NATO's Multiple Frontiers?

[SABRE]

Hello all;

I just started to write an article for couple of pages on the possibility that NATO may now have to face multiple frontiers. So I thought it to be a good idea to have an input from our different members.


At the moment NATO is busy in Afghanistan with the demand of more troops should be deployed in the country. On the other hand British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, is busy in diplomacy to form "widest possible coalition against Russian aggression" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7583486.stm].

I have these importent points on my mind (if anyone has more please add).

> NATO's expansion in former Eastern Europe is a threat to Russia.

> US deployment of ABM/BMDs is another important factor.

> NATO's presence in Afghanistan gives NATO states an access rout to Central Asia - Russia's Asian backyard.

> Creation of new states carved out from pro-Russia Slavic states is yet another threat to Russia (i.e. Kosovo).

> American backing to anti-Russia states (Georgia)

> West's acceptance of anti-Slavic regions as independent states (ie. Kosovo) & rejection pro-Slavic or Pro-Russia or Russia-Backed regions. (Russia now doing vice versa)

Under these circumstances we see Russia opening its wings, mostly militarily. We can't say who is good or evil but it does seem with Russia coughing its military strength over Europe NATO probably will have multiple Frontiers & not all of them would be directed against Russia.
Example: Afghanistan should remain frontier against War on Terror.

> But with this can NATO handle multiple frontiers?

> Can it manage to take on multiple commands with one being a state (Russia) another being Non State Actors (Terrorists, Taliban etc ...)?

> Can NATO manage to keep its members intact against Russia; they already seem to drift on Afghanistan?

[Any additions are welcome before I plunge my self into deep research]

[kato]

Dealing with Russia is not really a NATO-wide "item". NATO is essentially split over the issue, hence why any action in that direction would only come from multilateral coalitions, not NATO itself. This will actually weaken NATO's political position of course.

Regarding Afghanistan (and Iraq), should the situation continue as is, i'd actually fully expect further NATO states to withdraw from the theater. Not the "big ones", France, Spain, Germany, UK and such, but primarily the "auxiliaries", especially as tensions with Russia - important for some of them - rise. Looking in particular at Estonia and Latvia for example there.

The ABM issue, in the end, is just a rehash of the 80s Polaris and GLCM thing, politically. Except in this case now, there aren't any attempts at mutual discussion with Russia (the 1979 NATO "Double-Track" Decision). And a new INF isn't anywhere in sight on this issue.

The thing with accepting disputed independancies... well, that'll probably go on for a bit. Transnistria probably being next.

[merocaine]

At the moment NATO is busy in Afghanistan with the demand of more troops should be deployed in the country. On the other hand British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, is busy in diplomacy to form "widest possible coalition against Russian aggression"

It all seems to have gone to Milibands head...His moment in the sun, bless.

I've said it before, Afghanistan is going to be Nato's graveyard, it is already evident it is a coalition of the willing, most members are unwilling to contribute anything substantial.
Its big problem is it was reconceived after the cold war as a alliance of western democracies, as if western democracies actually have any unity of purpose.
As an anti soviet alliance it worked, without the soviets it just doesn't have any real purpose.
At the moment it exists on American sufferance, as soon as it unable to preform as required by the Americans it will be discarded. (As I think its about to be sidelined in Afghanistan, kept on in a supporting roll, with the Americans doing the heavy lifting))
You could see this in the original Afghan invasion and more lately in the missile shield deal in Poland, it is clear that bilateral relations with Washington are far more important to countries than any guarantees provided through NATO.
I'm probably being harsh, but I feel its main function is as an American foreign policy tool, useful but not very necessary.

[Grand Danois]

> But with this can NATO handle multiple frontiers?

Short term?

NATO need not do that much in Europe proper; Russian logistics set the limiter to the size of the threat.

The Baltic states, Poland, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians & Romania should do away with the idea of doing expeditionary warfare and focus on territorial defence.

Further, they should accelerate coordination and integration. The only place where Russia could actually push in would be the Baltic states which are almost impossible to defend due to geography and size of population. Those three countries would need a comprehensive program to merge their individual defence capabilites. Though it wil only buy time...

I have in context with the BMD in Europe argued that rolling out SAMs in the PAC-3, MEADS, SAMP-T class have far more impact on the strategic level than the deployment of 10 GBI.

This is because they severely blunt the value of TBM like SS-21 and SS-26, just like Russian air power will be neutered; considering the average age and tech level plus training levels... This cuts the legs under most of the offensive power of Russia.

Cost is not even marginal; it is done within existing budgets. And is done on multilateral bilateral level.

The PAC-3s for Poland is already on their way.


Medium/long term?

Other than that it is just a matter of waiting it out for the ex-Soviet stocks to wear out or go obsolete. From now on, it is only what they build now or have built recently, that will be operational one or two decades from now.

If I was a neocon cynic, I could just wait out for the Russian population to desintegrate. This would cap Russian war potential and economic potential forever.

[SABRE]

Competition with in Europe:

We see UK going against Russia while France flapping its wings by trying to play the good guy by bring "peace" to Russia & Georgia. With France holding the Presidency of EU & UK taking a somewhat different stance is it possible we can see Europe back into division?

How would EU hold out, knowing it may be largely dependent on Russia for the supply of oil & other energy resources (belonging to Russia as well as Central Asia)?


Also what if nuclear dimension comes to play as well?

Does anyone sees Europe divided between the options of:

a) Russia friend or foe?
b) NATO or EU?

[kato]

Well, it might give some rise to the "Core Europe" idea, that's been around in certain circles for years, in particular in France, Germany and Italy.

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jürgen_Habermas) and French Jaques Derrida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida) wrote a on that in 2003 after the Iraq invasion, entertaining a "Core" to the EU, a core that would be composed of social-democrat countries (with some leeway), specifically excluding "New Europe" and the UK.
Italian philosopher and politician Gianni Vatimo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianni_Vattimo), formerly a EU MP, also entertained some notions in that direction.

There are a number of people that would have supported an actual application of such theory back then. It was again given some rise when Poland blockaded the EU for a bit politically, and the current row over acceptance of the Nice treaty (EU constitution) in the various member states also has shown some hints of such a notion.

A split along NATO [b]or EU is next to impossible; there are only two politically significant NATO members outside CONUS that are not members of the EU - Norway and Turkey.

[Grand Danois]

Unhappy with yank unilateralism, where they? :D

Well, a "Core Europe" would obviously not be (and is not) sensitive to others concerns or too neutered to be counted on.

Which is why everybody will look to the US, regardless of their foreign policies.

Player or stayer.

[kato]

Well, it's actually a concept that has been around even a good time before the Iraq invasion; that split by the Yanks into "New" and "Old Europe" just pushed it.

The first (larger) mention was the Kerneuropa paper of now German interior minister Schäuble and the foreign politics advisor of the conservative Christian-Democrats Karl Lamers. Both, afaik, still support "Core Europe". The Green former German foreign minister Fischer was a supporter, but has distanced himself lately as "it splits Europe" (duh).

Through overlapping treaty opt-ins, this "Core Europe" can be for example defined as France, Germany, Benelux, Italy, the Iberian peninsula and Greece (all members in: NATO, WEU, Schengen, Eurozone); at the time Kerneuropa was written, it was called "5-6 countries", namely France, Germany, Benelux and Italy as 6th, with Spain and the UK as possible later accessions depending on cooperation.

"Core Europe" in that paper was planned as a political heavyweight on a similar power scale to Russia, and essentially seeing eye-to-eye with ally USA.

[Grand Danois]

Mmm. I doubt they could get Holland on that wagon today.

But wrt members, it sounds like the Europäische Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl - sans Greece & Spain.

In a Cold War environment this would be close to prostration, considering the political layout.

[SABRE]

Although European Divide is getting very interesting discussion we are drifting away from our original topic; that is NATO's Multiple Frontiers.

[Topmaul]

A little off topic but keep screwing with Russia and it will be a cold winter in western Europe.

[Grand Danois]

A little off topic but keep screwing with Russia and it will be a cold winter in western Europe.

Nobody cares what happens inside the borders of Russia.

[Feanor]

A cold war indeed when the heating goes out :D

On a more serious note, NATO was set for becoming obsolete until this crisis. With the Russia-NATO council and the huge joint cooperation, Russia may have eventually become part of NATO, which would have become the last nail in the coffin of the alliance. The Georgian crisis, however, seems to be giving NATO a second life at least temporarily on an anti-Russian basis.

[Grand Danois]

A cold war indeed when the heating goes out :D

On a more serious note, NATO was set for becoming obsolete until this crisis. With the Russia-NATO council and the huge joint cooperation, Russia may have eventually become part of NATO, which would have become the last nail in the coffin of the alliance. The Georgian crisis, however, seems to be giving NATO a second life at least temporarily on an anti-Russian basis.

Never thought that NATO went out of relevance after the Cold War - an alliance can also be used to control territorial and military aspirations of its members. And I certainly don't belong to the group that think Afghanistan defines it. Not a core mission, never was.

Anyhow, in the 80s in Afghanistan the CIA said: "Pass the Stingers!"

Today, the Europeans say: "Pass the gas!"

;)

[Feanor]

NATO as a military-political unified block was becoming obsolete. It was no longer a central unified organization that pursued clear goals.

[kato]

True, in particular with the changing role certain members set out for the alliance.

The Kosovo War was essentially the last joint effort of NATO, after that all went downhill - and even before that, there was already heightened tension between members, in particular over Bosnia.

[Grand Danois]

Depends on (national) perspective I guess. Seen from Denmarks vantage point, NATO was the tool to extend security guarantees to the Baltic States. Now we do not have a Georgian situation there.

[Feanor]

Don't have a Georgian situation there at the moment. If Russia manages to weather this storm, and afterwards rebuild close ties with the west, in particular old Europe, then after some time Russia itself may be once again on track to becoming a member of NATO. Given the amount of joint military exercises and the weapon trade between Russia and NATO states (Russia bought more weapons from the USA in 2007 then Georgia: http://newsru.com/world/27aug2008/usa_arms.html) Russia is likely to eventually join the alliance, and turn it into a farce entirely.

Alternatively if the USA can rally old Europe against Russia once again, NATO may again have meaning to it as a single political/military entity rather then a loose umbrella organization that's busy babysitting Eastern Europe.

[merocaine]

Never thought that NATO went out of relevance after the Cold War - an alliance can also be used to control territorial and military aspirations of its members. And I certainly don't belong to the group that think Afghanistan defines it. Not a core mission, never was.

So what is its core mission? controlling the military aspirations of its members?
Being realistic there is no threat from Russia to any member states in Nato or the EU. Either over the long term or the short term, Russia will have its hands full trying to maintain it position.
The Threat from Russia is a Paper tiger.
Afghanistan is the only mission of note! It should never have been a mission in the first place. The problem is it is the core mission now. Failure there will cast real doubt on its ability to function as a credible military alliance, from a European perspective and from an American POV.
If it wants to have any real relevance it needs Russia to keep stirring the pot.

[Grand Danois]

So what is its core mission? controlling the military aspirations of its members?
Being realistic there is no threat from Russia to any member states in Nato or the EU. Either over the long term or the short term, Russia will have its hands full trying to maintain it position.
The Threat from Russia is a Paper tiger.
Afghanistan is the only mission of note! It should never have been a mission in the first place. The problem is it is the core mission now. Failure there will cast real doubt on its ability to function as a credible military alliance, from a European perspective and from an American POV.
If it wants to have any real relevance it needs Russia to keep stirring the pot.

It's to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.

Oh well, at least the yanks help adress the security concerns of many new post-modern democratic European states - allowing them to make independent democratic choices.

But if you read my first post - I'm actually saying that Russia is a paper tiger; they have nothing but fear as a weapon; you know, like threatening to nuke Poland. But you should also consider, that a Baltic state on its own is weaker than Georgia - like half an Ireland right next to a Great Power with the habit of crushing small states in its periphery.

So core mission absolutely relevant - it is only those with the short term view that did not see that and dismissed it.

Russia could be a member or whatnot - but until then... ;)

[merocaine]

To be fair I thinks its right and proper that the Baltic states are in Nato and the EU, their European countries and need protecting..

I just get a bit wary when people start talking about Ukraine joining Nato, what ever about Russia stirring things up there, the fact of the matter is it is a country divided on where its future lies. Those who wish to fast track it into Nato are either willfully malicious or or plain ignorent.
The same can be said about Georgia, well less so now that its territorial disputes have been settled :rolleyes:

Russia could be a member or whatnot - but until then...
I remember reading that they sounded out Nato about joining after the dissolution of the soviet union and were rejected, do you know anything about that?

[Grand Danois]

I remember reading that they sounded out Nato about joining after the dissolution of the soviet union and were rejected, do you know anything about that?

Nope.

Do note that I'm not a fan of letting a country like Ukraine join either; they should have their house in order first, it's better handled by EU.

[merocaine]

Do note that I'm not a fan of letting a country like Ukraine join either; they should have their house in order first, it's better handled by EU.

Agreed.

A quick google search came up with this

"There's really only one lever left: Invite Russia to join NATO.

This is not a new idea. Once upon a time, it was openly entertained in diplomatic circles East and West. In late 1991, the final days of the U.S.S.R,, Boris Yeltsin stunned a NATO meeting by sending a letter with this unilateral declaration: "Today we are raising a question of Russia's membership in NATO." "A long-term political aim," Yeltsin called it then, as he threw down the gauntlet before the West. NATO ministers, as Tom Friedman reported for the New York Times at the time, were "too taken aback ... to give any coherent response." In the ensuing years, as Yeltsin with characteristic bravura continued to raise the prospect, the West kept fumbling for a reply.

Even Putin, in his first days in the Kremlin, seized on the issue. In March 2000, in his first interview with a foreign reporter -- the BBC's David Frost -- Putin shocked critics and fans alike, saying, "We believe we can talk about more profound integration with NATO, but only if Russia is regarded as an equal partner." Asked outright if Russia could join NATO, Putin shot back: "I do not see why not." He also added a dark warning: Any NATO attempt to exclude Russia from the debate over the alliance's eastward expansion would only provoke "opposition."

Give him points for honesty."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-meier20-2008aug20,0,2858433.story

[Grand Danois]

A de facto Putin veto over "Eastward expansion" or a Njet.

It's a classic: asking for something seemingly innocent, but which you know you will turned down on, leaving you as the victim.

Particularly if you're building a backstabbing legend or if you're trying to make the other side look stubborn. E.g. the Russians asked for soldiers stationed with the BMD sites knowing it would be turned down beforehand. So why ask at all?

To become a victim.

Anyhow, Yeltsin had a lot of acts. One was announcing he was starting up the Cold War again; he did this once on a Münich Conference.

I will admit I don't know the rationale behind it not coming to pass at the time.

[DMG]

Does anyone seriously think that Poland and the Baltic States would ever approve Russia's membership in NATO? They regard Nato as the only guarantee against an eventual Russian aggression.

And why would the United States accept Russia in NATO, an organization where they enjoy primacy over all other member states?

Each Nato member enjoys veto power so Russia would be able to block any decision if it was allowed to get in. It will never happen. There might be close cooperation against common threats but even that possibility looks remote now.

[Feanor]

It's a classic: asking for something seemingly innocent, but which you know you will turned down on, leaving you as the victim.

That too, but realistically if Russia builds close ties with the west and puts serious international effort into it, it's not impossible.

[Grand Danois]

That too, but realistically if Russia builds close ties with the west and puts serious international effort into it, it's not impossible.

The West has issues as well, of course. I certainly can't see it happen as long as a Putinesque regime plays every anti-Western feeling it can; playing on inferiority/superiority complexes and percieved indignation of not being recognised as a "superpower". And it just doesn't get better now that school history books are getting revised to fit Putins autocratic and semi-paranoid version of the world.

Makes both the Russian population and Govt hard to approach; in long terms, the trend is isolationist.

[Feanor]

The West has issues as well, of course. I certainly can't see it happen as long as a Putinesque regime plays every anti-Western feeling it can; playing on inferiority/superiority complexes and percieved indignation of not being recognised as a "superpower". And it just doesn't get better now that school history books are getting revised to fit Putins autocratic and semi-paranoid version of the world.

Makes both the Russian population and Govt hard to approach; in long terms, the trend is isolationist.

Unfortunately :( As you might have guessed I'm no fan of Putin. I'd like to see him retire nicely as soon as possible. In any event, we are left once again with time will tell as the only conclusion. Either the west will or won't get over the Georgian issue, in which case Georgia either will or won't get NATO membership. and Russia will or won't return to cooperation with the west. :unknown

[Chrom]

The West has issues as well, of course. I certainly can't see it happen as long as a Putinesque regime plays every anti-Western feeling it can; playing on inferiority/superiority complexes and percieved indignation of not being recognised as a "superpower". And it just doesn't get better now that school history books are getting revised to fit Putins autocratic and semi-paranoid version of the world.

Makes both the Russian population and Govt hard to approach; in long terms, the trend is isolationist.

But do you realize what it is self-defense retaliation movement, beginning after 90x when Russia done everything to please West - and West still behave like Russian lost big war and should fully play tribute? When West supported and promoted with all they diplomatic, economic, politic etc influence "school history books are getting revised" IN RUSSIA - to include Western propaganda there? Hell, even in West school books ARE revised to picture Russia as evil land - and that for about last 400 years...
But nor Russia, nor West is unique here.
Should we now discuss lie in Western should books? Or, laughable lie in "new Europe" countries "history" books?


Simply put, Russia expect what West will make compromises when both Russian and Western interests cross. Right now West expect Russia to abandon russian interests in every case in favor of Western interests - everything else declared "unfriendly", "not democratic", "imperial", etc.
West supported every thief, every mafia boss in Russia if they there politically "friendly" to West. While such politic gave short-term advantage - in long term this allienated russians.
This is main reason why now in Russia word "democratic " , for most peoples, sounds like "most shittest liars and thieves". This is big tragedy.

[Grand Danois]

I think you'll find that the West is full of self-critique on every level and that government sanctioned content (as in historic material) in schools is rare.

In short, you're making a case based on relativism and the assumption that everyone manipulate to the same degree.

I don't know what is in "new Europe" text books. But it won't stand scrutiny over time.

Russia will have to come to terms with that it is not a superpower anymore.

[Topmaul]

Simply put, Russia expect what West will make compromises when both Russian and Western interests cross. Right now West expect Russia to abandon russian interests in every case in favor of Western interests - everything else declared "unfriendly", "not democratic", "imperial", etc.
West supported every thief, every mafia boss in Russia if they there politically "friendly" to West. While such politic gave short-term advantage - in long term this allienated russians.
This is main reason why now in Russia word "democratic " , for most peoples, sounds like "most shittest liars and thieves". This is big tragedy.

Comrade you are correct! The West tells Russia what to do and what they will accept.

[Chrom]

I think you'll find that the West is full of self-critique on every level and that government sanctioned content (as in historic material) in schools is rare.
This is not about government. Dont portray "West" as something unite. West is VERY different. In some western countries (and some cases) government directly sanction school content. In some countries - indirectly through various licenses, etc. In some countries - not even government, almost everything done privately (at least formally). But the end result is very same - lie and propaganda myths in history books. As i said, Russia is by FAR not unique here in ANY aspect.


In short, you're making a case based on relativism and the assumption that everyone manipulate to the same degree.

I don't know what is in "new Europe" text books. But it won't stand scrutiny over time.

Russia will have to come to terms with that it is not a superpower anymore.
Yes, but understand one very simply thing. If you imply what only superpower can do "bad" things and force everyone accept its interests by military (economic, political) force - then this is very dangerous for world stability, for overall world security.

There should be rule of international LAW, not international might. Just as in private life between peoples - 120 kg boxer dont just smash 70 kg IT specialist at will. The very same rules should apply in international relations. ONE law for every country - strong or weak, superpower or not. ONE rule. INTERNATIONAL rule & law. Not just US law or EU law worldwide.

Else we are bound to have all kinds of conflicts, including ones where superpower on the other end of the globe clash with lesser powers. This become increasingly more dangerous as more countries acquire nuclear weapon, and even more want to get it as protection against such superpowers.

[Grand Danois]

Yes, but understand one very simply thing. If you imply what only superpower can do "bad" things and force everyone accept its interests by military (economic, political) force - then this is very dangerous for world stability, for overall world security.

No I don't. What I say is that nobody cares if Denmark feels victimised or suffer from indignation that we're not being taken into counsel as if we were a superpower - because we're not. And Russia is not a superpower either.

There should be rule of international LAW, not international might. Just as in private life between peoples - 120 kg boxer dont just smash 70 kg IT specialist at will. The very same rules should apply in international relations. ONE law for every country - strong or weak, superpower or not. ONE rule. INTERNATIONAL rule & law. Not just US law or EU law worldwide.

Which is why we got E Europe into NATO.

Else we are bound to have all kinds of conflicts, including ones where superpower on the other end of the globe clash with lesser powers. This become increasingly more dangerous as more countries acquire nuclear weapon, and even more want to get it as protection against such superpowers.

Ah, that's the multipolar world you're describing - increasing levels of anarchy, increasingly dangerous weaponry.

[Feanor]

But the truth is that while Russia is not anymore (or perhaps, is not for now ;) ) a super power, it is definetly a regional power, with a lot of levers to pull. And unless the west accepts it as such, there will always be Russia selling modern weapon to America's enemies, and rogue states, and Russia at odds with it's "democratic" neighbors.

[Stryker001]

If I was NATO I would be a hell of lot more concerned about Algeria and the Morocco connection and the implications for Europe, the French can’t do it on their own and nor should they be expected to. I know Russia is concerned about it and the implications for energy security delivery of the pipelines. Even thinking about a base and naval assets there so they can have a footprint.

I tell you one thing I will not be advising people to go to the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=complete_911_timeline_algerian_militant_collusi on (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=complete_911_timeline_algerian_militant_collusi on)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Algerian_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_terror_campaign

[swerve]

Cany you explain this, please? What about Algeria? What is the Morocco connection? What is it that the French can't do on their own? What pipelines is Russia concerned about the security of, & what do they have to do with Algeria or Morocco? Where is Russia thinking abou thaving a base?

And what connection do you think there is between a civil war (now over) & some terrorism in Algeria, or riots in French banlieues, and security at the London Olympics?

[Actual]

Which is why we got E Europe into NATO

Grand Danois, how do we ever get that E into NATO in your opinion?

Here in the UK for instance, we have plenty issue with regards our European partners and their commitment.

Are we ever going resolve the divergense of interests?

I say no.

[Feanor]

Cany you explain this, please? What about Algeria? What is the Morocco connection? What is it that the French can't do on their own? What pipelines is Russia concerned about the security of, & what do they have to do with Algeria or Morocco? Where is Russia thinking abou thaving a base?

And what connection do you think there is between a civil war (now over) & some terrorism in Algeria, or riots in French banlieues, and security at the London Olympics?

Elementary dear Watson. It's the grand Russian master plan. All these years we were just pretending that we were in disarray and fallen apart. In reality we were preparing for the surprise attack. During the 2012 London Olympics the Red Army will make it's move, the Warsaw Pact will re-emerge from hiding and march westward, and meanwhile the communist 5th column will stage terrorists acts behind NATO lines!!! Long Live Motherland!!!

On a more serious note, the connection I would be worried about is exclusive Russian investment rights to energy products in places like Algeria, Iran (who is right now collaborating with Gazprom on working on the northern gas fields), Iraq (where Russian oil companies received exclusive rights), Libya..... etc.

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois, how do we ever get that E into NATO in your opinion?

Here in the UK for instance, we have plenty issue with regards our European partners and their commitment.

Are we ever going resolve the divergense of interests?

I say no.

You're talking about the EU.

You're entitled to your opinion, it would be easier to repsond if I had an idea of what you're thinking of.

But remember, the future world will one of super-heavyweights who doesn't see things the British way.

And UK, though doing well and being a hub, is not tiny if alone.

[Actual]

On a more serious note, the connection I would be worried about is exclusive Russian investment rights to energy products in places like Algeria, Iran (who is right now collaborating with Gazprom on working on the northern gas fields), Iraq (where Russian oil companies received exclusive rights), Libya..... etc.

Joke's aside, Feanor makes a fundemantal point. Again in regards Western Europe's energy sources. Who needs the Warsaw Pact when you can diplomatically sway the disorganised EU via energy supply?

[Grand Danois]

Joke's aside, Feanor makes a fundemantal point. Again in regards Western Europe's energy sources. Who needs the Warsaw Pact when you can diplomtacally sway the disorganised EU via energy supply?

You can't. "Energy dependence" from Russia is a hype.

[Actual]

You're talking about the EU.

You're entitled to your opinion, it would be easier to repsond if I had an idea of what you're thinking of.

But remember, the future world will one of super-heavyweights who doesn't see things the British way.

And UK, though doing well and being a hub, is not tiny if alone.

Don't get me wrong Grand Danois, I think we are all open for suggestions.

By the way, I'm not Pax Brittanica over here. Thank You...

[Actual]

You can't. "Energy dependence" from Russia is a hype.

A hype.

That's a very bold statement to make.

[Grand Danois]

A hype.

That's a very bold statement to make.

We have an entire thread about it.

Turns out it is a hype.

[Actual]

We have an entire thread about it.

Turns out it is a hype.

Your absolutely right Grand Danois. As always.

[Grand Danois]

Your absolutely right Grand Danois. As always.

Well, thank you. Good to see you up an about again. ;)

[SABRE]

We have an entire thread about it.

Turns out it is a hype.

The thread is on how we (members) look at it. Of course the reality will always be how the European states look at it. This is going to be a member opinion but from what I have been seeing since past year is that Europe finds Russian option quite cheaper. In addition the oil crisis of we have had recently had a negative impact on Europe. We saw UK transporters on strike & transporters in other European states followed.

In these cases Russia is the better option but calling it a hype!? I would agree with you. :cool: Better options are available, example Central Asia. Regardless of Central Asian Republic [CARs] states being pro-Russia their leadership will sell their soul to get revenue & selling oil is their primary interest which they find it hard exploit. Russia on the other hand want to control the CARs oil rout, with recently signing agreement with Kazakhstan to lay a Kazakh-Russia-Europe pipeline.

On the other side the CARs (wanting to free themselves of Russian shekels) look for alternative rout to Europe. One of them being "Georgia." The moment Russians realized Caspian-Azerbaijan-Turkey rout as the feasible path they helped Armenia invade Nigorno Karabagh (Azerbijan) thus cutting Azerbijan in two [now from East to West its like: Caspian Sea, Azerbijan, Occupied Nigorno Karabgh, Azerbijan & then Turkey]. This made it impossible for Turkey to connect any direct pipeline with Azerbian & other Caspian & CARs States. However, Georgia provided an alternative rout & the pipeline went from Casipian shores of Azerbijan to Georgia & then to Turkey (failing the Russian plan).

What I see recent Russian moves is threefold:

1. Reasert itself in its own European Backyard

2. Revenge for Kosovo

3. Disrupt the oil flow, make the region voilatile for Europe so they would switch to much secure rout; namely Russia itself.


It is therefore I would say; Oil Flow is a hype from Russian side not European. There are various alternative routs. It only depends on European diplomacy.

[kato]

Germany is currently considering to build a national strategic gas reserve. Due to Georgia.

As for Gazprom, i wouldn't be that worried. Consider that Gazprom itself actually has to buy rights to develop fields for the most part from European firms - BP, Shell, ***, E.On and so on. Gazprom lacks money to develop fields on its own - almost all newer developed fields in Russia itself even have usually 15-40% operational stakes from Western European companies.

And the same companies are of course the ones that are driving the oil and gas market worldwide.
Forget Chevron, Mitsubishi, ExxonMobil really, and forget completely about Gazprom - outside the CONUS, it's BP, Royal Dutch Shell, E.On, RWE, ***, Norsk Hydro, Total who quite literally own the market. ExxonMobil and Chevron are about the only US players that can keep up in that game. Other than that it's Western Europe that owns the world, energy-wise.

[Actual]

Well, thank you. Good to see you up an about again. ;)

Grand Danois, I'm not going to take your bite. And you should know better. Any disagreement you have with me should be sorted via PM.

Sabre and kato follow up with some very relevant points.

[Grand Danois]

Germany is currently considering to build a national strategic gas reserve. Due to Georgia.

I think what happens with Nord Stream and the proposed NG powerplant at Greifswald will be an indicator if there is to be a substantial shift.

[Actual]

I think what happens with Nord Stream and the proposed NG powerplant at Greifswald will be an indicator if there is to be a substantial shift.

Hate to put my Fianance Hat on here, but is the Nord Stream going to be cheaper Eastern Natural Gas?

[Grand Danois]

Hate to put my Fianance Hat on here, but is the Nord Stream going to be cheaper Eastern Natural Gas?

If you ask if it is NG from the east, then yes.

[Actual]

If you ask if it is NG from the east, then yes.

Have I done something to upset you?

Do you have an issue??

[Grand Danois]

Have I done something to upset you?

Do you have an issue??

How do you figure? You're not making sense...

[Actual]

How do you figure? You're not making sense...

This is not the forum. PM.

[SABRE]

I am just wondering; did I open the thread to discuss NATO or Euro-Russia tussle :confused: We seem to be too stuck on "dependency theory" aren't we? Very well in that case the question I assume is that the are future NATO frontiers going to be dependency based [based mainly on Economic & natural resources]?

[Actual]

I am just wondering; did I open the thread to discuss NATO or Euro-Russia tussle :confused: We seem to be too stuck on "dependency theory" aren't we? Very well in that case the question I assume is that the are future NATO frontiers going to be dependency based [based mainly on Economic & natural resources]?

Sabre what your saying is totaly relevant to the toipic at hand. It would seem however certain cat herders have an agenda.

[Actual]

I am just wondering; did I open the thread to discuss NATO or Euro-Russia tussle :confused: We seem to be too stuck on "dependency theory" aren't we? Very well in that case the question I assume is that the are future NATO frontiers going to be dependency based [based mainly on Economic & natural resources]?

Sabre what your saying is totaly relevant to the toipic at hand. It would seem however certain cat herders have an ulteria motive.

[Stryker001]

Cany you explain this, please? What about Algeria? What is the Morocco connection? What is it that the French can't do on their own? What pipelines is Russia concerned about the security of, & what do they have to do with Algeria or Morocco? Where is Russia thinking abou thaving a base?

And what connection do you think there is between a civil war (now over) & some terrorism in Algeria, or riots in French banlieues, and security at the London Olympics?

Well you lost the war in Afghanistan last year, when you leave the foreign fighters will move. I do believe that there is border security issue coming from North Africa to the EU. The point with Afghanistan the the Pakistan tribal regions is that the insurgents al-Qaida got established, if that occurs in North Africa the EU may have problems.

That is right al-Qaida does not export terrorism so the Director is wrong when he is concerned about the training camps in the tribal regions in Pakistan in regards to terror operations in the US,UK and EU. The Morocco connection is self-explanatory.
Since 2001 invasion of Afghanistan the US has not be attacked and the majority of attacks and plots have been diversified to the EU and the UK. The UK is more of a target for terrorism that the PRC is and was and the terrorist have a proven success at breach the CT defenses. Therefore, it is likely that an operation would be launched. The UK CT operations are well task for after the fact investigations compared to prevention.

The French riots was due to persons from North Africa, such socio-economic economic, geo-political matters have no effect on terrorism or ideology, yet that is a key problem in all conflict zones. It is highly likely that such causes could full terrorism in the future; once again al-Qaida does not export terror so that is not a problem. That fact is that many Muslims have been killed that not amount of money or goats can be used to repay the debt, hence the reason that various tribes and clan have had feuds for centuries.

Well if NATO is a target of al-Qaida and Muslim extremists, so the Russian pipelines and any expansion of are obvious target for terror attacks, which effects the Russian economy.


Therefore, unlike NATO who let al-Qaida fester for many years and then had to go to Afghanistan, Russia may put a base there to keep as a preventative measure to protect the infrastructure in the EU.


Finish the war you started before you try to start another one, yes Russia is weak and can do no harm to the west, and NATO will crush them with sanctions, as you are doing with Iran. If it was not for the ceasefire with the Quds Iraq would not be as peaceful and Afghanistan would be much worse.

[Actual]

[QUOTE=Stryker001;152827]I do believe that there is border security issue coming from North Africa to the EU. [QUOTE]

I remember hearing these scare stories twenty years ago... Fleets of refugees crossing the Med. Cyprus, Malta and Gibralter becoming mass transit camps; NATO navies in the Med struggling to deal with the millions heading north.

It never hapenned. Most people like where they live, have vested interest and make a go life.

And for those already here the irony is this; it's harder for that person to get back out of the EU than it was to get here in the first place.

The biggest expat population into Eastern Europe over the last ten years - British!

[Stryker001]

[quote=Stryker001;152827]I do believe that there is border security issue coming from North Africa to the EU. [quote]

I remember hearing these scare stories twenty years ago... Fleets of refugees crossing the Med. Cyprus, Malta and Gibralter becoming mass transit camps; NATO navies in the Med struggling to deal with the millions heading north.

It never hapenned. Most people like where they live, have vested interest and make a go life.

And for those already here the irony is this; it's harder for that person to get back out of the EU than it was to get here in the first place.

The biggest expat population into Eastern Europe over the last ten years - British!

The cells that hide in the masses, all I am saying is that it would be a bad thing for the EU to allow al-Qaida to further establish themselves in North Africa. Given the fact that they are martyrs I don't think they need or consider an exist strategy.

[Grand Danois]

[quote=Actual;152831][quote=Stryker001;152827]I do believe that there is border security issue coming from North Africa to the EU.

The cells that hide in the masses, all I am saying is that it would be a bad thing for the EU to allow al-Qaida to further establish themselves in North Africa. Given the fact that they are martyrs I don't think they need or consider an exist strategy.

Of course "Martyrs have an exit strategy!" Thanks for the gold nugget of today. ;)

[swerve]

Therefore, unlike NATO who let al-Qaida fester for many years and then had to go to Afghanistan, Russia may put a base there to keep as a preventative measure to protect the infrastructure in the EU.
Cryptic again. Russia put a base where? And how will a Russian base anywhere protect thousands of kilometres of interconnected pipelines in the EU?

[Stryker001]

Cryptic again. Russia put a base where? And how will a Russian base anywhere protect thousands of kilometres of interconnected pipelines in the EU?

Why are forces in Afghanistan, why did Brown want to send forces to Nigeria, why do countries have boarder security.

[swerve]

Why are forces in Afghanistan, why did Brown want to send forces to Nigeria, why do countries have boarder security.
I see you haven't answered the questions. I repeat: a Russian base where? You originally said that "they" should put a base "there", both being undefined. You have since said that "they" are the Russians, & the base would be to ensure the security of pipelines in the EU, but have still not said where you think this base should be. In which country? Which continent, even? Without more clarity, I'm afraid your posts are essentially meaningless.

[Feanor]

I'm under the impression that he is spamming. His posts come across as unreadable.

[Stryker001]

If I was NATO I would be a hell of lot more concerned about Algeria and the Morocco connection and the implications for Europe, the French can’t do it on their own and nor should they be expected to. I know Russia is concerned about it and the implications for energy security delivery of the pipelines. Even thinking about a base and naval assets there so they can have a footprint.

I tell you one thing I will not be advising people to go to the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=complete_911_timeline_algerian_militant_collusi on (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=complete_911_timeline_algerian_militant_collusi on)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Algerian_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_terror_campaign

If the Governments agree to host a Russia air or naval base in the future there is no reason as to why that can't put them where they want to.

Well obviously I wasn't talking about one behind Guam, or Cuba and Venezuela, Iran in the Gulf or Oman.

[swerve]

If the Governments agree to host a Russia air or naval base in the future there is no reason as to why that can't put them where they want to.
Now you've highlighted that you mean Algeria, can you please
1) say what pipelines this might protect, & what the hell they have to do with Russia - which buys no oil or gas whatsoever from Algeria, & has a purely commercial interest there (Russian companies getting some revenue from Algeria);
2) enlighten us as to how a Russian base in Algeria will do this -
Russia may put a base there to keep as a preventative measure to protect the infrastructure in the EU

[XaNDeR]

Grand Danois

Russa may not be a superpower anymore , but it still has the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world , its military is modernizing and meanwhile the USA is stuck in Iraq and Afganistan and the high oil price is nothing but a advantage to Russia , thats why they are starting to stand up for their interests lately more than before, they are trying to say that they will not accept everything the US comes up with that suits their own interests and ignores that of Russia, USA policy was very rotten under the bush administration and getting worse and it didn't only piss of Russia but the whole world community especialy in europe ,just look at the polls what people think of bush lately.

[Stryker001]

I remember Putin for the phone call on Sept 11 standing down his forces as the US went on alert, for the access to supply lines if the Pakistan ones became unusable. Killing the Chechen commander prior to the G8 and a lot of other things.

Regardless of how this ends Russia is still going to have at least 3 to 4 naval battle groups, in the future if they choose to. Even if they had the ability to have 5 or 6 they are much smaller carriers than the US navy, so the US has air superiority.

Interesting you mention the oil close to war with Iran a few months ago and now close to war with both Russia and Iran perhaps a world war if the PRC don't stay quite and take Taiwan.

Yet the oil price is stable $115US per barrel Geopolitical conflict can push crude and gas higher or bottom the market. Stability is the key I think every one from the Kingdom of Saud, Iran, Russia, the US etc, would agree that an elevated but stable price that can withstand geopolitical threats is best for the economies.

The market has being inoculated or a psychological subjugate has been installed to geopolitical threats and hence the markets stay stable, the spike was pushed until it burst, a bit like the market has been brainwashed and can't see the real and true threat level.

A few months ago people would have believed the oil price would be $180US per barrel.

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois

Russa may not be a superpower anymore , but it still has the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world , its military is modernizing and meanwhile the USA is stuck in Iraq and Afganistan and the high oil price is nothing but a advantage to Russia , thats why they are starting to stand up for their interests lately more than before, they are trying to say that they will not accept everything the US comes up with that suits their own interests and ignores that of Russia, USA policy was very rotten under the bush administration and getting worse and it didn't only piss of Russia but the whole world community especialy in europe ,just look at the polls what people think of bush lately.

It is Kremlin who defines what has been and what is slight to Russian status.

[bey1919]

russia can have naval base in syria and not all nato members share same interest about the central asia, forexample turkey and usa are not on the same line iraq war changed lots of things you can also see pakistan isn't happy with US moves in afghanistan so in coming years much active politics we will see from russia in central asia
[Mod edit]
For the third time - look at the rules. In particular, Rule 18 - punctuation. & spelling. http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
Continuing to ignore these requests will eventually result in suspension from the forum.
[/Mod edit]

[waraich]

russia can have naval base in syria and not all nato members share same interest about the central asia, forexample turkey and usa are not on the same line iraq war changed lots of things you can also see pakistan isn't happy with US moves in afghanistan so in coming years much active politics we will see from russia in central asia
[Mod edit]
For the third time - look at the rules. In particular, Rule 18 - punctuation. & spelling. http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
Continuing to ignore these requests will eventually result in suspension from the forum.
[/Mod edit]

Agreed.Russia is gaining strength slowly but still need time to get momentum,US policies is facing tough time in both iraq and Afghanistan fronts.
Now US generals are thinking to increase the forces in afghanistan but in gurilla war numbers does not count much ,Russia was defeated by Afghan Pakistan Alliance through these Gurilla tactics.

ISI have trained talaban and their victory is in favour of pakistan also ,otherwise there is chance india will establish permanent basis in Afghanistan .It will not be in favour of pakistan and will also lose strategic depth in Afghanistan.

China is also not infavour of US-Allied forces victory in Afghanistan .It will weaken the influence of china in southeast asia .


Indian and US nuk deal is also not favour in pakistan.Pakistan actually never feel confort able with any india US deal which make india more economically stronge because they have many conflicts under solution like kashmir,water distribution of chenab river is most recent one.

[SABRE]

ISI have trained talaban and their victory is in favour of pakistan also ,otherwise there is chance india will establish permanent basis in Afghanistan .It will not be in favour of pakistan and will also lose strategic depth in Afghanistan.

This is no longer Pakistan's policy. Talibans have been more harm to Pakistan recently then to Afghanistan itself. Nevertheless; Pakistan would prefer a party in Afghanistan that would be anti-Taliban as well as anti-India/US & pro-Pakistan. However, Pakistan is strongly trying not to intervene in Afghanistan's internal matters.

The concept of Strategic Depth is also no longer valid.

China is also not infavour of US-Allied forces victory in Afghanistan .It will weaken the influence of china in southeast asia .

China may not be in favor of US presence but they also find it in their interest that US continues to fight against Taliban which would then divert militants' attention from it's Xinjiang province. On the other hand US would also remain tied up in an un-ending war.

I don't think Afghanistan has any connection to South-East Asia. Afghanistan is in complete different region far away from East Asia. Afghanistan's importance is that it sits between Iran, Pakistan, China & Central Asian Republics - a heavily resource rich region.


Indian and US nuk deal is also not favour in pakistan.Pakistan actually never feel confort able with any india US deal which make india more economically stronge because they have many conflicts under solution like kashmir,water distribution of chenab river is most recent one.


Coming back to the topic ... what does NATO has to do with it?

[waraich]

This is no longer Pakistan's policy. Talibans have been more harm to Pakistan recently then to Afghanistan itself. Nevertheless; Pakistan would prefer a party in Afghanistan that would be anti-Taliban as well as anti-India/US & pro-Pakistan. However, Pakistan is strongly trying not to intervene in Afghanistan's internal matters.

The concept of Strategic Depth is also no longer valid.



China may not be in favor of US presence but they also find it in their interest that US continues to fight against Taliban which would then divert militants' attention from it's Xinjiang province. On the other hand US would also remain tied up in an un-ending war.

I don't think Afghanistan has any connection to South-East Asia. Afghanistan is in complete different region far away from East Asia. Afghanistan's importance is that it sits between Iran, Pakistan, China & Central Asian Republics - a heavily resource rich region.



Coming back to the topic ... what does NATO has to do with it?

Pakistan has always very important role in Afghanistan and will remain because trible pustoon are living on both side of Pak-Afghan boarder.Their livihood is interdependent.

Strategic depth still have importance for pakistan even after nuke capabilities , pakistan dont want indian strong basis in their back yard.

Talaban had never dispute with china in past,if there is any please tell us?

South east asian countries get benefit of energy resourses of central asian states if there peace restored in Afghanistan through pakistan and india.

NATO has long term term plan to stay in Afghanistan to get benifits of strategic location of Afghanistan ,they also need alternative energy resources .

[SABRE]

All discussion on War on Terror (WoT) will be discussed here from now on: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8380

No new threads allowed without the permission of mods or admin.

As for this thread; it was purely designed to discuss how now can coup up with challenges on Multiple Frontiers e.g. Example in former Easter Europe, Russia etc ... & not just Afghanistan. So I suggest everyone to expand & broaden the scope of discussion here on that level.

[marcellogo]

That is...
The outcomes of Georgia's defeat worries me a lot.:shudder
They have spent a much higher share from their budget than all NATO's nation (except the USA, obvious), they buyed some of the more sofisticated and trendy western-stile weaponry and one of the worst equipped ( but with more combat experience) division of russian army:nutkick...in just five days
My opinion is that someting went wrong in the western (united states) way of fighting and, above all, organizing an army...
All-volunteer forces, extremely light and mobile, shaped for unconventional warfare and relyng on very high tecnological assets to gain battlefield superiority.
Ok, wake up! Sure, you have very sofisticated network enabled radio equipment, lovely NVG and digitalized camo, so you can fight at night with the same easy that on midday,your new light trucks can resist to the most destructive Ied and the new javelin missiles are the BEST in the world, five time better than old dragoons (Only pity that they cost fifteen times more), but it is not night now, it's 10 o'clock time, you are in Georgia and that noise that you and your platoon hear now it' s an armored russian regiment coming right up to you, so shoot your six missiles fast and run faster... because they can have only T-62m and bmp-1, but they are still an armored regiment and you are still a light infantry platoon.

[swerve]

That is...
The outcomes of Georgia's defeat worries me a lot.:shudder
They have spent a much higher share from their budget than all NATO's nation (except the USA, obvious), they buyed some of the more sofisticated and trendy western-stile weaponry and one of the worst equipped ( but with more combat experience) division of russian army:nutkick...in just five days
My opinion is that someting went wrong in the western (united states) way of fighting and, above all, organizing an army....
Really? That's a remarkably broad conclusion to draw from one very small war.

[kato]

Seriously, the minimum with which the Georgian Army - in a western layout - would have been anything remotely like a threat to Russia would have been if they had matched the "standard" HRF outfit that the Dutch Military or German Intervention Forces are built to. Minimum.

Actually, i think i'll go and design a thread around said concept sometime, contrasting the two (seemingly) very close military layouts designed for both regional warfare and initial-entry within allied operations. Conceptually particularly interesting as both layouts are supposed to integrate within a single Corps in NATO operations.

To bring this into focus: NATO does have standardized (or rather: co-designed) army layouts conceptually capable of fighting such wars. Georgia didn't use 'em, and wasn't even remotely equipped to the same levels.

[marcellogo]

To bring this into focus: NATO does have standardized (or rather: co-designed) army layouts conceptually capable of fighting such wars. Georgia didn't use 'em, and wasn't even remotely equipped to the same levels.

Thank you,Kato, you put it in the correct terms, what I'was trying, maybe in a too sarcastical way, to tell.
Only one precisation to be more clear, it's not about equipment it is about structure of army, also if the two tank companies that every georgian brigate got, would have been equipped with leopard 2a6, the result wouldn't be changed.


Really? That's a remarkably broad conclusion to draw from one very small war.
Swerve: if you call a very small war, one in which the weaker part employed five professional infantry brigades plus called the full mobilitation of the national guard,
we can, using the same scale, consider actual Afgani and Iraqi missions to be no more than intervention to sedate gangs riots.

Obviously I don't drew that conclusion only considering that not at all small war alone, let's better say that it was a remarkably exact confirmation of all the doubs and criticism that I had about the actual trends in western defence in the last two decades (Oooh yes, two decades, before the Bush/Ramsey "War on terror" there was Clinton's "Peace dividends", remember?, presidents change, but :bullçhit remain the same)

More to come:O2...stay me well

[roberto]

any one had read this story. Entering financially weak nations to NATO can create disasters.


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/datelinedc/s_600623.html
Inside the NATO breach
Much of what NATO does is secret; it must be since it holds all of the military strategy and tactics of the Pentagon and our 25 allies. But this belief fell apart this month when Estonia, the tiny country on the Baltic Sea with just more than a million people, announced that two top government officials, a husband and wife team, had betrayed NATO's most intimate secrets to Russia.

And this major espionage scandal is top secret in Europe.

If NATO were considered successful under President Bush, the other shoe has since dropped and its darkest side is now visible in Estonia. Within NATO, when it comes to accessing secrets, small countries are treated exactly the same as the great powers

[swerve]

Swerve: if you call a very small war, one in which the weaker part employed five professional infantry brigades plus called the full mobilitation of the national guard,
we can, using the same scale, consider actual Afgani and Iraqi missions to be no more than intervention to sedate gangs riots.
It was a very small war in geographical scope & duration. The total manpower mobilised, & theoretically available, isn't necessarily significant, & in any case, is much less than you think, & far less than in Afghanistan or Iraq. 5 professional brigades? How many professional soldiers do you think they had? And how many were officers & NCOs in units with conscript privates? The Georgian army had 5 infantry brigades in total, of which one (the 5th) was not fully formed, & most of one (the 1st) was in Iraq. even of those present, many, including most of those National Guard units, do not seem to have had an opportunity to fight.

The Georgians were - pretty obviously - unprepared, however much they may have thought otherwise. Their command & control seems to have fallen apart fairly quickly once targeted. Although their air defences managed to inflict losses on the Russian air force, they could not prevent, or even inhibit significantly, its operations, & the almost immediate destruction of their own very small air force rendered the Georgians unable to interfere with Russian reinforcement or resupply.

The war rather resembles the Iraq war of 1991, on a much smaller scale. It demonstrates that a geographically constrained force subject to unrestrained air attack on its entire territory has lost the war before it starts.

It is hard to see how this can be considered a failure of the western model. In this case, the Russians were employing a model somewhat resembling that of the USA, for which command of the air is central.

[marcellogo]

Thank you for the well argumented response, still i'm still stuck to my tesis.
Probably more explanation are here necessary: first Georgia, before that war was referred as a role model of the armed forces that the United States wants his own :rolleyes:allies:rolleyes: to have, all its army organization, and ORBAT was a DIRECT result of Us training programmes and in a more broader wiews to their political desiserata, the same fact that there was more georgian soldiers in Afganistan than italians and germans are a consistent prove of it.

The Georgian Orbat (and what that make me really shatter, living in Croatia, the most part of "new Europe" states) is shaped on a light infantry only, intervention force (that's the point, a dedicated and well determined light infantry can stop tanks/mechanized forces, Vukovar and Lebanon are very striking examples of that, but the georgian professionals failed in that).

A thing in which I totally disagree with you is your description of this conflict and above all the stated similarities with the Kosovo peace enforcing mission ( excuse me, I still stick to consider it and the actual afgan and Iraqi mission, something different from a classic war, also a little one), are you sure are not mismatching one with the other? The Georgia war was one of land battles, in which the aviations of both played a role, but the georgian defeat was on battlefield, not a months long air strike onlymission like in the former case.
And another things, I had read that when the georgian professionals used their high tecnology equipment, just in the way they are intended for ( by night, in ambush or hit-and run tactics and so on) the get very good results, critic is not about their own performances or personal valour, its about the defence model we are in .

[swerve]

A thing in which I totally disagree with you is your description of this conflict and above all the stated similarities with the Kosovo peace enforcing mission
I didn't have that in mind, but the Iraqi wars of 1991 & 2003, & the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. The last is a god example, where an army which was losing was suddenly enabled to win a rapid victory, with the aid of well-directed air power.

BTW, why did the USA train the Georgians in light infantry tactics? Not because it is the Western model of warfare, nor to fight the Russian army, but for two reasons.

1. For deployment in Iraq.
2. For counter-insurgency operations in Georgia. e.g., along the line of control in Abkhazia.

The Georgian army was not light infantry only. It had plentiful armour & artillery, which fought & lost to the Russians. They had no western training that I know of for the heavy forces, but still followed a Soviet model of use.

I still don't understand why you see this war as having any relevance to the validity of different models. I see it as a poorly-led army getting into an ill-planned war for which it was not prepared & had not trained, & suffering accordingly. Also, I do not understand why you insist on calling an army with a substantial conscript component "professional".

[kato]

A thing in which I totally disagree with you is your description of this conflict and above all the stated similarities with the Kosovo peace enforcing mission
Kosovo was not a peace-enforcing mission, the conflict in the country was not remotely at a level signifying a multi-fronted assault against multiple combateers. Kosovo was a pre-planned invasion utilizing the equivalent of two groups that would run as NATO NRF Corps nowadays; the immense air power volume utilized reduced the land components of this Double-Corps to a "hold"-strategy invasion only though.

[Waylander]

@Marcello
I still don't get why you think that the Armed Forces of Georgia are similar in terms of equipment, training, command & control capabilities, etc. to western forces?

Do you really think that the russian forces used in this conflict (numbers, quality, equipment, air and sea support) would have been able to ruin the day of let's say the equivalent of 4 mechanized brigades from Germany, GB or France?

Swerve already hit the main point.
The US trained their light forces for operations in Iraq or against rebells and not to fight a conventional war against Russia.

And while lighter forces are more liked these days it is not like the west disbanded it's heavy forces.
A light force like some Striker Brigades or some even lighter paratroops from first rate NATO countries would have inflicted much more damage onto the advancing Russian forces if they would have been in the need to fight them over Abkhazia and it's capital.

[kato]

And while lighter forces are more liked these days it is not like the west disbanded it's heavy forces.

True. See the thread i posted yesterday portraying two battleforces with a NATO NRF-style layout.

[marcellogo]

Only we have to reach a consensus in term we use...

When you said for an istance:why did the USA train the Georgians in light infantry tactics? Not because it is the Western model of warfare, nor to fight the Russian army, but for two reasons.
1. For deployment in Iraq.
2. For counter-insurgency operations in Georgia. e.g., along the line of control in Abkhazia.
It sound to my ears in that way: The United States organized and shaped All the georgian army not for defend its own homeland from a possible (or better absolutely evident) external menace but :(1.for deployment in Iraq
2.for counter-insurgency operations...
Sorry, I thinked Georgia was an indipendent country, not a colony.
So, I'm asking you gentlemen:will any an you accept that some other will shape in the same way your own country's armed forces?

At the same way, when Waylander ask me: Do you really think that the russian forces used in this conflict (numbers, quality, equipment, air and sea support) would have been able to ruin the day of let's say the equivalent of 4 mechanized brigades from Germany, GB or France?
I can sincerely respond: I think that also four georgian mechanized brigades or also two mech and two lgt inf would have saved the day, if their masta allowed them to keep them...
Instead, if I can trust my sources, the Georgian army had only an indipendent tank battalion and one mixed heavy (Two tank companies and two bmp companies) for every brigade.
and I can also add that I don't only think i'm absolutely sure, that also a light infantry only force would have achieved it.
They have just did it.
Lebanon 2006
Vukovar 1991
Obviously they was been fighting their OWN war (for right or for wrong), they was not trained by americans: 1. For deployment in Iraq.
2. For counter-insurgency operations...

And you have to pardon me but... i am an italian living in Croatia (yes the one of Vukovar 91), and both these country are not keeping them as you say, they was instead developing toward that expeditionary only defence model,so after your replies i :shudder:shudder:shudder more than before...

[roberto]

As predicted. EU economic weakness/dependency led to denial of NATO expansion.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Europeans_urge_NATO_to_step_up_Russia_ties.html?si teSect=143&sid=10041740&cKey=1228235873000&ty=ti
Europeans urge NATO to step up Russia ties
Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said contacts were needed with Moscow at all levels. "I fail to see that we gain anything by limiting channels of communication," he said.
"Saying that the EU will relaunch relations with Russian and in the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) we meet Russia, and bilaterally we meet with Russia, but only NATO should be outside that, seems to be a strange weakening of our hand," he told reporters

The effect is felt practically rightway. No Alliances or Nations are willing to subsidize bankrupt nations.

http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/31505
Ukraine forms group to improve ties with Russia



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/setback-for-georgia-after-nato-rejection-1049064.html
Half a dozen European countries led by Germany and Italy pushed to resume "informal" ties with Russia, despite concerns that Moscow is still flouting a ceasefire deal that ended its war with Georgia. Washington had insisted that it was no longer possible to have "business as usual" between Moscow and Nato after the August conflict. "We must now look for ways of returning to dialogue with Russia because it is during especially difficult phases... that we need to hold discussions," said the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

The measures are a major disappointment for Tbilisi. "It will be hard to explain this to our people back home," Georgia's Foreign Minister, Ekaterine Tkeshelashvili, said. The Prime Minister, Grigol Mgaloblishvili, added: "MAP has taken on such huge symbolism in Georgia that I have even met people who have named their children Map. But of course, we do realise that what matters most is that we are on a steady road to membership."

[Feanor]

Of course NATO will resume ties with Russia. That has nothing to do with the economy, and everything to do with the fact that there are simply far too many things that require such cooperation, for example programs related to Afghan, or control on weapons and drug trafficking.

[swerve]

Only we have to reach a consensus in term we use...

When you said for an istance:
It sound to my ears in that way: The United States organized and shaped All the georgian army not for defend its own homeland from a possible (or better absolutely evident) external menace but :(1.for deployment in Iraq
2.for counter-insurgency operations...
Sorry, I thinked Georgia was an indipendent country, not a colony.
So, I'm asking you gentlemen:will any an you accept that some other will shape in the same way your own country's armed forces?...
What does this have to do with the original question? You are turning this into a political discussion.

As I've already said, this was only part of the Georgian army. It also had a tank battalion in each brigade, as you know. One tank battalion to two infantry battalions is a fairly normal ratio for a mechanised infantry brigade. Also, the USA had not (again, as I've already said) trained the tank battalions or the artillery, nor had it re-organised or re-shaped the Georgian army. It had trained parts of that army, to enable them to perform specific roles better. It left the other parts of the army, their organisation & equipment, untouched. The overall organisation & shape was chosen by the Georgians.

They had an armoured force which was proportionally large compared to western countries, not small, & the same for their artillery.

I ask you again: what does any of this have to do with the Western, or even the US, models of military organisation & warfighting, & their effectiveness?

[Awang se]

NATO commitment are so global, so much that this thread have a tendency to drift away.

And while lighter forces are more liked these days it is not like the west disbanded it's heavy forces.
A light force like some Striker Brigades or some even lighter paratroops from first rate NATO countries would have inflicted much more damage onto the advancing Russian forces if they would have been in the need to fight them over Abkhazia and it's capital.

Highly unlikely. Russia will simply laid siege to the city and bomb it to ruins just like what they did at Grozny. After the 1996 disaster in Grozny i doubt that russia had that much appetite for street to street fighting.

(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/setback-for-georgia-after-nato-rejection-1049064.html)http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-1049064.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/setback-for-georgia-after-nato-rejection-1049064.html)
Half a dozen European countries led by Germany and Italy pushed to resume "informal" ties with Russia, despite concerns that Moscow is still flouting a ceasefire deal that ended its war with Georgia. Washington had insisted that it was no longer possible to have "business as usual" between Moscow and Nato after the August conflict. "We must now look for ways of returning to dialogue with Russia because it is during especially difficult phases... that we need to hold discussions," said the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

The measures are a major disappointment for Tbilisi. "It will be hard to explain this to our people back home," Georgia's Foreign Minister, Ekaterine Tkeshelashvili, said. The Prime Minister, Grigol Mgaloblishvili, added: "MAP has taken on such huge symbolism in Georgia that I have even met people who have named their children Map. But of course, we do realise that what matters most is that we are on a steady road to membership."

Georgia are important to United States, but i doubt if it is as important to Europe.

Not that i agreed with Russia, but the US increasing involvement in the countries bordering Russia tend to invite skeptism.


Russia will have to come to terms with that it is not a superpower anymore.

Now, someone please tell me, what's the logic behind the sending of the British Fleet to the Falkland during the Falkland war? what's the point of wasting millions of Pounds for the territory as far away as Falkland? why don't just give it to Argentina and save both side a trouble of fighting a war? The answer, it was mostly pride. British once ruled half a world and the legacy carries on even when the days that the British ruled the high seas are long pass. Similarly, Russia was once a superpower. To be seen as being "defeated" by the west are a huge blow to the national pride. So it's natural that Russia will try their best with what they have to be seen as a superpower even though it was just for parade.

[Feanor]

I ask you again: what does any of this have to do with the Western, or even the US, models of military organisation & warfighting, & their effectiveness?

In Russian press in particular all discussion of the war in Georgian seems to focus on the idea that the Georgian army was a western-style army, and that the Russian victory was a victory of the Russian-style army over the western one. (the other side of the story is those who spend their time slamming Russian army performance and completely ignore the Georgian side of the equation)

I suspect this is where he is coming from. Now I have to say this rather mistaken idea is a press only thing. In reality if you look, it's Russia that's transitioning to a western-style army. During the conflict Russia used reinforced regiments (~brigades) and an operational command, rather then their divisional commands, to perform the operations. I think it was already mentioned that this was in large part an example of an Air Battle Doctrine being put to use (however poorly). The Russian military, judging by the reforms that emerged from the war, understands this very well, but for the sake of patriotism in the general public that's what's been fed to us.

Highly unlikely. Russia will simply laid siege to the city and bomb it to ruins just like what they did at Grozny. After the 1996 disaster in Grozny i doubt that russia had that much appetite for street to street fighting.

Except that Russia can't afford to do that when interfering on humanitarian grounds in the context of a Georgian aggression. I suspect we will see attempts to re-establish urban combat along the western model in the Russian Army. In fact I strongly suspect the Russian Army will be closer to NATO in structure of it's forces, long before the Ukranian or Georgian one.

Now, someone please tell me, what's the logic behind the sending of the British Fleet to the Falkland during the Falkland war? what's the point of wasting millions of Pounds for the territory as far away as Falkland? why don't just give it to Argentina and save both side a trouble of fighting a war? The answer, it was mostly pride. British once ruled half a world and the legacy carries on even when the days that the British ruled the high seas are long pass. Similarly, Russia was once a superpower. To be seen as being "defeated" by the west are a huge blow to the national pride. So it's natural that Russia will try their best with what they have to be seen as a superpower even though it was just for parade.

Huge difference. Ossetia is next to Russia, and instability there easily spreads across the border into the Russian N. Caucus, which is unstable already as is. The security concern there is very real, and Russia will need to have at least tentative dominance over the region in order to make sure that nothing like the Chechen insurgency rises again. This has rather gotten off topic so if you want to talk about that feel free to respond to me in the Flare Ups in the Conflict Zone thread, and we can try to examine further how much of Russia's actions were directed by need for self-assertion, and how much by legitimate security concerns. (or more interestingly is self-assertion itself is a legitimate security need)

[marcellogo]

As I've already said, this was only part of the Georgian army. It also had a tank battalion in each brigade, as you know. One tank battalion to two infantry battalions is a fairly normal ratio for a mechanised infantry brigade. Also, the USA had not (again, as I've already said) trained the tank battalions or the artillery, nor had it re-organised or re-shaped the Georgian army. It had trained parts of that army, to enable them to perform specific roles better. It left the other parts of the army, their organisation & equipment, untouched. The overall organisation & shape was chosen by the Georgians
Sweve, I based my assertion on which i read in italian specialized defense press, that usually tend to be quite reliable in this matter (unlike general one).

These sources quite unanimously states that:
- the armored battalion in georgian brigades are in fact mixed one( repeat, two tank coy & two mech (bmp) coy, others btgs are light motorized infantry. These brigate summed up the greay part of georgia's military.

-the georgian brigates was all, except one in transition process, all composed by professionals. Russian units are in the opposite a mixed professional/coscript forces, with a stronger, but still not exclusive, percentage of volounteers personnel

- Georgia spent a way higher percentage of its GDP in defence than nearly all Nato countries, and got equal or better equipment than most of the Nato eastern european members.

- the american and other western countries military advisors shaped the whole orbat and military doctrine of georgian military, that are not more based on former soviet model.

So if you say me that you have better sources that quite all my country specialized press... please, give me some reference and I will be eager to convene with you.
Maybe is better if we shift in a Georgian conflict analisis tread, so to not divert too much attention on this case only?

[roberto]

Well Russia has opened another door in latin america. I can forsee Russian Naval visits and training argentinians. I doubt in future war US/France is going to help Britain as Latin america is too big economically/politically to antogonize.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13362523&PageNum=0
Russia, Argentina to develop atomic energy, space cooperation – Putin


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/09/europe/EU-Russia-Argentina.php
Russia also expressed support for Argentina's position on the British-controlled Falkland Islands, which Argentina claims as its own

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13362343&PageNum=0
Russia and Argentina sign statement on strategic partnership

[ASFC]

What drivel!! :roll

There is no way anytime soon that Argentine can invade the Falklands-either from a military, political or financial perspective.

Latin America was too big to antagonize last time for the US. But they helped the UK. The US-UK relationship is stronger than any relations between Latin AMerica and either Russia or China.

And I should also point out that what Russia 'thinks' on the Falklands is irrelevant. It will never help Argentina invade sovereign UK territory-it would be an act of war against the Uk on Russias part.

[Feanor]

The expression of support is a purely symbolic. It has nothing to do with a real attempt to reclaim the Falklands.

[roberto]

What drivel!! :roll

There is no way anytime soon that Argentine can invade the Falklands-either from a military, political or financial perspective.
Actually u dont need very large military force to retake Falklands. Couple of diesel electric submarines with supersonic crusie missiles/airborne troops with flanker support/Real time satellite imaginary courtesy of Russians is all needed as most of British forces have already left.

Latin America was too big to antagonize last time for the US. But they helped the UK. The US-UK relationship is stronger than any relations between Latin AMerica and either Russia or China.
30 years ago US-Latin trade was not big nor was Latin Vote Bank in US. US cannot afford any more Chavez inside latin america.

And I should also point out that what Russia 'thinks' on the Falklands is irrelevant. It will never help Argentina invade sovereign UK territory-it would be an act of war against the Uk on Russias part.

They already expressed support to Argentinaian position. so it means they dont consider it as UK soverign terrotory because it is open to negotiation.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20081209/118770220.html
She also thanked Russia for its support of Argentina's attempts to bring London to the negotiating table in connection with the disputed Falkland Islands. The islands were the subject of a brief war between Britain and Argentina in 1982, and are currently controlled by Britain

What i can forsee is Russia interested in selling weopons and training Argentinaians as Russia will want to expand it arm export portfolio otherwise they will have problem with credit crunch in defence industry. Russian dont consider UK as independent power just like Poland so it doesnot want to negotiate. It will directly negotiate with Obama for direct bargaining on missile defence/Easter Europe/Middleast etc.
Argentinains will want to built its military to bring UK to negotiating table. Otherwise UK will have constantly put Naval flottilla there which is not cost effective.

[ASFC]

Actually u dont need very large military force to retake Falklands. Couple of diesel electric submarines with supersonic crusie missiles/airborne troops with flanker support/Real time satellite imaginary courtesy of Russians is all needed as most of British forces have already left.

They already expressed support to Argentinaian position. so it means they dont consider it as UK soverign terrotory because it is open to negotiation.


Are you serious?

Look at Argentinas forces. They barely have any operational Diesel Electric Submarines and none of them have supersonic anti ship missiles.

What the Russians think is irrelevent-if the UK considers the Falklands as UK territory then it will be viewed as an act of war for the Russians to get involved. Wake up. Do you want two nuclear powers to go to war??? Thought not.

Feanor summed up the situation nicely.

[roberto]

Are you serious?

Look at Argentinas forces. They barely have any operational Diesel Electric Submarines and none of them have supersonic anti ship missiles.
They can be quickly upgraded and Russia can lease submarines jut like it leased a submarine to India.

What the Russians think is irrelevent-if the UK considers the Falklands as UK territory then it will be viewed as an act of war for the Russians to get involved. Wake up. Do you want two nuclear powers to go to war??? Thought not.

Feanor summed up the situation nicely.
Russia consider entire Soviet Union its own zone of influence. They are creating interesting scenario for bargaining.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0xBv8YQwWSZqAQgjd42RCvU1uEAD94VR5U01
Russia warns West not to meddle in ex-Soviet Union



http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SAM12108.xml&headline=U.S.%20Sources:%20Iran%20Buying%20Russian %20SA-20s&channel=defense
U.S. Sources: Iran Buying Russian SA-20s
Dec 10, 2008
Senior U.S. government officials independently confirm that Iran is now "on contract" for the Russian SA-20 strategic SAM system, irrespective of Kremlin protestations to the contrary

A single battery of S-400 will deny EF/Tornado air superoirity over Fakland. If they are going to sell to Iran. I dont see any reason why Argentina cannot get it.