lordmandeep
Banned
That is possible, but there is no proof of that.
There is a reason why the US is concerned by the growing power of the Chinese and Russian Armies.
|
|
|
The Hypocrisy of the International Community, Re: Russia
- Thread starter Dan416
- Start date
That is possible, but there is no proof of that.
There is a reason why the US is concerned by the growing power of the Chinese and Russian Armies.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
You can forget about an US-dominant land force in Poland. the United States has 182,060 troops stationed in Iraq (150,400 active component and 31,660 National Guard or Reserves), 26,000 troops in Afghanistan, 20,000 troops in Korea (plus another 9,000 airforce and navy personnel), plus thousands scattered throughout Japan, Europe, etc. There is simply nothing left to send to Poland. Thus, you might get a US CBG or two, and some US Airforce assistance, but it will be NATO troops fro,m Germany, Britain, Italy, Benulux and maybe France and Norway that will come to Poland's aid. The other members of NATO, such as Greece and especially Turkey will likely bow out in sending troops to Poland.
Dan416
Senior Member
I'll go back to my earlier point that Poland is arming itself with American military hardware (much like Israel has). Poland already has a large army. They don't need additional personnel, except for maybe their experience and legitimacy. Poland is more interested in the tech than the people NATO can provide. American military hardware will be enough of a deterrent I'm thinking. Unless you're talking about an all-out war between Poland and Russia. Although Russia would have to take Ukraine first (thinking Risk lol)
Filip
Senior Member
I strongly believe Russia will invade all former Soviet republics once again, Ukraine is very high up the Russian priority list, and Putin will stop at nothing to break it.
urbandreamer
recession proof
The world ends in 2012....wonderful.
You know, I just love biased individuals!
You know, I just love biased individuals!
Blixtein
Active Member
I think you're bang on. Germans have been more or less castrated and as such no one in Poland is even remotely concerned about some kind of threat coming from the west. Aside from that, without guestion a Russian invasion of Poland would be the start of WW3, however I think it's extremely unlikely to happen. A ground invasion would mean a trip through Ukraine. Air strikes on the other hand would mean an immediate annihilation courtesy of the US & NATO. Ultimately the Russians are just barking because they know there's nothing that they can do about Poland and Czech Republic.
BTW, any suggestion that the US is out of troops in the event of war in Europe is silly. The US Army has over a milliion troops available for combat.
Dan416
Senior Member
I don't see Russia invading all of the former Soviet republics. Invading Poland would be a huge tactical error on their part. Ukraine I think they could occupy the eastern, more pro-Russian part, but holding onto western Ukraine (the pro-Western part) would be difficult if not impossible. I don't think Ukraine is in danger of being partioned, but nothing is impossible.
Russia has agreed to pull back, so we'll see how far they withdraw to. I still think it's likely they'll hold on to Abkhazia and South Ossetia though.
Russia has agreed to pull back, so we'll see how far they withdraw to. I still think it's likely they'll hold on to Abkhazia and South Ossetia though.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
You make good points, but maybe if we stopped trying to reduce their deterrent, they wouldn't get so upset.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Russia's position is one predicated upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Those in Russia longing for the good old goose-stepping days want to make sure that their arguments for territorial integrity match well with their desire to rebuild the old USSR as much as possible, while at the same time staving off the internal weakening of the Russian Federation and the potential for internal separatist movements there.
shumoon
New Member
^ Ironically, It was Russia that seceded from the USSR. From the wikipedia article on the USSR:
"In 1989, the Russian SFSR, which was then the largest constituent republic (with about half of the population) convened a newly elected Congress of People's Deputies. Boris Yeltsin was elected the chairman of the Congress. On June 12, 1990, the Congress declared Russia's sovereignty over its territory and proceeded to pass laws that attempted to supersede some of the USSR's laws."
I'm not sure what the end-game is in all of this. Russia isn't going to reconquer the 14 other republics of the former USSR. Europe isn't going to war against Russia when it needs Russian oil and natural gas. I doubt Georgia will get NATO membership after its rash actions.
BTW, Georgia's president has to be the biggest chump since Saddam. I feel he was strung along by the promises of NATO and EU membership and goaded into attacking South Ossetia.
"In 1989, the Russian SFSR, which was then the largest constituent republic (with about half of the population) convened a newly elected Congress of People's Deputies. Boris Yeltsin was elected the chairman of the Congress. On June 12, 1990, the Congress declared Russia's sovereignty over its territory and proceeded to pass laws that attempted to supersede some of the USSR's laws."
I'm not sure what the end-game is in all of this. Russia isn't going to reconquer the 14 other republics of the former USSR. Europe isn't going to war against Russia when it needs Russian oil and natural gas. I doubt Georgia will get NATO membership after its rash actions.
BTW, Georgia's president has to be the biggest chump since Saddam. I feel he was strung along by the promises of NATO and EU membership and goaded into attacking South Ossetia.
buildup
Senior Member
From STRATFOR's george Friedman
August 18, 2008
NATO foreign ministers will meet Aug. 19 to discuss responses to the Russian invasion of Georgia. The United States is pressing for immediate action — although what that really means is movement toward admitting Georgia to NATO, rather than actual action. The Germans have expressed support for Georgia’s membership in the alliance, but the French and Italians appear to be hesitating, not wanting to trigger the confrontation with the Russians that would likely result from such a move. The newer members of NATO, those who formally belonged to the Warsaw Pact, tend to want aggressive movement to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. They want to see NATO assert itself, in order to be assured that the alliance will do that.
The problem is not that NATO is incapable of moving rapidly to include Ukraine and Georgia; it is a matter of what it means to be part of NATO. NATO was originally an anti-Soviet military alliance. It consisted of well-armed and well-trained armies — British, West German, Dutch and others — all backed by massive U.S. power and nuclear weapons. An attack on Europe would have meant an attack on NATO, and the Soviets never tried that. Had they done so, they would have faced a very dangerous military situation. The risks were much higher than the gains.
Most of today’s NATO members have minimal military forces that are poorly armed and trained. As important, the geography has shifted. From a compact western European alliance, NATO has become a sprawling entity, ranging from an exposed and barely defended flank in the Baltics to — if they were included — totally undefended Ukraine and Georgia. The forces necessary to defend those two countries would take years and hundreds of billions of dollars to recruit, arm and train. NATO was once able to defend Europe in the event of war. At this point, and for a very long time, the best NATO could do is to make a gesture of defense, particularly in the case of the vast Ukraine.
It is very doubtful that Western Europe has the will to develop a force capable of defending Georgia and Ukraine. Eastern Europe might have the will but not the resources, from manpower to technology. Thus, membership in NATO for Ukraine and Georgia would be a gesture without content. We are reminded of French and British guarantees to Poland in 1939. The French and British knew they could not protect Poland. The Germans knew it. Even the Poles knew it. The hope was that Germany, fearing a war with Britain and France, would not risk attacking Poland. But the Germans knew they could defeat Poland and, more to the point, were pretty confident that the British and French were all talk, and that a declaration of war wouldn’t mean all that much.
The NATO principle is that an attack on one would be an attack on all. The assumption is that the Russians wouldn’t risk a general war in Europe to threaten Georgia or the Ukraine. Alternatively, however, the Russians might view the threat of a general war as minimal, since the rest of Europe would not attack Russia from the West to defend Georgia. In other words, the Russians’ hesitation to attack Georgia would depend on their estimate of the likelihood of an attack on Russia by the Germans and Poles in response.
It is a risk Moscow might take. First, the Russians know the German and Polish military capacity — and the limits of available American power. Second, the failure to defend a member would destroy NATO’s credibility and shred the alliance. Most of the foreign ministers meeting on Tuesday are fully aware that extending NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia not only would be merely a gesture, but also could set up a greater calamity for the alliance. The United States knows this as well, but is making the most aggressive gestures it can, knowing that NATO works by consensus and that a single dissent can block the move. Washington is sure that dissent will come from somewhere. In the meantime, it is making the most bellicose gestures possible, short of actually doing something.
August 18, 2008
NATO foreign ministers will meet Aug. 19 to discuss responses to the Russian invasion of Georgia. The United States is pressing for immediate action — although what that really means is movement toward admitting Georgia to NATO, rather than actual action. The Germans have expressed support for Georgia’s membership in the alliance, but the French and Italians appear to be hesitating, not wanting to trigger the confrontation with the Russians that would likely result from such a move. The newer members of NATO, those who formally belonged to the Warsaw Pact, tend to want aggressive movement to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. They want to see NATO assert itself, in order to be assured that the alliance will do that.
The problem is not that NATO is incapable of moving rapidly to include Ukraine and Georgia; it is a matter of what it means to be part of NATO. NATO was originally an anti-Soviet military alliance. It consisted of well-armed and well-trained armies — British, West German, Dutch and others — all backed by massive U.S. power and nuclear weapons. An attack on Europe would have meant an attack on NATO, and the Soviets never tried that. Had they done so, they would have faced a very dangerous military situation. The risks were much higher than the gains.
Most of today’s NATO members have minimal military forces that are poorly armed and trained. As important, the geography has shifted. From a compact western European alliance, NATO has become a sprawling entity, ranging from an exposed and barely defended flank in the Baltics to — if they were included — totally undefended Ukraine and Georgia. The forces necessary to defend those two countries would take years and hundreds of billions of dollars to recruit, arm and train. NATO was once able to defend Europe in the event of war. At this point, and for a very long time, the best NATO could do is to make a gesture of defense, particularly in the case of the vast Ukraine.
It is very doubtful that Western Europe has the will to develop a force capable of defending Georgia and Ukraine. Eastern Europe might have the will but not the resources, from manpower to technology. Thus, membership in NATO for Ukraine and Georgia would be a gesture without content. We are reminded of French and British guarantees to Poland in 1939. The French and British knew they could not protect Poland. The Germans knew it. Even the Poles knew it. The hope was that Germany, fearing a war with Britain and France, would not risk attacking Poland. But the Germans knew they could defeat Poland and, more to the point, were pretty confident that the British and French were all talk, and that a declaration of war wouldn’t mean all that much.
The NATO principle is that an attack on one would be an attack on all. The assumption is that the Russians wouldn’t risk a general war in Europe to threaten Georgia or the Ukraine. Alternatively, however, the Russians might view the threat of a general war as minimal, since the rest of Europe would not attack Russia from the West to defend Georgia. In other words, the Russians’ hesitation to attack Georgia would depend on their estimate of the likelihood of an attack on Russia by the Germans and Poles in response.
It is a risk Moscow might take. First, the Russians know the German and Polish military capacity — and the limits of available American power. Second, the failure to defend a member would destroy NATO’s credibility and shred the alliance. Most of the foreign ministers meeting on Tuesday are fully aware that extending NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia not only would be merely a gesture, but also could set up a greater calamity for the alliance. The United States knows this as well, but is making the most aggressive gestures it can, knowing that NATO works by consensus and that a single dissent can block the move. Washington is sure that dissent will come from somewhere. In the meantime, it is making the most bellicose gestures possible, short of actually doing something.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Well, originally originally the earliest formation of what would evolve into NATO was an organization established to defend against the fears of German rebuilding and rearming. The rapid evolution of NATO took place only when the Soviet Union showed no desire to exit Eastern Europe after the end of the Second World War. West Germany was not admitted until many years after.
If Russia fails to exit occupied portions of Georgia, or if it invades other former Soviet Republics, NATO will have to reinvigorate itself. The downstream effects will be fascinating as many European countries have become dependent on Russian oil and natural gas.
Russia will never invade Western Europe (unless there is some form of collective insanity), but it's clear that some former republics are potential targets.
Dan416
Senior Member
If Russia really wants to win this war, they should learn a little something from their neighbours China and India and start making babies, not weapons.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The west isn't really aiming at reducing the credibility of the Russian deterrent. Sheer economics took care of that. They just couldn't afford to keep spending on defence after the cold war, and that reduced the credibility of their deterrent. Now they're trying to bare their teeth to show that they still have some bite left. But the reality is that they have gone from military and nuclear threats to economic blackmail. The Europeans will dance to every Russian tune from here on in or it'll be a dark and cold winter in the old continent.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Of course they are. You said that in your own post:
Obviously these installations on the Russian border are designed to intercept Russian missiles, thereby reducing their deterrent. While the reliability of some of their missiles has certainly declined, the Russians still maintain a substantial deterrent, especially with the new Topol-M missiles and the new sub class coming on line.
Obviously these installations on the Russian border are designed to intercept Russian missiles, thereby reducing their deterrent. While the reliability of some of their missiles has certainly declined, the Russians still maintain a substantial deterrent, especially with the new Topol-M missiles and the new sub class coming on line.