Which big dogs are those...?
Posted on 08/30/2014 2:54:55 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Leaders of countries sharing borders with Russia led the way in demanding tougher action against what they see as blatant aggression on their doorstep.
Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite bluntly called for the West to wake up, and appeared to urge Nato to give significant military aid to Kiev.
‘Russia is at war against Ukraine and that is a country which wants to be part of Europe. Russia is practically at war against Europe,’ she said.
She lambasted previous sanctions as ‘a big mistake’ because they were ‘too general’.
Lithuania is one of at least six states believed to have signed up to a new British-led Nato rapid-reaction force, the formation of which is expected to be announced this week by David Cameron as Wales hosts the most important Alliance gathering since the end of the Cold War.
Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Norway and the Netherlands will also join the 10,000-troop bid to deter Putin from what the West sees as an attempt to redraw the frontiers of Europe.
A key concern is that he intends to use his military might to impose a new ‘statelet’ within Ukraine called Novorossiya – or New Russia. What remains of Ukraine could be left with no coastline if the plan goes through.
A diplomat said: ‘Putin is obsessed with Novorossiya, territory won for the Romanovs by Catherine the Great. He wants it back.
'But the so-called rebels in this region of eastern Ukraine, who he praised for keeping Kiev’s army at bay, are his own soldiers, using his latest military equipment. Let’s not fool ourselves about the acute dangers.’
Putin’s use of the Tsarist name of Novorossiya is sending shudders through Europe. While it includes the Donetsk and Lugansk regions ....it also includes such major cities as Kharkiv, Kherson and Odessa.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If Putin becomes a problem to Russia’s new billionaires, he can be removed, not all of Russia wants to get involved in renewing the old isolated, gray, Soviet Union.
UPI | Aug 27, 2014
BRUSSELS — The head of NATO said new bases in Eastern Europe will be built to counter potential conflict with Russia.
Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the NATO summit next week in Cardiff, Wales, would overcome divisions within the 28-nation mutual security organization and establish opportunities to deploy troops and equipment near the Russian border.
Poland and the three Baltic countries formerly part of the Soviet Union — Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia — have been especially vocal about the anxiety as a potential target for Russian involvement, in light of Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea, and its perceived role in helping militants in Ukraine’s breakaway eastern provinces.
According to Rasmussen:
“We will adopt what we call a readiness action plan with the aim to be able to act swiftly in this completely new security environment in Europe. We have something already called the NATO response force whose purpose is to be able to be deployed rapidly if needed. Now it’s our intention to develop what I would call a spearhead within that response force at very, very, high readiness. In order to be able to provide such rapid reinforcements you also need some reception facilities in host nations. So it will involve the pre-positioning of supplies, of equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters. The bottom line is you will in the future see a more visible NATO presence in the east.”
Feline nickname.
In adding something to a scenario, the mere possibility of something happening is less useful than something probably happening.
The probability of what you describe happening is tempered by both the mutual antagonisms that exist between your putative allies and also the fact that all three are utterly dependent for their economic well being on selling what they have to the same countries you believe they want to destroy.
I think you need to think it through and stop using Clancy novels as a point of reference.
I said subtract USA numbers from NATO.
I also said Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and I think made it perfectly clear that the EU construct is one that mocks the NATO treaty.
But babble on.
Just don't expect me to ever play along with your ignorant game.
Exactly, why subtract NATO member numbers from NATO, and why are you asking me to do it anyway?
“”By troop numbers, NATO also held a lopsided advantage over any other nation, with a total of 3,370,000 servicemembers in 2013, according to NATO’s statistics. This contrasts with Russia’s 766,000 troops””
The Chinese could try to call those bonds in, but I don’t think the US or Europe would be able or willing to pay them — too big to fail on the international scale.
You should acknowledge that Ukraine has been trying to join the EU.I don't really care what they do.
The EU is a failing socialist construct that is in direct economic opposition to one of the largest individual NATO treaty signatories.
The USA.
The USA did not sign an eternal open ended military treaty with the now self-declared EU nations, and certainly not with the Ukraine, a former Warsaw Pact nation.
You should acknowledge that.
If Britain wants to spearhead a EU military force, it will not be a NATO one, which is essentially the USA as the heavy lifter, with the anti-USA EU politicians calling the plays and setting the ROEs.
Been there, done that.
Right now, Ukraine is trying to join NATO.
Which big dogs are those...?
With what?
I've acknowledged that many times on FreeRepublic. I certainly didn't come out and say the opposite.
However, you did say...
To which I responded appropriately...
And my comment still stands.
The big dogs that have been fighting in combat for the last decade and demonstrating great effectiveness.
I wouldn’t be dismissing the United States GIs and the other NATO fighting men so breezily, in the name of Putin and his inexperienced and limited military.
Let's see.
We have Russia, an expansionist, American hating, ruthless, socialist tyranny and we have the EU, a limp wristed, less centralized, failing socialist construct.
Which of these is more of a threat to the US??!
Add to that, this expansionist, American hating, socialist tyranny is invading a sovereign country against the wishes of most of the people who live in that country.
And you're on here posting against who?
Budget cuts to slash U.S. Army to smallest since before World War Two
US Army's last tanks depart from Germany
Army drawdown continues: 1,100 captains to be cut
Air Force Chief: Budget Cuts Affect Combatant Commands
Navy Orders Cuts to Begin; Thousands to Be Fired
Obama to Announce Major US Nuclear Force Cuts Soon
Despite all the chest beating and wishful thinking on these threads, the U.S. military of 2014 is NOT the military of 1986, and is in no condition to fight the Russians, even if Ukraine was any of our business.
Although there has been deep cuts in our military, we still have a powerful, technologically advanced military on the planet.
Our military might is backed with sophisticated satellite imagery and targeting. America’s navy amphibious, surface and submarine capabilities are second to none.
Our logistics capabilities are the most advanced in the world.
Even though the socialist have attempted to dismantle our military, we still are the most powerful in the world. Problem...the usurper won’t use it.
Yes I have, and evidently you don’t keep up with the balance of power between Russia and the 28 nations of NATO, and the capabilities of those Air Forces, Navies, and ground troops.
Russia wouldn’t stand a chance against us and they know it, and why you want to keep promoting them as too powerful to resist, is curious.
True on all counts.
We still have the most powerful military in the world.
This, despite the anti American socialists who have been cutting it.
And this despite an anti American president who won't use it, unless he can use it to fulfill his anti American agenda.
Which is why he does nothing against ISI, Russia, Hamas...etc.
LOL! NATO is worthless. No unified command. No cohesion. No cojones.
How NATO Chose to Fail in Afghanistan
Russia wouldn’t stand a chance against us and they know it,
Charles XII, Napoleon Bonoparte, and Adolph Hitler all shared the same arrogance and greatly underestimated the Russians, and then met with disastrous defeat.
...and why you want to keep promoting them as too powerful to resist, is curious.
I have a realistic view of their history, their politics, and their fighting capabilities, as well as ours. In an all-out land war, Russia wins in Ukraine. Period.
He will be forced to sooner or later. There are so many hot spots in the world today, the dumb @$$ will be faced with an imminent crisis...soon.
No, you merely want to protect Putin and his military advances, and seem to be doing by insulting and denigrating our soldiers, a theme running through this thread.
“Today, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Germany alone field more divisions than Russia has in its Western Military District. These countries are backstopped by the rest of NATO, including, of course, the United States.”
“Russia’s occupation of Crimea has created new interest in an issue that was once at the heart of U.S. security policy but has been on hiatus for more than 20 years — the military balance in Europe. The American military presence in Europe has declined precipitously, and its NATO allies universally have slashed the sizes of their defense establishments. This has led to some concerns that the West’s ability to deter Russia is weaker, even far weaker, than it was during the Cold War.
The truth is actually quite the opposite: Despite the smaller number of U.S. troops in Europe, the military balance there is far more favorable to NATO today than it was when nearly 10 times as many American soldiers, sailors and airmen were stationed on the continent. The reason for this is simple and obvious: the disastrous — from Moscow’s point of view — revision of the overall European security environment that began in the early 1990s.
With unrest continuing in Ukraine, the West can take some comfort in its modern day military advantage over Russia in Europe. And though numbers alone may not deter Russia from further adventurism, the shift in the balance of forces has been remarkable over the past two decades.
According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies’ “Military Balance” publication — a widely-used and well-respected unclassified compendium of information about the world’s armed forces — in 1989, just before the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union deployed a total of 64 divisions in what was then known as its “Western Theater of Military Operations.” These are the Russian forces that would have been hurled at NATO in an attack on Western Europe. They would have been reinforced by another 700,000 troops from the USSR’s three frontline Warsaw Pact allies, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. In all, more than 100 divisions would have been available for a drive into West Germany and beyond. The six countries committed to defending NATO’s front lines — West Germany, the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands — meanwhile deployed only 21 or so divisions in Germany. While NATO divisions were generally somewhat larger than their Warsaw Pact counterparts and reinforcement would have been forthcoming from the United States, the disparity along the East-West frontier was nonetheless huge.
Consider the situation today. East Germany no longer exists, while Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and every one of Russia’s other erstwhile Warsaw Pact partners are now members of NATO. So are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which in 1989 were parts of the Soviet Union itself. In 1989, the Red Army had almost a half-million troops and 27 maneuver divisions (plus enormous quantities of artillery and other units) on the territory of its three main allies. Today, it has a total of seven divisions in its entire Western Military District, all of which are based on its own territory. Indeed, the entire Russian army today boasts about 25 divisions, fewer than it had forward deployed in its Eastern European allies during the waning days of the Cold War.
Today, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Germany alone field more divisions than Russia has in its Western Military District. These countries are backstopped by the rest of NATO, including, of course, the United States. And this raw count doesn’t take into account the general deterioration of Russian forces since 1991, a quarter-century that saw little equipment modernization. By the late 1980s, NATO already enjoyed a significant qualitative advantage over the Warsaw Pact, and that edge has only increased since then. “
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.