Posted on 05/05/2016 3:40:16 AM PDT by SJackson
During one of my recent research trips to Germany, among a small discussion group, a colonel in the German Bundeswehr raised a few eyebrows with an off-the-record observation: If Russian President Putin, he posited, ever unleashed his large and powerful mechanized forces across the North European Plain – through Belarus, Poland, Germany and beyond – nothing would be able to stop them. While such a grim prospect surely centers the mind, it also begs the question: Why would Putin, no matter how aggressive his behavior in recent years has become, ever commit such a staggering and calamitous act?
Setting that question aside for the moment, it is sobering to acknowledge that the Bundeswehr colonel was on the mark – given Western Europe’s alarmingly poor state of military preparedness, it would be unable to mount a meaningful challenge to a major Russian conventional attack, short of escalating to nuclear weapons. And since the latter option is, well, no option at all, and considering that any conventional resistance put up by NATO alliance members such as Germany, Belgium and France would amount to little more than token resistance, one wonders: Would these countries, and their countrymen, fight to save Berlin, Brussels and Paris, or simply bow to the inevitable and capitulate?
Of course, if Putin were to send his tanks rumbling westward, U.S. forces in Europe would contribute to its defense, but these forces do not signify the imposing threat they once did, having been reduced to a tiny fraction of their Cold War order of battle. Today (2016), there are barely 65,000 U.S. troops permanently based in Europe, and the value of even this small force was seriously compromised in 2012 and 2013, when the Obama Administration deactivated the U.S. Army’s two heavy brigade combat teams stationed in Germany – effectively eliminating Europe’s primary heavy armored force.
More significantly, due to the troubling state of preparedness of U.S. military forces, in part the result of the Obama Administration’s deep cuts to personnel, equipment and training – cuts which are hard to fathom in our increasingly precarious world – there is reason to doubt that the U.S. could make a serious contribution to the defense of Europe against a future Russian ground attack without resorting to all out nuclear war. In its annual report for 2016 on U.S. military strength, the conservative Heritage Foundation changed its overall assessment of the U.S. Army from “marginal” (2015) to “weak,” largely the result of a “drop in capacity,” for the Army now has fewer brigade combat teams ready for deployment overseas.
In June 2015, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that the U.S. would preposition heavy weapons, including some 250 M1-A2 tanks, in Poland and the Baltic states as a counter to Putin’s aggressive moves. (Implementation of this plan is not to begin until early 2017.) Yet to employ an idiom from the “Cold War,” this proposed force will not be large enough to be anything more than a token “trip wire,” which in 1956, 1962 or 1968, could have triggered a U.S. nuclear response – a response which today would be inconceivable.
In other words, due to the inadequate strength of U.S. personnel and heavy weapons now (or soon to be) stationed in Europe, as well as the burgeoning shortfalls of America’s military in general, the Europeans would be left largely to their own devices to face Russia’s 775,000 active military personnel (two million active reserves), 2600 main battle tanks (MBT) (with 17,500 in storage!), 4200 artillery pieces (self-propelled, towed and multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS); with thousands more in storage), 11,000 armored personnel carriers (APC) and infantry fighting vehicles (IFV), 1200 combat-capable aircraft (including 140 bombers and about 1000 fighter, interceptor and ground attack planes), several hundred attack helicopters, and naval assets including 35 major surface combatants and 59 submarines. Given this grim reality, what conventional military forces could the strongest Western European “powers” – Germany, France and England – muster for a major war against Russia’s conspicuously superior military might?
The answer to this query is troubling at best. Germany’s post-war Bundeswehr, once one of the largest and best-equipped armed forces in the world, was reduced to simulating heavy machine guns with broomsticks in a recent NATO exercise; since the end of the Cold War it has axed 90 percent of its armor and now possesses slightly more than 200 main battle tanks, while in recent years many of its fighter planes have been grounded for the want of spare parts. Germany’s NATO ally, France, Western Europe’s sole strategic military power (with its own nuclear arsenal), has a professional army that is tough and capable, but with only 100,000+ troops and 200 tanks it is no match for the much larger forces Russia could field, even if its forces are combined with those of Germany. As for Great Britain, the disgraceful dismantling of its military power has reduced its once formidable blue-water navy to a mere 19 major surface combatants; until completion of two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, it possesses no operational aircraft carriers. The British Army is small (less than 100,000 regulars), much smaller than in Operation DESERT STORM (1991), when it contributed to the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In other words, the force structures of these once great European powers are not keeping President Putin awake at night.
. But just what would a conventional ground war in Europe against Putin’s Russia look like? To answer this question we need look no further than Russia’s two Chechen wars (1994-96 and 1999-2000). In late 1999, Russian forces entered Chechnya and laid siege to its capital of Grozny. Russian artillery and missiles meted out indiscriminate destruction on the city; in general, observers were shocked by the brutality of the Second Chechen War and, in 2003, the United Nations called Grozny the most destroyed city on earth. Anyone viewing photographs of Grozny from that period will be struck by its resemblance to Stalingrad in 1943, or Berlin in 1945, so thorough was the obliteration of the city. The Russian invasion put an end to Chechnya’s de facto independence, restoring Russian federal control; but the bitter conflict witnessed wide-spread human rights violations by both sides, while a guerrilla war against Chechen insurgents went on for years.
Russia’s recent intervention in the Syrian civil war – following an official request from the Syrian government for military support against rebel and jihadist groups – has witnessed the same brutal and deadly pattern of indiscriminate bombing and civilian deaths. Indeed, the Russians, it seems, never got the post-modern message that “War is Never the Answer” and no longer a legitimate tool of national policy, as revealed not only by their behavior in Chechnya and Syria but by their aggression in Georgia (2008), the annexation of the Crimea (2014), and the stealth invasion of the Donbas region of Ukraine (2014).
It can be argued that Vladimir Putin is the most successful Russian leader since Joseph Stalin; he is also one of the most dangerous. He views the break up of the Soviet Union as the most catastrophic geo-political event of the past century and is determined to reestablish as much of that empire as his growing strength, and Western weakness, will permit. So he pokes and probes along the periphery of the NATO alliance, thumbs his nose at a distracted and weakened America, and threatens his neighbors with potential military or economic sanctions. Angered by the expansion of NATO up to the very borders of Russia, Putin could risk precipitating a major crisis in an effort to divide, or even dismantle, the NATO alliance.
Which leads us back to my query about President Putin himself – to wit, would he ever risk loosing the “dogs of war” on Western Europe? Perhaps simply revealing his contempt for his adversaries Putin, in September 2014, boasted that “he could, at will, occupy any Eastern European capital in two days.” The implication being that his greatly superior mechanized forces could seize Berlin, Brussels or Paris in just a few more days’ time? And yet, given the collective weakness and lack of will he acutely senses in Obama’s America and NATO in general, one can only surmise that Putin remains confident he can reach his geo-political and military objectives without having to resort to all-out war. He will simply continue to ratchet up the pressure (military and economic), intimidation, and the bullying behavior to achieve his goals. In short, a massive Russian offensive across the North European Plain is out of the question.
Thus, even if this article signifies little more than an “academic” exercise – inspired by the deliberations of an anonymous Bundeswehr colonel – it remains a sobering thought indeed that, given the existing “correlation of forces” between Russia and Western Europe, the latter, in a very real sense, remains captive to the mind and machinations of one Vladimir Putin.
You are looking at this through western eyes. Which in this case is insane. Putin, and the Russians, are not western. They still see war the way war should be. The absolute destruction of the enemy.
Are they recent immigrants to Europe? Kill them.
Do they have mosques that they attend? Kill every one who goes to the mosque.
Do they have copies of the Koran in their homes? Kill every person who can quote any part of the Koran.
Do they look Arabic? Kill every one who looks remotely Arabic (after all, they are not Russian so who really cares if they die?)
Do they wear any item of moslem garb (hijab etc)? kill them.
Are they on record as ever having attended a moslem school? Kill them.
Is there any record of them visiting a moslem country as more than just a very short term tourist? Kill them.
It is relatively simple for someone with a large enough army to eradicate moslems from any area. As long as they don't mind inflicting some collateral damage that is. And the Russians (as easily seen from Chechnya) don't mind collateral damage.
Sure the entire world will rise up and scream and stamp their feet at the "culticide" of the moslems, but not one country will so much as lift a finger to stop it. What could they really do short of nuclear war?
The main reason we (the west) have become incompetent at war is that we refuse to kill the enemy lest we hurt some collateral's feelings. Our leadership has been pussified. We've become too weak to nuke mecca and other places that desperately need it, why would we risk all out nuclear war against Russia?
The article asks how Europe would respond to a Russian invasion. That is simple to answer. They would roll over and start learning to speak Russian. Look at how Europe has responded to the moslem invasion.
Exactly correct.
War has become not only inevitable, but necessary
If we do not go to war against islam, we will cease to exist. (much of western civilization has already been lost)
“...he will have his 4-8 years ...”
Things are moving fast around the world for some reason, I suspect (but this is not a prediction) that he will be tested soon after being sworn into office.
If Putin decides on grant theft, in the form of global war, the question answers itself. That also means he would not "run out of money" if he succeeds, not with Obama as his strongest opposition. He could even, with the right public relations campaign, argue that he was liberating/saving/preserving the West and Christianity. I'm not advocating another major power war, just pointing out that it is not out of the question.
“Things are moving fast around the world for some reason,”
I think society changed (for the worse) much faster in the 20 years after I graduated high school than it did for my father. The tattoos and piercings are one of many examples of this.
I never seen muslims when I was a teenager. Now they are everywhere.
Trump will be tested. It will probably be a massive terrorist attack.
“Things are moving fast around the world for some reason,”
I think society changed (for the worse) much faster in the 20 years after I graduated high school than it did for my father. The tattoos and piercings are one of many examples of this.
I never seen muslims when I was a teenager. Now they are everywhere.
Trump will be tested. It will probably be a massive terrorist attack.
The countries you mentioned have seldom been independent and were Russian or Soviet provinces. They are the Russian equivalent of Catalonia or Wales. I was addressing Russian designs on the old Warsaw Pact satellite nations and Western Europe.
Crappola.nuke that big black rock.
Nuke Tehran and put moosies on notice they will be next if they step out of line.
Like Teddy said,
Carry a big stick.
Instead of how our magic negro jive ass punk handles things
It's foolish to have any other perspective.
I oppose American troops anywhere too, except that it was pointed out to me that the value of our dollar is influenced greatly by the presence of our military around the world.
3rd worlders and even Europeans get a warm feeling of confidence knowing US troops are nearby. We are a force for stability across the globe, and lesser developed people know it.
Our dollar is no longer backed by anything of value. It is only the confidence of people that gives it value. Once that confidence erodes, the value of the dollar also erodes.
I am about to have a baby. In the interest of raw survival I desire to get her on solid food before America is thrust into extreme poverty, which I think is inevitable. So yeah, bring back our troops, but in 2 years!
Amen
How about Western Europe pays for its own defense and if it means ditching the welfare state then so be it.
I’m quite sure that the Obama administration has prepared a barrage of scathing diplomatic letters and self-righteous hashtags that it can roll out at a moment’s notice in case Putin should attempt such a thing.
From Putin’s viewpoint, the remaining days of a lame-duck Obama presidency must surely appear to be a “wasting asset” (to borrow a term from the realm of finance).
Are we approaching a critical “act now or forever hold your peace” confrontation in the making? Would Putin seriously be tempted to make some moves that would take Western governments by surprise?
I dunno, but it’s reasonable for more sober analysts to ask the question and perform some mental “what-if’s”...
Nukes would fly, everyone would die.
Nukes would not be used. Nukes will never be used in warfare again.
You’re joking, right?
If you actually believe that, you’re... uh... wrong.
To put it very politely.
I wrote an article for a newspaper in Phoenix, AZ right after the attack in Beslan. I opined that Putin would maintain his power-base in Russia by doing exactly what you listed against the Chechen Islamists. Putin did exactly that and the mass of the Russian populace voted for him and kept him in power at every single instance.
That has always been the Russian answer to enemies both foreign and domestic. And they see the Islamists as their primary enemy.
“this proposed force will not be large enough to be anything more than a token “trip wire,” which in 1956, 1962 or 1968, could have triggered a U.S. nuclear response – a response which today would be inconceivable.”
ORLY ? ? ?
“Inconceivable” to whom?
Other than the Commie-In-Chief in the White Mosque, that is.
It seems like an anachronism to be talking about Russia invading Europe. The far bigger concern now is the creeping jihad.
We’ve already lost Europe and should completely vacate the premises. All the American blood spent saving Europe from D-Day on appears to be a fruitless pursuit.
Given the demographic/cultural shift to a Muslim Europe, WHY the Hell would Russia want Europe???
In a sense, the world only has two choices:
a) A muslim Europe
b) A Europe taken over by Russia
Pick your poison...
A communist governing Europe would be far better than the Caliphate. After all, we already have communism-lite running Europe. At least with Putin controlling Europe, things would be more “honest.”
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.