with East Germany. His unit was not alone. “Entire divisions were moved within West Germany,” Bornemann, who went on to become a lieutenant general and director general of NATO’s international staff, told me. (A division consists of some fifteen thousand soldiers.)......
By comparison, today’s NATO troop movements look rather modest. Exercises are less frequent and typically involve brigade-size forces, around five thousand troops each. “In 2015 we had an exercise [Trident Juncture] that involved thirty-six thousand troops, but it took a long time to plan and only took place in Italy, Portugal and Spain,” Brzezinski pointed out.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
Are we expecting the Soviet Union to flood across the Fulda Gap?
NATO seems genuinely unserious with the EU socialists spending much of their budgets on regulators controlling their populations instead of protecting them.
More likely to snag the Baltic States again.
I am reminded of one of the host skits from Mystery Science Theater 3000 where there is a "charitable" organization who holds an annual pancake breakfast and collects enough money to fund next year's pancake breakfast. NATO keeps on going to support NATO as it is, but I don't see them fighting a war.
NATO is about keeping the EU together, and its statist, globalist, leftist social-engineers in power. Its not about “defense.”
NATO shows no interest in resisting the Islamic invasion, so the answer is no. It is pretending, as Soros wants, that it faces a threat from Russia, while it is being conquered by the Jihadists. Sheer insanity.
NATO prepares for war against Trump? Loosers, they be.
The most likely scenario is a quick grab of one or more of the Baltic states. Since Estonia is a NATO member, it could call upon the alliance’s security guarantee. Poland, also a NATO member, similarly fears Russian aggression, particularly from its heavily armed Kaliningrad enclave that borders Poland. With relative ease, Russia could use electronic measures and covert agents and special forces to disrupt Poland’s electrical grid and communications infrastructure. They could declare most of Poland a no-fly zone using the menace of advanced anti-aircraft missile systems based in Kaliningrad. Thus Putin could seize Estonia and put Poland into turmoil before our Abrams’ tanks based in Germany had even gotten out of storage and warmed up their engines.
Islam is invading Europe from within and Iran is likely to test their missiles on Israel and Europe. They are totally clueless except the few who risk jail to tell the truth.
NATO is pajama boy with a bb-gun his mammy won’t let him shoot.
Since the Marshall Plan Europe has been willing to have the U.S. pick up the tab for their defenses.
Now, the robots might be Russia. They might be China (I personally consider this a bigger threat). But my point is that a lot of people take a lot for granted, and the success that the US has had against weaker militaries have made some (some) assume that victory is a right rather than an attribute one has to work hard on. And that fighting a China or a Russia will be very different from an Iraq, a Somalia or a Grenada. Even on the Baltics we saw how a little country could still come up with ways of using microwave ovens to make the Wild Weasel anti-rad jets shoot Shrikes thinking they were radar sites, or how they managed to shoot down a stealth fighter. Imagine the airspace around Beijing?
Anyway, my post can be ignored. Doesn't matter much. But I wonder when I see spending being wasteful, items like the Raptor cut because they are not needed, or even here on FR people claiming what is needed are more A-10s ( a nice plane, but absolutely not survivable against a modem opponent, which is an opponent the US hasn't face in decades. A joke I heard from some pilot years back was that Apache and Warthog pilots would bet which ones would die first if the Soviets ever went through the Fulda Gap.
Anyway, all I am saying is whenever I see or read that I get imagery from Battlestar Gallactica.
Russia will not go for the Baltic States—nor with they Try for Keiv—The place to watch is Belarus. They will take Ukrainian with a peaceful election. But, first they must get USA out and get rid of Soros. Watch as McCain and Gramam have an “Accident”. Would the Russian do it? Yes. Will Trump really investigate—hard to say. maybe they will take out Obama while they are about it.
>More likely to snag the Baltic States again.
Short of nukes, nothing we could to stop that. Putting them in NATO was a dumb idea.
>or even here on FR people claiming what is needed are more A-10s ( a nice plane, but absolutely not survivable against a modem opponent
The A10 wasn’t survivable against the Russians in the 80s either. It’s a CAS platform designed to be used in zones where we control the air, just like all effective CAS planes in history. Like the Apache it was billed as a tank killer to get it through congress but it’s only real role is Close Air Support.
“Thus Putin could seize Estonia and put Poland into turmoil before our Abrams’ tanks based in Germany had even gotten out of storage and warmed up their engines.”
And 5 minutes later call up President Trump on the Red Phone and ask him if he REALLY wants to have a nuclear exchange with Russia over Estonia and a piece of Poland.
It’s PRETTY DAMN STUPID to say you’re defending countries when that is CLEARLY not the case. The Russian tanks could roll in any time they please, and the opposition, even from us, will be token, at best.
>And 5 minutes later call up President Trump on the Red Phone and ask him if he REALLY wants to have a nuclear exchange with Russia over Estonia and a piece of Poland.
>It’s PRETTY DAMN STUPID to say you’re defending countries when that is CLEARLY not the case. The Russian tanks could roll in any time they please, and the opposition, even from us, will be token, at best.
Yep. Though the Poles will move most of their troops to block off Kaliningrad the moment Russia sends a large force in by sea. I’m pretty sure they could hold the Russians off long enough for us to get there.
Estonia on the other hand we can’t do anything for them. They’re best bet is A) Play nice with Russia and B) make the cost of an invasion too high for Russia to want to pay it.
I think it’s likely that if Russia decides it’s had enough from Kiev and takes the country back that they’ll attack the Baltics at the same time due to the very fact that they’re in NATO and they don’t want NATO bases that close to the heartland after grabbing the Ukraine. In a lot of ways NATO expansion has actually made these nations less secure because Russian wants to keep NATO bases away from the Russian heartland.
I am not sure that Russia has the military horsepower to effectively threaten Poland or anyone else. They have some good new equipment but not much of it. War is expensive and Russia’s economy is tin good shape.
The main area of concern is the Suwalki Gap.
“Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks.” - Charles Maurice de Talleyrand
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.