NATO vs Russia

[ORAC]

They keep on saying they’re already at war with the West - perhaps we should start listening?



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/poland-nato-russia-attack-three-years-g8rbpwr67

Nato has three years to prepare for Russian attack, warns Poland

The countries on Nato’s eastern flank have as little as three years to prepare for the possibility of a Russian attack, the head of a Polish national security agency said.

As Ukraine suffered a series of setbacks in its defensive war against Russia, and Europe and the United States have struggled to secure their next packages of military aid to Kyiv, attention is turning to the threat the Kremlin will pose to Nato (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/nato?page=1) if the conflict becomes “frozen”.

In a stark report, one leading German think tank has argued that the military alliance must be ready to fend off a Russian offensive within six to ten years. However, Jacek Siewiera, the chief of Poland’s National Security Bureau and a minister in President Duda’s chancellery, said the paper probably understated the urgency of the situation.

“Unfortunately this analysis is consistent with studies drawn up in the US,” he told Nasz Dziennik, a Polish Catholic newspaper. “But in my opinion the time frame presented by the German analysts is too optimistic. If we want to avoid war, the Nato countries on the eastern flank should adopt a shorter, three-year time horizon to prepare for confrontation.”

Siewiera added: “This is the time window when we have to create a capability on the eastern flank that would provide a clear signal deterring aggression. The arms industry in Russia is working in three shifts [each day] and can rebuild its resources within the next three years.”

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began last February, President Putin and several senior figures in his regime have alluded to possible long-term designs on Nato’s eastern-most member states (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-russia-gas-pipeline-finland-estonia-ukraine-war-2023-lzdxrnz0q).

There is particular concern about the three Baltic countries — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — which successive Russian governments since the early 18th century have identified as part of Moscow’s sphere of influence and “near abroad”.

In May Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister, said the regime would create new bases and 12 new “units or divisions” in its Western Military District next door to Nato’s eastern flank in response to Finland and Sweden’s moves to join the alliance (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/finland-joins-nato-military-alliance-ukraine-war-russia-2023-rt66xjz5p). Those plans have been deferred by Ukraine’s resistance for the foreseeable future, with the vast bulk of Russia’s fighting strength remaining bogged down in a war of attrition.

However, many analysts and Nato leaders worry that the alliance has only a limited period of time to bolster its defences as Russia scales up its military industry and puts in place a mobilisation machine that could sustain or expand troop numbers for years to come.

In an impassioned speech at the Körber-Stiftung’s annual foreign policy conference in Berlin last week Gabrielius Landsbergis, the Lithuanian foreign minister, said Russia was already at war with the West and on course to regenerate its military capacity next to Nato’s borders.

This month Christian Mölling and Torben Schütz of the German Council on Foreign Relations think tank wrote in a much-discussed report that the alliance was now in a “race against time” to fend off a Russian attack that could come within six years….

https://x.com/yasminalombaert/status/1731788581113401766?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


​​​​​​​Putin has issued a direct threat to Latvia, warning of a reciprocal response if the “mistreatment” of the Russian-speaking population in the country continues.

"I don't know the current percentage, but in Latvia, I believe, there was 40% of Russian-speaking population. If they continue such a policy towards people who wanted to live in that country, worked, created goods for that country, and if they are treated like pigs , then they will face such pig-like treatment within their own country," Putin stated during a conversation with members of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights.

[Lonewolf_50]

At greatest risk would seem to be the three Baltic Republics.

[jolihokistix]

Why do Russian-speaking communities, usually in the minority, become ticking timebombs, unable to assimilate peacefully within their adopted countries?

[Asturias56]

maybe they want to keep speaking their own language and have their old ways - lots of people in the USA and UK like that - or S Africa when you think about it

[jolihokistix]

Yes, but Russia uses the situation everywhere to drive in a wedge, take their side, and expand their influence in order to out the majority and justify further land grabs. Rinse and repeat.

[Spunky Monkey]

Yes, but Russia uses the situation everywhere to drive in a wedge, take their side, and expand their influence in order to out the majority and justify further land grabs. Rinse and repeat.

There is another culture that is trying to do the same it would appear. Its startling that governments for the last 20+ years believed trade would keep the world peaceful.
This brings greed and that greed creates more conflict.
We really need to be thinking about rearming properly and treating our service personnel like the guardians they are, not some public sector menial civil servant.
Currently the West is in the period of the 1930s, the writing is on the wall.
Instead of addressing the situation politics and the vocal idiots are dividing our countries and communities.
People are starting to harden their views towards the minority tail wagging the dog as they see the existential threat from Russia, China and Islamic Fundamentalism.
Its a pity the politicians are still trying to decide what a woman is, taking the knee and what pronouns are important to men with mental health issues.
I am more concerned that in 10 years my kids are having to wear a uniform to defend the real values of the West.

[gsa]

Why do Russian-speaking communities, usually in the minority, become ticking timebombs, unable to assimilate peacefully within their adopted countries?

Because they are not adopted countries, redrawing borders doesn’t create a country of peace and tranquility. This is historic, and is never going to go away until diplomats and countries learn how to work things out.

[jolihokistix]

Georgia generously allowed a huge number of fleeing Russians over their borders last year, potentially setting the scene for increased ethnic role reversal and land/enclave loss scenarios.

[pulse1]

I am fairly ignorant in these matters but, whenever I read these forecasts by military strategists, they never seem to refer to any economic restraints which may stand in the way of Russia's further ambitions. All the indications are that Russia will be short of cash and educated men. The latter they have either sent to their deaths on the battle field or encouraged them to leave for less hazardous homes. This must surely limit the speed at which they can rebuild their military power to take on NATO and replacing these men will take many years. Of course, on present form, it looks like Vlad would not recognise these limitations.

[dead_pan]

Never going to happen. Russia is a busted flush - they're never going to trouble the West militarily. Given their laboured efforts in Ukraine, I think we can all sleep easy.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Never going to happen. Russia is a busted flush - they're never going to trouble the West militarily. Given their laboured efforts in Ukraine, I think we can all sleep easy.
I completely understand your post but I beg to differ. IMHO Russia has learned 2 things in this war - they have learned that they are not as good as they thought they were, and they have also learned that the West's support for an ally is not as solid they thought - deliverises of weappns and equipment are sporadic at best. They know they can wait this out and the West will fold. They are prepared to rearm and fight a war of attrition - is the USA? (No...in case you were wondering)
Russia see's that despite the billions ploughed into the Ukraine war by the West, they are not losing. They see Western nations like the USA openly debating whether to support Ukraine any further. They see Trump, who is an openly communist Russian puppet, perhaps as the next President, and they are laughing all the way to Kiev. I cannot conceive of how utterly deranged someone needs to be to support Trump, but it is America, the land of Morons, so no surprise really...

The USA will probably elect Trump., and he will hand Ukraine to Putin. Putin will then go for the Baltic states, and Trump will let him.

I grew up in the USA and I loved the place, but it is now a weak vassal to Russia and China and if Trump becomes President it will become a slave.

[safetypee]

1877

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x1136/illustrationchronicles_fredroseoctopusmap1877_1500_8cd0cfeb0 4724493f73d9b3841653997c43f5bbd.jpg




2018

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x504/06d90e29_8343_4c45_97d4_28344aecb1df_rw_1200_870608b73ce74ff 094c713c17246240ab56ee49f.jpg




2024 … ?

[OvertHawk]

Russia is massively bogged down in Ukraine despite the fact that Western support for Ukraine is limited to funds and equipment and the use of that equipment is subject to significant limitations in terms of its use beyond the immediate theatre of conflict.

If they touch a NATO member western support will not be limited. NATO airpower and stand-off weaponry will be used to its full extent and Russian conventional forces will be overwhelmed.

This does not make me feel relaxed since the only option open to Russia at that point will be a bucket of sunshine.

I'd like to think that Putin and his cronies are not nuts enough to go down the route of attacking a NATO member but I really fear that they might be.

It is time for the west to nail its colours to the mast and end its indifference to the situation in Ukraine. This needs to stop in Ukraine or it will end up needing to be dealt with in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania or Poland.

[Less Hair]

Let's hope the next US presidential election does not lead to a US retreat from Europe.

[ramble on]

China in the background stoking the fire too.....supplying russia surreptitiously and smiling innocently at the west.

[Asturias56]

China in the background stoking the fire too.....supplying Russia surreptitiously and smiling innocently at the west.


Makes perfect sense to them - keeps much of American attention and forces elsewhere, uses up lost of Western kit , keeps the Russians in their place and beholden to China - and it doesn't cost them a single dollar or a single life

what's not to like

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Never going to happen. Russia is a busted flush - they're never going to trouble the West militarily. Given their laboured efforts in Ukraine, I think we can all sleep easy.

I am sure the same was said of Germany between the wars - even after the Nazis had come power.

Anyway, back in October, The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key RN, spoke at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as reported by USNI News here (https://news.usni.org/2023/10/23/u-k-s-first-sea-lord-key-outlines-royal-navy-response-to-attacks-in-israel):

Key said the United Kingdom’s growing interest in the Indo-Pacific “is a both/and, not an either/or” when it comes to its traditional emphasis on the North Atlantic and Europe. Even if the United States had to commit more naval forces to defend Taiwan, he cited the carrier cooperation agreement among the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain that “keeps balance” by deterring Russia’s naval ambitions.
---
The war, however, has not affected the Russian Navy’s submarine fleet. Likewise, Moscow’s strategic bomber force and nuclear missile force have not been affected by the war. Key also said the Russians have added five naval infantry brigades in recent years...

This is another thing worth reading:

‘We can do all of that’: Admiral says US can support Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan at same time (https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-12-04/pentagon-military-aid-ukraine-taiwan-israel-12257717.html?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru&SToverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d) - Stars and Stripes

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military can aid Taiwan along with Ukraine and Israel if the Indo-Pacific island came under attack from China, the Pentagon’s second highest-ranking officer said Monday.

“[They are] not necessarily the same things, so we are able to work our way through that,” Adm. Christopher Grady, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during a discussion at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank that studies international affairs. “Is it challenging? Sure, but as [Defense] Secretary [Lloyd Austin] said, we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

The United States has been providing billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine since the Russian invasion in early 2022 and recently began sending increased aid to Israel after the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas militants. The U.S. has said many times that it would also provide needed support to Taiwan if it was attacked or invaded by China, which considers the island a breakaway Chinese territory.

Giving aid to two countries involved in conflicts has already raised the question whether the support could put a strain on U.S. military capabilities and readiness. Some U.S. military leaders have said China could move on Taiwan as soon as 2027.

“According to some observers, Taiwan’s civil defense preparedness is insufficient, and Taiwan’s military struggles to recruit, retain and train personnel,” according to a report in September by the Congressional Research Service, a public policy research institute. “Some U.S. officials [have] publicly cited specific years in the mid-2020s as possible target dates for a [Chinese] attack on Taiwan, sparking alarm and reinvigorating debates among experts and policymakers about how to allocate limited time and resources to shore up Taiwan’s resilience.”

Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said earlier in the year that it might be “challenging” to keep U.S. and Ukraine troops armed if the defense industry cannot maintain adequate production of equipment and weapons. He later clarified his remark and said he fully expected industry production to keep up. Grady said Monday that giving aid to three allies can be done...

[ORAC]

Edward Hunter Christie is a Senior Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. He served as a NATO official from 2014 to 2020


https://x.com/ehunterchristie/status/1732858719082303699?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


We're on the verge of being check-mated by just one man, namely Vladimir Putin.

He overreached so much, we could've wrecked him, his regime, his expeditionary forces, and to some extent even his country. But he could count on his cattle-like population to just obey, obey, obey.

And he could count on decades of chosen weakness on the part of European leaders to simultaneously give him tons of money and power by buying his oil and gas and refuse to have any serious military strength.

And he could count on the West's nuclear policy "experts" to be fully predictable little meat robots - all he had to do was imply a few threats and the seed of fear was planted, guaranteeing that no American troops, and no European troops, would stand in his way.

And he knew he could count on, especially, Biden, Scholz, and Macron being ultimately too afraid to directly stop him.

Once the key Western states were on an intermediate trajectory of helping Ukraine somewhat, but not too much, and with any strong actions completely off the table, he then only needed to gradually erode the resolve of the Western world and to create distractions and diversions elsewhere.

In that, he could count on the incredible brittleness of American democracy, where you can brainwash tens of millions of voters just by buying some key influencers, which in turn gets you half of one of the two political parties to get legs of jelly in front of Moscow while they talk bombastically about everything but Moscow.

Sensing the weakness dish was close to ready, he did the same trick he'd done in 2015, when he'd seen he couldn't get more in Europe - open a 2nd front (at that time, Syria, and then our elections).

First, he's been tearing through the Sahel region with near-complete impunity, expelling France while America remained passive.

Then he tested the waters: what if Iran openly helps Russia to attack Ukraine? Can the war be broadened, or will the West smack Iran down?

We did nothing of any seriousness, and so the aid only continued - Iranian Shahed drones are raining down on Ukraine on a regular basis to this very day. And that also emboldened Iran within the Middle East.

Putin likely encouraged the Iranians and Hamas to attack Israel, but even if he didn't, it's clear that our failure to act against Iran made the Hamas attack against Israel more likely.

This opened a second front in the global confrontation of the revisionist states against the Western order, and a perfect excuse for weak-willed Republican politicians to pretend to be strong by supporting Israel while dropping Ukraine.

And it isn't over.

God knows what Putin is about to do to the oil markets, but he obviously visited KSA and UAE for that reason, and the Iranians visiting Moscow today can hardly be a coincidence - in addition to everything else they would wish to coordinate.

And where are we now?

US assistance to Ukraine is on course towards drying up and it cannot be fully replaced, even with massive efforts on the European side. Just as critically, longer-range weapons aren't being sent, F-16s aren't being sent.

And we also have unchecked obstacles to helping Ukraine coming from Turkey, from Hungary, from Slovakia, even from Poland. This is catastrophic, and it is pathetically weak and dishonourable, too.

There is much blame to go around. But more than that, the costs and the dishonour are disastrous.

Those who have the misfortune of being trapped within the Russian sphere of control will be crushed in a neo-Stalinist purge. The Middle East will continue in semi-controlled and costly chaos. China is emboldened and arming up fast.

Europe still hasn't properly woken up and can't handle its own neighbourhood.

​​​​​​​And America's prestige and place in the world are crumbling for all to see.

[henra]

I am sure the same was said of Germany between the wars - even after the Nazis had come power.

Don't think so. What do you think where the massive British armament initiative latest post Munich 1938 came from. I 'm sure they saw the writing on the wall. They were just not ready yet.

[Lonewolf_50]

Don't think so. What do you think where the massive British armament initiative latest post Munich 1938 came from. I 'm sure they saw the writing on the wall. They were just not ready yet. The US revived the draft in 1940 when they weren't even in the war yet (aside from a few sailors in the North Atlantic). The US Army held the Louisiana Maneuvers in the summer and fall of 1941, even though we were not in the war yet.
Someone saw the writing on the wall ...
The Louisiana Maneuvers were a series of major U.S. Army exercises held in August to September 1941 in northern and west-central Louisiana, an area bounded by the Sabine River to the west, the Calcasieu River to the east, and by the city of Shreveport to the north. The area included Fort Polk (now Fort Johnson), Camp Claiborne and Camp Livingston. The exercises, which involved some 400,000 troops, were designed to evaluate U.S. training, logistics, doctrine, and commanders. Similar U.S. Army field exercises carried out in the fall of 1941 included the Arkansas Maneuvers in August and the Carolina Maneuvers in November.

[Asturias56]

well Europe and a lot of the rest of the world had been in flames for over a year so it didn't need a genius to see what was might happen

Tho" Roosevelt, acutely aware of strong isolationist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism) and non-interventionist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism) sentiment, promised there would be no involvement in foreign wars if he were re-elected." so there was pressure to keep the head firmly in the sand though the campaign,

They clearly started preparation before the actual election date in Nov 1940 with the draft law in September 1940 but it took almost another year before they started those military exercises

[Uplinker]

A worrying and convincing post @ #18 - (not sure Orac, if you were quoting or commenting yourself?).

But the picture is very worrying - we might be seeing the beginning of World War 3.

I am not a conspiracy theorist...but..... Russia and China could be working together to defeat the West. China could have invented and engineered the Covid virus to weaken the West mentally and physically, (they might well have all had the antidote before the virus was released, and are just making up infection figures in their own countries). Russia and China could have meddled and influenced political elections in Europe and the USA, (and probably Brexit as well), the aim being to destabilise the West. China is flooding markets with goods, undercutting and reducing Western countries' own manufacturing capability - which could be an issue if the West needs to start making arms and war machines.

The UK armed forces currently seem to be concentrating more on gender issues and ethnic minorities, than actually recruiting the very best personnel - more evidence of political meddling behind the scenes from Russia and China ?

Apparently Finland have recently closed all their border crossings with Russia, because the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers from Somalia etc into Finland via its border with Russia has suddenly increased hugely, and this is known to be owing to Russian involvement.

The boat crossings of enormous numbers of immigrants into the UK are therefore probably also organised or at least heavily encouraged by the Russians, with the aim of destabilising the UK further, having already split the UK away from Europe. Other countries, such as The Netherlands and France are apparently also finding immigration to be causing big problems. As are Italy and Greece.

Immigration to the USA via Mexico could be engineered and/or encouraged too, to destabilise the USA.

Meanwhile, China is apparently placing military 'assets' on small uninhabited islands in the seas around Japan and Taiwan, as well as sabre rattling.

Then we have the provocation of Israel by Hamas, and the resulting war, sponsored no doubt by Iran.

America, and the UK - to mention just two countries - seem to have been vulnerable in recent years to the election of ineffectual or crazy Presidents/Prime Ministers. Has election meddling, via social media, been going on?

The UK armed forces and hardware assets are a fraction of their previous complement. Would we and NATO be able to prevent and defeat an invasion by Russia of the Shetland islands and the Faroe Islands ?

Putin has just announced that he will stand for a sixth term - and it is hard to believe that he will be defeated in the elections. He and his ego seem to want a big place in history, and starting a World War would certainly give him that.


Please tell me I am imagining all this and am just having a bad dream.

[DogTailRed2]

Militarily could NATO defeat Russia? Yes, definitely.
Politically? Depends on the circumstance. If NATO was attacked directly possibly. Depends how many casualties the West can take. If NATO decided to attack Russia. No. Political loss.

[DaveReidUK]

A worrying and convincing post @ #18 - (not sure Orac, if you were quoting or commenting yourself?).

It's a quote, for which Orac kindly included a link to the original.

[Ninthace]

Uplinker - it is a bad dream, don't worry.

[Uplinker]

Phew !

I really hope so.

(thanks for the clarification, Dave R, and thanks ORAC).

[henra]

Please tell me I am imagining all this and am just having a bad dream.

You are imagining this and you are just having a bad dream.

It pretty likely is less constructed and more the result of ongoing trends and problems plus individual considerations. Covid and the hasty retreat from Afghanistan plus political instabilities due to people in Western Countries becoming dissatisfied by Globalsiation (Loss of self esteem providing industry jobs to cheaper Countries + only small elites really profiting) plus overboarding Migration (>20% of the population in many Western Countries have a migration background of max 2 Generations) had seemingly opened a 'Window of opportunity' for Putin. For Xi this rather came too early. Putin has wakened up the West before he could create facts in Taiwan. Iran is free riding with Russia binding Western Ressources and is having huge difficulties at home which they urgently need to cover with an external foe.

[Lonewolf_50]

Interesting news from Germany and Lithuania. Formalizing something they brought up during the summer.
A new agreement between Germany and Lithuania will lead to German troops' first permanent foreign deployment since World War II.
About 30 years late... (the fact of deployment, not the location)
The announcement was made Monday in Lithuania, where Defense Minister Arvydas Anusauskas met with his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, to outline a multiyear "Roadmap Action Plan" involving approximately 4,800 permanently stationed German soldiers. Both officials called the move a historical moment (https://www.newsweek.com/nato-poland-lithuania-estonia-1831230) not just for their nations but for NATO (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/nato) as well.German troops, including those with families, will be stationed in the Lithuanian cities of Kaunas and Vilnius (https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-nato-bid-failed-vilnius-german-pressure-1814568) beginning in 2024, with most troops deployed in 2025 and 2026 and full-operation capability expected by 2027. In turn, Lithuania has committed to providing all necessary civilian and military infrastructure.
Source: Germany Will Deploy Troops for First Time Since World War II (newsweek.com) (https://www.newsweek.com/germany-will-deploy-troops-first-time-since-world-war-ii-1853409) I wonder how the integrated air support bit (Germany has a combined arms doctrine) fold into this brigade.

[MightyGem]

The Armageddon Song series of books, Andy Farman, give a version of a Russia v NATO war in Europe, based on how we thought it would go during the Cold War. Given the performance of the Russian Army in Ukraine, I don't think we'd have too much to worry about. Apart from the fact that it would be over by Christmas, as we don't have the ammunition for it to last much longer.
https://www.goodreads.com/series/171225-armageddon-s-song

[DogTailRed2]

Russian Front
I wonder how Russia will modify it's next generation of armoured vehicles now that it has (most likely) captured examples of most of the stuff we have given to Ukraine?

Western Front
Do we have the political creativity and money to fight a major war? The UK is already several trillion in the hole before we start.

[grizzled]

Given the performance of the Russian Army in Ukraine, I don't think we'd have too much to worry about.

Re NATO: Whilst I agree with the usual assessment that any actual invocation of Article 5 by NATO would result in the obliteration of much of Russia's military capabilities within a day (likely starting with the destruction of the Black Sea fleet within hours -- or even minutes -- of the start of hostilities), I place no credence in the notion that we (the "West") would have nothing to worry about. I believe it is dangerously naive to think that Russia would ever accept defeat without using nuclear weapons. And once that happens -- even if it starts with a small "tactical" nuke (hah!), we ALL will have much to worry about.

[Less Hair]

We must make it totally clear that they will see the bright light as well if anything sinister should ever happen to NATO territory. It might become necessary to demonstrate this will in real life as they might test us, like dropping the soap intentionally. Just look at those drones near Constanta.

[Lonewolf_50]

R.E.M. had a song about that.
https://youtu.be/Z0GFRcFm-aY

[TURIN]

Reading this thread I've almost filled in my conspiracy bingo card. Just need a bit of flat earth to get a full house.

[wondering]

Vlad won´t openly attack a NATO country. However, he will try all the asymmetric destabilizing tricks available to him. If the West doesn´t get it´s **** together, it will be the end of the post WW2 order.

[Lonewolf_50]

....Vlad w it will be the end of the post WW2 order. It's already done, my friend.
The UNSC is dead in the water. If nothing else, Vlad and Xi proved that in 2022. Sad but true.

[mopardave]

I completely understand your post but I beg to differ. IMHO Russia has learned 2 things in this war - they have learned that they are not as good as they thought they were, and they have also learned that the West's support for an ally is not as solid they thought - deliverises of weappns and equipment are sporadic at best. They know they can wait this out and the West will fold. They are prepared to rearm and fight a war of attrition - is the USA? (No...in case you were wondering)
Russia see's that despite the billions ploughed into the Ukraine war by the West, they are not losing. They see Western nations like the USA openly debating whether to support Ukraine any further. They see Trump, who is an openly communist Russian puppet, perhaps as the next President, and they are laughing all the way to Kiev. I cannot conceive of how utterly deranged someone needs to be to support Trump, but it is America, the land of Morons, so no surprise really...

The USA will probably elect Trump., and he will hand Ukraine to Putin. Putin will then go for the Baltic states, and Trump will let him.

I grew up in the USA and I loved the place, but it is now a weak vassal to Russia and China and if Trump becomes President it will become a slave.
Hmmmmm, so what's the alternative because I'm sure Sleepy Joe won't be causing Pooten or Xi too many sleepless nights.

[fitliker]

R.E.M. had a song about that.
Great band from Athens , Georgia
Go UGA

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/12/20/netherlands-to-boost-north-sea-surveillance-to-deter-seabed-threats/

Netherlands to boost North Sea surveillance to deter seabed threats

PARIS — The Netherlands plans to spend as much as €250 million (U.S. $274 million) on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities in the North Sea to protect the cables and pipelines that crisscross the seabed off its coast.

The Defence Ministry will mount cameras, radar systems and automatic identification system trackers on drilling platforms and offshore wind turbines, as well as buy satellite capacity to observe ship movements, Defence Minister Kajsa Ollongren and State Defence Secretary Christophe van der Maat wrote in a Dec. 19 letter to lawmakers (https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2023Z20553&did=2023D50387).

The Netherlands also plans to buy two vessels with underwater monitoring technology.

“This capability helps deter potential perpetrators of sabotage and espionage,” Ollongren and Van der Maat wrote. “Improving the protection of the vital infrastructure on the North Sea has the full attention of the cabinet.”

Seabed warfare has become a hot topic for European nations (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/01/09/europeans-wade-into-fighting-seabed-threats-with-drones-and-sensors/) ever since last year’s attack on the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea. On the Dutch continental shelf, there are about 2,796 miles of pipeline and 3,728 miles of cable. The government considers offshore infrastructure essential to the Dutch economy and national security.

The current threats are primarily surface vessels carrying out “undesirable underwater activities,” according to the two officials. The government has assessed that there are presently no unmanned underwater vessels that can conduct sabotage operations in the Dutch-controlled area of the North Sea without the support of a surface vessel.

The ministry plans to buy commercial satellite capacity to track ship movements, including so-called dark vessels that turn off their automatic identification system transponders, until the Netherlands can build up its own satellite assets starting in 2027. The military will also monitor sea areas adjacent to the country’s area of responsibility in the North Sea to detect vessels that may pose a threat.

The costs of boosting the Dutch ISR capability in the North Sea will be between €50 million and €250 million, according to the letter.

The government in June announced a plan to develop its independent military satellite capacity (https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/e0a119cb-c888-4286-ba0b-b7b3b2150571/file) through a constellation of satellites, within a spending bracket of €100 million to €250 million.

The Netherlands’ plan to acquire two “relatively simple” ships for a small crew would help monitor underwater activities, according to the ministers. Those ships will also serve as anti-air missile carriers for Dutch air defense frigates.….

[ORAC]

https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1752374016386412769?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Anders Puck Nielsen, a military expert, has published a YouTube video in which he discusses whether Russia can indeed attack NATO and whether a Russia-NATO war is really possible. His line of thought looks logical to me, so I want to share his conclusions with you.

Mr. Nielsen argues that, while Russia is indeed unable to launch a full-scale invasion against NATO countries, it is quite capable of attempting to break the Alliance apart. Russia is interested in establishing a new geopolitical reality in which NATO ceases to exist and Russia can have bilateral relations with each country separately, not through an "umbrella" of an alliance.

Russia might start by launching a small "military operation" on just one NATO country - Northern Finland seems a possible location. The scale of the strike should be enough to "trigger" Article 5, but not large enough for a guaranteed full-scale response by the NATO forces.

In that case, Russia would watch NATO's response closely. If other NATO countries (and the US, in particular) will decide that it is not necessary to get involved due to the "minor" nature of the incident, that would effectively mean that NATO Alliance is over. And that opens a lot of favorable opportunities for Russia.

If, on the other hand, NATO acts clearly and decisively and shows that the Alliance is indeed willing to go to war for a small piece of "insignificant" land, it is probable that Russia will back off.

What do you think about this scenario?

Source: https://youtu.be/ZY7GPBSyONU?si=VSlzvJwKucWlSPPb

[Ninthace]

Anders Puck Nielsen, a military expert, has published a YouTube video in which he discusses whether Russia can indeed attack NATO and whether a Russia-NATO war is really possible. His line of thought looks logical to me, so I want to share his conclusions with you.

Mr. Nielsen argues that, while Russia is indeed unable to launch a full-scale invasion against NATO countries, it is quite capable of attempting to break the Alliance apart. Russia is interested in establishing a new geopolitical reality in which NATO ceases to exist and Russia can have bilateral relations with each country separately, not through an "umbrella" of an alliance.

Russia might start by launching a small "military operation" on just one NATO country - Northern Finland seems a possible location. The scale of the strike should be enough to "trigger" Article 5, but not large enough for a guaranteed full-scale response by the NATO forces.

In that case, Russia would watch NATO's response closely. If other NATO countries (and the US, in particular) will decide that it is not necessary to get involved due to the "minor" nature of the incident, that would effectively mean that NATO Alliance is over. And that opens a lot of favorable opportunities for Russia.

If, on the other hand, NATO acts clearly and decisively and shows that the Alliance is indeed willing to go to war for a small piece of "insignificant" land, it is probable that Russia will back off.

What do you think about this scenario?

Source: https://youtu.be/ZY7GPBSyONU?si=VSlzvJwKucWlSPPb
I am sure this thesis was discussed recently on another thread ORAC.

[Lonewolf_50]

It sure was, and his entering assumption is necessary but invalid.
However, Putin may test the waters to see what happens.
FAFO.
--------------
Aviation content. Within the past day German jets intercepted Russian aircraft flying close to their (or was in NATO?) airspace.
Maybe Vlad is just living out his second childhood by getting a Second Cold War underway. He's not a young man ...

[NutLoose]

Swedens Ratification for NATO membership has stalled as Hungary did not turn up.

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1754510895818907659

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1754510895818907659

[Herod]

Swedens Ratification for NATO membership has stalled as Hungary did not turn up.



https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1754510895818907659

I thought Hungary had come on side, after Sweden settled some problem concerning the Kurds. Get an agreement, then change your part of it???

[Tartiflette Fan]

I thought Hungary had come on side, after Sweden settled some problem concerning the Kurds. Get an agreement, then change your part of it???

When you say " problem concerning the Kurds. " think Turks.not Hungarians. Orban's bête noire is the EU blocking funds ( 10 billion Euros ) to Hungary because of what they see as anti-democratic developments ( interference in justice system, dealing with asylum seekers, homosexual rights etc )

[Herod]

MY bad, of course Turkey.

[Lordflasheart]

...
From the Kyiv Post Jan 31st 2024 ...- ... https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/27402

Article by Andrei Piontkovsky ...
Donald Trump winning the November general election in the US would be a dangerous disaster for the US, Ukraine, and the West, essentially installing an instrument of the Kremlin in power in Washington, much like in the classic “The Manchurian Candidate” novel and subsequent films.
...
LFH

[nomorecatering]

An interesting perspective on the question of nukes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH-UtO9clvc

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/11/donald-trump-says-he-would-encourage-russia-to-attack-nato-countries-who-dont-pay-bills

Donald Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little

[jolihokistix]

Putin was looking at attacking Japan and possibly even taking Hokkaido, but then switched focus to Ukraine.

Trump used to complain constantly that Japan was not paying for the upkeep of US bases in Japan, as if he had heard nothing about the heavy and increasing subsidies US bases already receive there.

This latest outburst (on top of the US Steel buyout block) sounds as if he is encouraging Putin to attack 'NATO allies' anywhere, even, or especially, in Asia.

[safetypee]

"Donald Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little"

Suggests that Trump cannot count as far as 5; article 5 of the NATO charter.
Conversely if you break a commitment then who will trust whom.
'Trust and verify - carry a big stick', but waving a big stick at your allies does not ensure that trust will follow, nor that the resultant situation will reduce US costs long term.

[BANANASBANANAS]

"Donald Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little"

Suggests that Trump cannot count as far as 5; article 5 of the NATO charter.
Conversely if you break a commitment then who will trust whom.
'Trust and verify - carry a big stick', but waving a big stick at your allies does not ensure that trust will follow, nor that the resultant situation will reduce US costs long term.

Like much of what Trump says and does, I have a certain amount of sympathy for what I believe he tries to achieve but he is about as subtle as a train crash in his execution.

[pr00ne]

Like much of what Trump says and does, I have a certain amount of sympathy for what I believe he tries to achieve but he is about as subtle as a train crash in his execution.

What?!

You have sympathy for the view that you should encourage Russia to attack NATO states that don't meet the 2% commitment?

Insane...

[Andy_S]

What?!

You have sympathy for the view that you should encourage Russia to attack NATO states that don't meet the 2% commitment?

Insane...

I think BANANASBANANAS was categorising Trump's 'encouragement' of Russia as poor execution rather than sympathy......

[pr00ne]

I think BANANASBANANAS was categorising Trump's 'encouragement' of Russia as poor execution rather than sympathy......
Still insane...

[Sue Vêtements]

I have a certain amount of sympathy for what I believe he tries to achieve

You sound as if you think he's actually motivated by something other than "what's in it for me?"

[DogTailRed2]

Like much of what Trump says and does, I have a certain amount of sympathy for what I believe he tries to achieve but he is about as subtle as a train crash in his execution.
Most of what Trump spouts is made up childish unverifiable rhetoric. He is extremely dangerous and should be kept out of power.

[Rescue3]

"Most of what Trump spouts is made up childish unverifiable rhetoric. He is extremely dangerous and should be kept out of power."

Most of what Trump............ IMHO I would say ALL of what he sprouts is..............

In the same vain, IMHO, I would say Biden is in the same boat. But that's American politics and, i think, the mindset of the American voter led by the "catchy one liners" and glitzy rallies.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Rather ironic that Trump is castigating organizations for not paying their bills, when he is notorious for stifling everyone that does business with him, including his own lawyers.

[safetypee]

"But that's American politics and, i think, the mindset of the American voter led by the "catchy one liners" and glitzy rallies."

Regression of Thought:
'Democracy is in crisis on every continent:…' ' … an increasingly technocratic world, the progress of knowledge is unable to conceive the complexity of reality, especially human realities. This leads to a return of dogmatisms and fanaticisms, as well as a crisis of morality with the unleashing of hatreds and idolatries.'
https://footnotes2plato.com/2024/02/03/the-progress-of-knowledge-has-led-to-a-regression-of-thought-by-edgar-morin (https://footnotes2plato.com/2024/02/03/the-progress-of-knowledge-has-led-to-a-regression-of-thought-by-edgar-morin/)

Also Truth:
'We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool about in their dreams. All the dictators up to now have had to work hard at suppressing the truth.
We, by our actions, are saying that this is no longer necessary, that we have acquired a spiritual mechanism that can denude truth of any significance.
In a very fundamental way we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world.”
https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2024/02/02/truth-post-truth-and-post-fake/

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth

[BANANASBANANAS]

What?!

You have sympathy for the view that you should encourage Russia to attack NATO states that don't meet the 2% commitment?

Insane...

You obviously didn’t read my reply properly. I believe that Trump is simply trying to get other NATO countries to pay their fair share - and that is fair enough. The way he is going about doing that (stating that he would not defend countries who had not paid their share) is about as subtle as a train crash.

Why do some countries think they can pay less than the minimum amount? Is it not right that they should be called out on this? I may disagree with the manner in which they are being called out but it is right that they should be called out imho.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Still insane...

I disagree. Are you saying it is wrong to call out NATO members who have consistently paid less than the minimum agreed amount. I may not agree with the way Trump is going about it but he is quite right to call out countries who are not contributing as they should.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Most of what Trump spouts is made up childish unverifiable rhetoric. He is extremely dangerous and should be kept out of power.

That’s a separate discussion. On this particular subject he makes a very good point in a very bad manner.

[Lala Steady]

That’s a separate discussion. On this particular subject he makes a very good point in a very bad manner.
No, he just keeps the media focus on himself - that's all, no ulterior motive or underlying reason, just doing what he has done in the past - dominating the media with ever more outrageous statements.

[Plastic787]

The 2% is guideline it is in absolutely no way mandated. Go read the charter. Trump is frankly insane at this point.

[BANANASBANANAS]

The 2% is guideline it is in absolutely no way mandated. Go read the charter. Trump is frankly insane at this point.

That is open to interpretation and the ‘agreement’’ does need tightening up. On the one hand the document does make reference to ‘guideline’ but then goes on about ‘an agreement’ to contribute a minimum of 2% of GDP each year.

Quote:The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation.
Unquote:

In which world can it be both an agreement and a guideline?

Similarly, is there a single reason why any NATO country cannot contribute 2% of its GDP? The inference is clear. Some countries want gold standard cover at cut rate premiums.

[Less Hair]

They agreed to move towards the goal of two percent GDP defence spending. Which they do. They did not commit to pay two percent right away.

[mopardave]

That is open to interpretation and the ‘agreement’’ does need tightening up. On the one hand the document does make reference to ‘guideline’ but then goes on about ‘an agreement’ to contribute a minimum of 2% of GDP each year.

Quote:The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation.
Unquote:

In which world can it be both an agreement and a guideline?

Similarly, is there a single reason why any NATO country cannot contribute 2% of its GDP? The inference is clear. Some countries want gold standard cover at cut rate premium.
And one country wants gold standard cover F.O.C. whilst continuing to snipe at its nearest neighbour and throwing its weight around in Europe......yes, I know they aren't a full member. Just saying.

[Herod]

As for Donald's comments, a recommended book for every America voter before November. "Too Much and Never Enough", by Mary Trump, his niece. Subtitled "How my family created the world's most dangerous man". It gives a good understanding of his mindset. Written during his first, and hopefully only, term in office.

[BANANASBANANAS]

And one country wants gold standard cover F.O.C. whilst continuing to snipe at its nearest neighbour and throwing its weight around in Europe......yes, I know they aren't a full member. Just saying.

I think we all know that it is best to win the war with Russia in Ukraine, rather than have to fight it in the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Moldova etc, ourselves. My view is very simple. If you think the price of beating Russia in Ukraine is high, try letting Russia win in Ukraine - the price of that will be astronomical. Now is not the time to save a few cents on defence spending in any NATO country.

[BANANASBANANAS]

They agreed to move towards the goal of two percent GDP defence spending. Which they do. They did not commit to pay two percent right away.

But that 'agreement' was signed in 2006. Thats 18 years ago and they still aren't there!

[SWBKCB]

Taken from the Guardian article linked above - I think just about sums it upAnother Republican who spoke in support of Trump’s comments was Florida US senator Marco Rubio. Rubio sought to downplay the meaning of Trump’s remarks, made two days after former Fox News host and Trump ally Tucker Carlson conducted a lengthy, virtually free-ride interview with Putin.

“Trump was talking about a story that happened in the past when he was president,” Rubio told CNN. “He didn’t pull us out of Nato, and American troops are stationed throughout Europe then as they are today.”

“Donald Trump is telling a story,” Rubio continued. “He’s not a member of the council on foreign relations. He doesn’t talk like a traditional politician, and you’d think people could have figured that out by now. He said Nato was broke or busted until he took over because people weren’t paying their dues and he used leverage to get them to step up to the plate.”

[Timmy Tomkins]

The country with the highest % of GDP in NATO is Greece. US number 2. Given the economic problems Greece had to face, it doeas seem unlikely that others couldn't meet the 2% "guideline"

[Less Hair]

The German government has declared they will meet two percent this year and midterm every year.

[West Coast]

The 2% is guideline it is in absolutely no way mandated. Go read the charter. Trump is frankly insane at this point.

Where’s the line? If a member drops down I’ll spending to .001% of GDP, is that acceptable?

[Sue Vêtements]

You obviously didn’t read my reply properly. I believe that Trump is simply trying to get other NATO countries to pay their fair share

I'm sorry but I disagree with you here. It's my opinion that he doesn't care one way or another about anything other than himself and by extension the base that he needs to put him and keep him in power

And we fall for this EVERY TIME. We're now talking about what he said, not what he's done and will do in the future if given the chance, and we're also giving him yet more free advertising. Remember the toilet paper on the shoe? That distraction kept everyone busy for several days and gave him cover to do other things

It's the oldest conjuring trick in the world - make them focus on the wrong hand

[BANANASBANANAS]

I'm sorry but I disagree with you here. It's my opinion that he doesn't care one way or another about anything other than himself and by extension the base that he needs to put him and keep him in power

And we fall for this EVERY TIME. We're now talking about what he said, not what he's done and will do in the future if given the chance, and we're also giving him yet more free advertising. Remember the toilet paper on the shoe? That distraction kept everyone busy for several days and gave him cover to do other things

It's the oldest conjuring trick in the world - make them focus on the wrong hand

What his personal motives may be do not concern me one iota. I just asked myself whether or not he raised a valid point - albeit in a bad way, and my answer was and is, Yes.

This is the NATO V Russia thread, not the Trump thread.

[henra]

I disagree. Are you saying it is wrong to call out NATO members who have consistently paid less than the minimum agreed amount. I may not agree with the way Trump is going about it but he is quite right to call out countries who are not contributing as they should.

He is right in doing so. The way he does it though has a good chance of leading to terrible misunderstandings including WWIII. Putin may mistake the message meant for the allies as an invitation to do stupid things with unexpected consequences. Unclear messaging/expectations has invited Putin to his last stupidity. Had he known what he knows now, he surely wouldn't have done that. Would be sad if Vlad finds out that invading Norway upon a stupid invitation by the Orange guy finally led to extinction of mankind.

[BANANASBANANAS]

He is right in doing so. The way he does it though has a good chance of leading to terrible misunderstandings including WWIII. Putin may mistake the message meant for the allies as an invitation to do stupid things with unexpected consequences. Unclear messaging/expectations has invited Putin to his last stupidity. Had he known what he knows now, he surely wouldn't have done that. Would be sad if Vlad finds out that invading Norway upon a stupid invitation by the Orange guy finally led to extinction of mankind.

I think even Putin isn’t daft enough to be guided by the comments of a former POTUS.

But, all the more reason to keep the $ flowing to Ukraine and for other NATO countries to ensure they are ready - most are not.

[henra]

I think even Putin isn’t daft enough to be guided by the comments of a former POTUS.

Oh, not now. But maybe once this guy is back in office. Don't expect more measured comments from him, should this happen. Putin has shown to be susceptible top miscalculation...

[Lonewolf_50]

If he gets back into office, what happens if he takes the initiative to send the one year notice that the US is leaving NATO?
I don't think that will happen (the real estate / basing is far too valuable) either one, but what it if does?
What is Plan B among the other 31 NATO nations?

[42psi]

As with anything to do with international politics and agreements its rarely simple.

The 2% seems a reasonable attempt to try and find a way to balance across a huge range of diverse economies.

But it is a broad brush stroke. For example the US is likely to always be spending such an amount, or more, due in part to it's non NATO commitments around the world.

The 2% can be further distorted by countries having different allocations made from military budgets.
Defense research, coastguard services, intelligence services etc. The more you count as defence spending the easier it is to reach the 2%.
For example some countries regard the coastguard service as a military force, others as more akin to a hybrid police/border/rescue service.

It's always a problem when using a broad measure across a large range of diverse entities that it's sometimes comparing apples with oranges and tomatoes.

The 2% is a credible attempt to find a balance, but it's not perfect.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/warmatters/status/1757304132510052510?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


THREAD: a Russian analysis of EU military capability

“Above all, SVR analysts predict that Europe will take 15yrs to rebuild its own stocks, at least!

For more than a decade, Russia will therefore consider that Europe is vulnerable & it intends to take advantage of it”…

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757131048784159071.html?utm_campaign=topunroll

The Russian SVR (equivalent to our DGSE) has released an in-depth analysis of European military capabilities.

Spoiler alert: the result is catastrophic.

Let me explain how they got there and why it's such a big deal for us.

First of all, the GU (Russian military intelligence) has the habit of observing factory production to draw up an inventory of our resources. The SVR did it differently: they noted the figures for deliveries to Ukraine and the compared to those announced.

They were thus able to determine the production of each national industry, and compare it with Ukrainian needs. They were therefore able to see the delta between what Ukraine needs and what we can provide.

So much for the method, now for what their report says.

At the speed at which the Europeans are producing munitions, we will only be able to meet Ukraine's needs in 2025. So 3 years late, which is already quite shameful and catastrophic strategically speaking, but it is not all...

Above all, SVR analysts predict that Europe will take 15 years to rebuild its own stocks, at least! For more than a decade, Russia will therefore consider that Europe is vulnerable and it intends to take advantage of it.

The rest of the report encourages Kremlin decision-makers to capitalize on this weakness by taking “hybrid war measures” against Europe. The objective being to divide the Europeans, disperse their attention and secure a victory in Ukraine for Russia.

The GU would have reached the same conclusion, except that it established a list of munitions factories to monitor and potentially sabotage.

We are very late, Russia knows it, it sees it, and it is organizing itself to hurt us as much as possible. What does that mean exactly?

Already, this SVR analysis report is intended for the Kremlin and the National Security Council. It is from this type of documents that political decision-makers (Putin) will make decisions. This shows the importance.

The recommendations that the Kremlin will receive from its foreign intelligence service are literally to harm us as much as possible. Our weakness is identified, it is targeted and Russia just needs to press on the wound. So we are only at the beginning.

Then, the observation drawn up by the SVR is even worse than I thought: It will take us at least 15 years to rebuild our own stocks?! Realize the degree of Europe's unpreparedness for conflict after 2 years of war on its borders.

This report also comes right at a time when the risk of Donald Trump being re-elected is growing every week. And I remind you that Trump is ready to dynamite NATO, and it doesn't matter what Russia plans to do behind it. At least that's what he says.

The source of this information is the excellent intelligence journal Intelligence Online. It should therefore be taken very seriously and gives us a good idea of ​​the possible evolution of Russian-European relations in the years to come.

This is another opportunity to sound the alarm and force Europe to wake up and stop taking peace for granted. We are entering a new era where our naivety and our wait-and-see attitude will cost us enormously, at all levels.

We must not forget that during this time, Russian factories are running at full capacity and they are preparing for a direct confrontation. Without going into an arms race with Russia, we must invest massively and quickly in our common defense…

I'll give you the link to the article for those who can read it:

* [behind paywall]

https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/renseignement-d-etat/2024/02/12/munitions-europeennes--le-svr-livre-ses-conclusions-sur-les-capacites-de-production-alliees,110157230-art

[Asturias56]

Politicians don't do complex....................

[FUMR]

Well, there's always the nuclear deterrent eh?

[NutLoose]

We must not forget that during this time, Russian factories are running at full capacity and they are preparing for a direct confrontation. Without going into an arms race with Russia, we must invest massively and quickly in our common defense…

But that is Cold War part 2.

They ran to keep up with the west and bankrupted themselves so the wall fell, with sanctions and the masive reduction in Russian energy use, helped along by Ukraine targetting their infrastructure, I would have thought they have a limited time before it happens again, and on the other side of the coin, a lot of the production machinery is now western manufactured and one hopes we will sanction those, so their refineries, manufacturing and infrastructure will gradually fail with no replacements being forthcoming.

[t43562]

But that is Cold War part 2.

They ran to keep up with the west and bankrupted themselves so the wall fell, with sanctions and the massive reduction in Russian energy use, helped along by Ukraine targeting their infrastructure, I would have thought they have a limited time before it happens again, and on the other side of the coin, a lot of the production machinery is now western manufactured and one hopes we will sanction those, so their refineries, manufacturing and infrastructure will gradually fail with no replacements being forthcoming.

In other words perhaps our game is to do enough to deter Russia and improve our situation without giving ourselves an economic crisis that would inevitably create political ones? I was reading about NGAA (Next Generation Adaptible Ammunition) for example - a type of 155mm ammunition that could be made with commercial steel. It's designed so that production can be expanded quickly using civilian factories. This sort of thing is obviously appealing.

[ORAC]

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240212-germany-scholz-mass-production-european-arms-defence

Germany's Scholz calls for urgent 'mass production' of European arms

Speaking at the groundbreaking ceremony for Rheinmetall’s new munitions factory, Scholz said European nations must pool together orders and financing to provide the defence industry with purchase guarantees for the next decades.

“This is urgently necessary because the painful reality is that we do not live in times of peace,” he said, pointing to Russia’s war on Ukraine. “We must move from manufacturing to mass production of armaments,” he said, arguing that “those who want peace must be able to successfully deter aggressors”.

Weighed down by its militaristic past, Germany has in recent decades been circumspect about its defence forces and armaments industry. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 upended Berlin’s post-World War II pacifist tendencies, and forced its transformation into a proponent of heavy rearmament.

Germany is now Ukraine’s second biggest weapons contributor, and Scholz has been vocal in pushing other EU nations to give more. What happens in Ukraine will decide “if our peace order, our rules-based world has a future,” said Scholz, adding that Russia must “fail with the attempt to swallow its neighbour by force”.

The chancellor also reiterated that armaments pledges from other EU nations for Ukraine were still insufficient.

The EU has set up a joint financing mechanism to meet Ukrainian demand for weapons, but the bloc has struggled to make good on promised deliveries. Brussels pledged to provide a million artillery shells to Ukraine by March 2024, but the EU last week admitted it can only produce just over half that by the deadline.

Scholz underlined that it was key to shift gears from years of under-investment in the defence sector to building up much-needed production capacity. “Tanks, howitzers, helicopters and air defence systems are not lined up on the shelves. If nothing is ordered for years, then nothing is produced,” he warned.

Rheinmetall’s new factory in Unterluess is scheduled to begin production in 2025 with an initial production run of 50,000 shells a year, before progressively reaching its full annual capacity of 200,000.

Putting the volume in perspective, Scholz said that thousands of shells are fired on a daily basis at the frontlines in Ukraine currently. In addition, the German army’s own weapons store was “rather empty” even before the war.

Rheinmetall’s boss Armin Papperger said the aim of the new factory is to help secure Germany’s “strategic sovereignty in the large-calibre ammunition domain”.

The company is aiming to churn out up to 500,000 shells this year overall, a seven-fold jump from the 70,000 annual production before the Ukraine war.

[wondering]

Well, there's always the nuclear deterrent eh?

Will it still be there if Trump becomes the next US president?

Of course, the UK and France won't have to worry too much.

[NutLoose]

Germany's Scholz calls for urgent 'mass production' of European arms

Irony:

Telling the West they need to massively ramp up weapon production because of the threat of Russia invading European countries, while denying Ukraine the long range weapons that could have destroyed their bridge and supply lines thus thwarting Russias ambitions in the West.

You just couldn't make it up. The clowns are truly running the circus.

[DogTailRed2]

Irony:

Telling the West they need to massively ramp up weapon production because of the threat of Russia invading European countries, while denying Ukraine the long range weapons that could have destroyed their bridge and supply lines thus thwarting Russias ambitions in the West.

You just couldn't make it up. The clowns are truly running the circus.

I'm beginning to think this is how all wars begin. Phoney war, empathy, lack of resolve followed by the inevitable "maybe we should do something", followed by "lets do something" and finally "Oh s*it!" and everyone gets mobilised. Of course by that time it's a long drawn out affair.

[Lonewolf_50]

As ever, ORAC, you find some thought-provoking stuff. Thank you. One comment on this.
Without going into an arms race with Russia, we must invest massively and quickly in our common defense… Too late, that's already happening.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240212-germany-scholz-mass-production-european-arms-defence
Germany's Scholz calls for urgent 'mass production' of European arms
After 20 years of letting the muscles atrophy, you are asking for a personal max dead lift.
Not gonna happen.
But at least they are heading back to the gym.

Nutty, your Navy's carrier just go underway for a large NATO exercise...but...Royal Navy carrier HMS Prince of Wales (R09) departed its Portsmouth home port (https://twitter.com/RoyalNavy/status/1757048066731872351) on Monday to participate in a massive NATO exercise in place of carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R09), which was sidelined (https://news.usni.org/2024/02/05/u-k-carrier-hms-queen-elizabeth-sidelined-european-carriers-head-for-pacific) for repairs.

“Britain’s biggest warship today sailed for Norway to lead an international task group in one of the most important military exercises in a generation,” the Royal Navy announced (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2024/february/12/20240212-hms-prince-of-wales-sails-for-key-nato-exercise-in-norway) on Monday. The ship’s company made rapid preparations for the carrier to lead the the service’s participation in exercise Steadfast Defender 2024.

“I would like to congratulate the crew of HMS Prince of Wales for their hard work and dedication in rapidly preparing the ship for departure. The ability to deploy hundreds of crew to make ready one of the world’s most complex aircraft carriers within a week is testament to the skill and ability of the Royal Navy,” stated U.K. Defence Secretary Grant Shapps in the release.

Capt. Will Blackett, commanding officer of Prince of Wales, said the carrier was bought from a 30-day notice for deployment to immediate readiness in a single week through a monumental effort by the whole enterprise, including Queen Elizabeth, Portsmouth Naval Base and numerous defense and industry partners. “I am immensely proud of how my ship’s company and their families have responded to this short-notice tasking,” said Blackett in the release.
Well done PoW and crew for getting underway ahead of schedule... the signal from a USN-type Flag Officer would be "Bravo Zulu"

Speaking of USN type flag officers: Admiran Leighton "Snuffy" Smith was the man in charge at AFSOUTH back in 95 when the NATO ops in Former Yugoslavia went kinetic (USS Normandy's Tomahawk strikes in Serb air defense sites) and the IFOR deployment commenced.
Amongst his other awards:
Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Commander_of_the_Order_of_the_British_Empire) (invested personally by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom))
Aviation Content: Naval Aviator, flew A-4's and A-7's off of aircraft carriers. Passed away 28 November 2023.

Compare the state of readiness in NATO in 1995 to today. I'd say the Peace Dividend went a bit too far. :p​​​​​​​

[Not_a_boffin]

Compare the state of readiness in NATO in 1995 to today. I'd say the Peace Dividend went a bit too far. :p

Nail. Head. Hit.

Trouble was - although it was clear from about 2008 when that nice Mr Putin did his first dosido with Medvedev there was going to be trouble, no-one wanted to hear it, let alone do anything about it. Aside from the minor matter of dealing with some rather unpleasant adherents of the RoP in numerous places (instead of dealing with their enablers), there's a whole societal social care thing - an essentially bottomless pit - to fund. Not to mention an entire ED&I industry.

It's the old tale of knowing something is coming is one thing, wanting to deal with it, something else entirely.

That said, the Trumpton Loon aside, they'll have to be very careful not to provoke a Art V response. Given the performance thus far of their air and ground forces against an opponent with very limited long-range reach, they could find themselves losing a significant chunk of force structure in short order.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1757303616182907025?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Poland may obtain nuclear weapons in a few years

This was stated by Polish General Jarosław Kraszewski in an interview with RMF FM.

He called such a scenario quite realistic - within the framework of NATO's Nuclear sharing program. "I consider having such an arsenal as a task for several years. I hope it will happen," he concluded.

To the comment that there is a cost to owning and using nuclear weapons, General Kraszewski responded that "peace and security have no price."

[Lonewolf_50]

Why not pick up a few dozen from the French? The NPT is a dead letter anyway.

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent

UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister

Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent

The UK could contribute to a new European nuclear shield if Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump)becomes US president again, a senior German minister has suggested, drawing British politicians into the debate about how Europe’s security could be bolstered in the event of the Republican frontrunner winning in November.….

On Tuesday, Christian Lindner, the German finance minister and the leader of the Free Democratic party, called on politicians to consider an alternative model that could include British and French nuclear weapons.

In an article (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/christian-lindner-ueber-atomwaffen-an-abschreckung-festhalten-um-nicht-ausgeliefert-zu-sein-19516582.html) for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.

“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”…..

Manfred Weber, the German conservative who heads the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) grouping in the European parliament, has thrown his weight behind the debate. He said he did not rule out a European nuclear umbrella and called for “a new chapter” to be opened with London.

“Macron has already made a vague offer to talk about the importance of the French nuclear forces for Europe,” Weber said. “Now that Donald Trump is openly questioning the role of the USA as a protective power would be the right moment for this. The same applies to the British, with whom we should finally start a new chapter of cooperation after Brexit.”….

The UK has said its nuclear weapons would be available for use at the request of Nato’s supreme allied commander Europe, the alliance’s most senior uniformed officer, and that they would only be used “in extreme circumstances of self-defence including the defence of our Nato (https://www.theguardian.com/world/nato) allies”.

This offer, however, was made in the context of a US nuclear presence in Europe.

The Labour party has promised to intensify defence cooperation with Europe, including a commitment by the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, to reach an agreement with Germany within the first six months (https://www.politico.eu/article/labour-targets-defense-security-pact-eu-if-wins-general-election-uk-2024-sunak/) of taking office. But this modest pledge had nothing to do with the sharing of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

[WideScreen]

Beyond the "war on 2% and what is included", it's more important to realize "for what" the military spendings are intended. Where the US strives for supremacy around the world, the other Nato countries (it's in its name) have the intention for trans-Atlantic support. As such, divide the US military spending by 3 or so, to get the Nato contribution itself. Of course, we have spin-offs, reallocating, etc, though still, the "other members" % contribution is largely "inline", if not better than the US one, with the 2% target, available for Nato purposes.

Whenever Trump comes up with "something", be aware, that it's just wrong, out of context, etc. Lying without statistics......

[safetypee]

"Whenever Trump comes up with "something", be aware, …"

A concern about the Trump statement is that either he did not understand the background of NATO, particularly article 5; a view supported by comments made by other senior US law makers - they appeared not to know either.

Or alternatively it was deliberate; a threat to NATO members and its partnership necessary for mutual defence.

The first instance would question an individuals knowledge, recall or application, critical qualities for a national leader.

The second, similar but more serious, by the apparent deliberation of the challenge - how close to the line can we go. Such a position could be against national or international law. How is an individual to be judged; someone who incites an attack on an alliance of which your country is a member, an attack on one is an attack on all, where the statement effectively encourages an attack on the homeland.

How would the US government view another national leader doing similar, inciting an attack on NATO, as an attack the US.

Whichever, the statement does not aid the collective stance required for peace management or conflict resolution between NATO and Russia.

[GlobalNav]

"Whenever Trump comes up with "something", be aware, …"

A concern about the Trump statement is that either he did not understand the background of NATO, particularly article 5; a view supported by comments made by other senior US law makers - they appeared not to know either.

Or alternatively it was deliberate; a threat to NATO members and its partnership necessary for mutual defence.

The first instance would question an individuals knowledge, recall or application, critical qualities for a national leader.

The second, similar but more serious, by the apparent deliberation of the challenge - how close to the line can we go. Such a position could be against national or international law. How is an individual to be judged; someone who incites an attack on an alliance of which your country is a member, an attack on one is an attack on all, where the statement effectively encourages an attack on the homeland.

How would the US government view another national leader doing similar, inciting an attack on NATO, as an attack the US.

Whichever, the statement does not aid the collective stance required for peace management or conflict resolution between NATO and Russia.

Clearly he is being intentional. But it has little to do with preference for policy or concern over consequences. He is the “mobster” attracting attention, wanting control, worship even, at least. King of the mountain.

[Sue Vêtements]

Considering that Russia would "like Alaska back please" I think the residents of that state should be paying very close attention to current events

After all, it's not even connected to the lower 48

[henra]

“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”…..

I think in case that Orange guy should get the opportunity to enter the Throne again (and consequently possibly leaving NATO or at least dropping from commitments) Europe will have to seriously rethink it's Geostrategic approach. Including a significant increase in Nuclear Warheads and Carriers. MAD will have to be assured from UK + FR (+ possible nuclear sharing of their assets by other European Countries). And: Yes the costs for this cannot be taken by UK and FR alone. I would asumme something in the Ballpark 1000 major nuclear warheads would be a good target. Mainly strategic Nuclear weapons. For tactical ones I see only limited use. A handful of them should sufficient. Once the 10th tactical nuke has been fired it's anyway time for the final. They don't have a real military pupose any more. There will be no (and as we now learned never really have been) 30.000 Modern Tanks rolling through a narrow western Germany and needing immediate stopping.
Practical difficulty may be that UK doesn't have Aircraft deployed nuclear bombs/missiles and the French nuclear bombs won't be easy/possible to integrate into F-35. Either Countries buy Rafale or they just get 'assurances' by France/UK for a financial contribution. It is a bit sad that these thoughts have to be intensified but looking at the late statements of that guy in the current situation it would be a big risk not to prepare for such a possible scenario. Russia will only respect if they have to fear complete and terminal destruction.
On the conventional side if Poland and to some extent Germany stick to the Up- Arming and Ammunition production plans I'm not so concerned. But the European Nuke stick needs to get way bigger. I don't understand Stoltenberg's reluctance on that topic. The message from Captain Orange was clear: If you nuke Europe, we won't nuke you.

[Lonewolf_50]

I think in case that Orange guy should get the opportunity to enter the Throne again (and consequently possibly leaving NATO or at least dropping from commitments) Europe will have to seriously rethink it's Geostrategic approach. Including a significant increase in Nuclear Warheads and Carriers. MAD will have to be assured from UK + FR (+ possible nuclear sharing of their assets by other European Countries). And: Yes the costs for this cannot be taken by UK and FR alone. I would asumme something in the Ballpark 1000 major nuclear warheads would be a good target. Mainly strategic Nuclear weapons. For tactical ones I see only limited use. A handful of them should sufficient. Once the 10th tactical nuke has been fired it's anyway time for the final. They don't have a real military pupose any more. There will be no (and as we now learned never really have been) 30.000 Modern Tanks rolling through a narrow western Germany and needing immediate stopping.
Practical difficulty may be that UK doesn't have Aircraft deployed nuclear bombs/missiles and the French nuclear bombs won't be easy/possible to integrate into F-35. Either Countries buy Rafale or they just get 'assurances' by France/UK for a financial contribution. It is a bit sad that these thoughts have to be intensified but looking at the late statements of that guy in the current situation it would be a big risk not to prepare for such a possible scenario. Russia will only respect if they have to fear complete and terminal destruction.
On the conventional side if Poland and to some extent Germany stick to the Up- Arming and Ammunition production plans I'm not so concerned. But the European Nuke stick needs to get way bigger. I don't understand Stoltenberg's reluctance on that topic. The message from Captain Orange was clear: If you nuke Europe, we won't nuke you. OK, take the worst case scenario.
1. Joe B loses, Captain Orange wins.
2. In January he takes over. Makes noises about reconsidering/withdrawing from NATO. (Note: this past year Congress passed a law against unilateral withdrawal by the White House).
3. In ten to eleven months, what can be accomplished?
4. I have a surprise answer for you that is probably achievable:
Dear Europe:
Every NATO nation (save perhaps Iceland, and never mind Hungary, they've chosen to be a spoiler) can demonstrate a budgetary shift to meet the agreed goals, or exceed them (as some of our allies already have done) and basically call his bluff at the political level.
OK, we've done as you have asked, let's get back to business. Oh, by the way, the real estate where your people and air bases are sitting is quite valuable in terms of location. You are a long time real estate guy, you get location. Let's get down to brass tacks and make sure we still have a deal ...
Learn how to speak to him in his language. Not sure how that will work, but it's a possible path forward that isn't simply sneering at him to his face because you don't like him.
(Even though he provides ample reason for that dislike). Our country put up with and dealt with a variety of distasteful folks (Ferdinand Marcos comes to mind, as does Preve Musharraf in Pakistan) in order to achieve a particular goal.
Remember, he thinks it's all about him. Use that to your advantage. Work that angle.
Is that the easy button? No. But it might work.
5. Be prepared for that to not work, and do as henra suggests: fall in on France's independent deterrent and live with the fact that France now becomes more important. This will please the French to no end.

[henra]

OK, take the worst case scenario.
1. Joe B loses, Captain Orange wins.
2. In January he takes over. Makes noises about reconsidering/withdrawing from NATO. (Note: this past year Congress passed a law against unilateral withdrawal by the White House).

The problem with that is that deterrence depends on credibility. As soon as Captain Orange comes into Office and seeds serious doubts about his willingness to press the button (and I repeat: his putting of pressure on NATO members to pay their dues is fully OK for me but he conveys a different message - 2% or not I generally don't give sh*t about you being taken over by Russia), deterrence is immediately gone.
As a European I'm absolutely not keen on totally depending on France (I understood and fully share your view on how France would take this). But if the choice is France or nothing, France suddenly looks like a brilliant idea.

[Lonewolf_50]

The problem with that is that deterrence depends on credibility. As soon as Captain Orange comes into Office and seeds serious doubts about his willingness to press the button (and I repeat: his putting of pressure on NATO members to pay their dues is fully OK for me but he conveys a different message - 2% or not I generally don't give sh*t about you being taken over by Russia), deterrence is immediately gone.
As a European I'm absolutely not keen on totally depending on France (I understood and fully share your view on how France would take this). But if the choice is France or nothing, France suddenly looks like a brilliant idea. I am pretty sure that if Mr Trump makes a move to back out of NATO, he'll be in for a long, drawn out fight with his own Congress. Not sure how long that would take, nor how it would turn out.
If the US were going to leave NATO, the time to dissolve the alliance was in about 1993, before NATO decided to
(1) do out of area operations, beginning with former Yugoslavia
(2) get bigger and more unwieldy.
The decision for NATO to keep on going, and to eventually keep on growing was (IMO at the time) an application of the sunk cost fallacy.
But as it turns out, that's what the 16 nations all decided to do together, so here we are.

[Petit-Lion]

80 years after Nazi Germany collapse, it's about time that another European country (yes, even Germany) builds its own independent nuclear deterrence. France should be pleased to help. Not sure many would apply, though.

[Lonewolf_50]

80 years after Nazi Germany collapse, it's about time that another European country (yes, even Germany) builds its own independent nuclear deterrence. France should be pleased to help. Not sure many would apply, though. I would far rather the Germans have nukes than Pakistan.
Oops, too late. :uhoh:

[henra]

80 years after Nazi Germany collapse, it's about time that another European country (yes, even Germany) builds its own independent nuclear deterrence. France should be pleased to help. Not sure many would apply, though.
Knowing Germany first hand I can't really imagine this being supported by the public (and thus politics). At least not yet. That said If Germany was heading in this direction a better choice might be going with the UK. In Defence matters I see generally better compatibility with UK than with France -especially now that we are back to territorial defence in Europe. To put it bluntly: France is a Diva. And it is still more interested in its global footprint. Plus we still cannot rule out that the next French president might be Marine Le Pen.

[Petit-Lion]

We cannot rule out either that the next US president might be Donald Trump, and then the key word would be independent. However that doesn't matter so much as 4 or 5 years go by quickly in such an endeavour.
And I hinted at Germany (which could afford it but has no political will), but other countries (i.e. Poland) might show the will, but would need serious financial assistance...

[Sue Vêtements]

because you don't like him

That rather mises the point and overlooks the potential seriousness of the situation. You can always dislike the person in charge (even sometimes when you voted for them), but generally they'd have the country's best interests at heart whether or not you agreed with the policies being implemented.

America was founded because they rejected being subjects of a monarchy, yet now a significant portion of the population seem to want exactly that

[ORAC]

I know there is no current mechanism to expel anyone from NATO - but there have to be methods of limiting access to critical intelligence and strategic documents….

https://kyivindependent.com/china-offers-backing-to-hungary-on-security-law-enforcement/

China offers backing to Hungary in security matters, law enforcement

China has offered long-term support to Budapest in the security field, expanding mutual ties beyond economic cooperation, Reuters reported on Feb. 19 after Chinese Public Security Minister Wang Xiaohong's visit to Hungary.

Wang met Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Feb. 16 as the two countries aim to deepen their friendship and "strengthen communication and coordination in international and regional affairs," the Chinese state-owned news agency Xinhua said.

Under Orban, Hungary has been fostering close ties with authoritarian regimes like China or Russia, much to the dismay of its EU and NATO partners.

Wang reportedly said he hopes to open a new level of cooperation with the Central European country in areas such as combating terrorism and transnational crimes.

These efforts should also include security capacity building under China's Belt and Road Initiative, Reuters said (https://www.reuters.com/world/unusual-move-china-offers-back-hungary-security-matters-2024-02-19/).

During his stay in Hungary, Wang signed documents on law enforcement and security cooperation with Hungarian Interior Minister Sandor Pinter, according to Reuters.

A security pact between Hungary and China is likely to further strain Budapest's relationship with Western countries.

Orban has repeatedly undermined Western consensus on supporting Ukraine and countering Russia, delaying aid (https://kyivindependent.com/hungary-blocks-50-billion-euro-eu-aid-for-ukraine/) and sanctions (https://kyivindependent.com/financial-times-hungary-blocking-new-eu-sanctions-package-against-russia/). Hungary is also the last country that has not yet ratified (https://kyivindependent.com/us-senators-to-push-swedens-nato-bid-during-visit-hungary/) Sweden's accession to NATO.

In turn, Russia has been building a tight partnership (https://kyivindependent.com/explainer-chinas-increasing-role-in-russias-war-in-ukraine/) with China. While not providing direct military support, Beijing has continued deepening economic cooperation, refused to denounce Russia's aggression, and helped the country counter Western sanctions.…

[beardy]

I think that it's a wonderful opportunity to study Chinese methods and techniques. Well done the Hungarians!

[ORAC]

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1759354600329515155?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Russia issues threats against Norway over “sovereignty issues” in Svalbard

Russian Deputy PM Yuri Trutnev compares the situation there for Russians with Ukraine: “Today, our warriors are spilling blood for the sovereignty of our country & the right to speak Russian”.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2024/02/deputy-prime-minister-sends-warning-oslo-russian-rights-svalbard-must-not-be-challenged

The Russian deputy prime minister in charge of Far Eastern and Arctic affairs on the 13th of February sent a thinly veiled threat to Norway for its management of the Svalbard archipelago.

In a meeting in the so-called Government Commission on the Protection of Russian Presence at Spitsbergen, Trutnev signalled that Russian rights in the Norwegian archipelago are under pressure. “None of the rights and benefits acquired by Russia can be reduced or infringed. We do not have the right to move even a single step backwards,” he underlined (http://government.ru/news/50865/) in an opening remark.

With reference to the war in Ukraine, he added that “warriors are today spilling blood for the sovereignty of our country and the rights of people to speak the Russian language.”

As if comparing the situation in Svalbard with Eastern Ukraine, the deputy PM argued that it is all a question of ‘sovereignty.’ “I think that we should address the work here in Government the same way, that the work here is also a fight for our sovereignty, a fight for the rights of Russia and Russians,” he told the Commission members.

Trutnev also slashed the role of international cooperation. “I believe that everyone present understands well that now is not the best time for development of international cooperation. Probably, humankind is entering a phase of deepened conflict.”

In the meeting were more than 20 of the member of the commission, among them Ildar Neverov, leader of state-owned company Arktikugol.

In May 2023, Neverov and his Arktikugol together with the local Russian General Consulate, organised militaristic parades (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2023/05/russia-stages-military-style-propaganda-parade-norways-svalbard-archipelago)in the settlements of Barentsburg and Pyramiden. In Pyramiden, the parade included a tractor and excavator decorated with the flag of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2023/05/russian-separatist-flag-waved-svalbard).

Later that same year, Neverov invited Bishop Iakov, the hardline Russian churchman, and set up a major Orthodox cross in the hill over Pyramiden (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2023/08/russia-worlds-arctic-power-said-war-blessing-bishop-who-week-raised-giant-patriotic) without requesting permission from Norwegian authorities.

Trust Arktikugol is the company that operates the local coal mine in Barentsburg and manages the settlement and its about 400 inhabitants.

Since he was appointed head of Trust Arktikugol in 2022, Neverov has significantly stirred relations with Norway and its Svalbard Governor. The more assertive approach of Neverov and his team coincided with transfer of the Trust Arktikugol to the Ministry of the Far East and Arctic…….

It is far from the first time that Russia threatens Norway over its Svalbard policy. The far northern archipelago has repeatedly been in the spotlight of Moscow hardliners and in connection with the 100-year’s anniversary of the Svalbard Treaty in 2020, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insisted that Oslo engages in “bilateral consultations” (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2020/02/amid-jubilant-celebration-svalbard-norway-sends-strong-signal-it-will-not-accept)over the management of the islands……

Norway has full sovereignty over the archipelago in accordance with the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, and individuals and companies from signatory states are allowed to engage in economic activity. Russians have since the 1930s run coal mines in the area.

The meeting in the Russian Spitsbergen Commission took place only few days after Trutnev welcomed to his office a group of warriors (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2024/02/experiences-battlefield-will-be-applied-arctic-says-russian-minister) that had fought in Ukraine. Among the men were several members of Spetsnaz intelligence units.

Reportedly, among the men were employees of the Ministry of the Far East and Arctic that had volunteered for fighting on the occupied lands.

“We will continue to use their experience that now not only includes civilian and military service, but also real battle experiences, for the development of the Far East and Arctic,” Minister of the Arctic Aleksei Chekunkov said (https://t.me/a_chekunkov/1232).

[Fly-by-Wife]

So similar to Hitler's rhetoric about ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1930s.

[Asturias56]

no-one should fight and die over Svalbard

[ORAC]

no-one should fight and die over Svalbard
It’s one of the places they might - access to, and ownership of, the seabed resources and ice-free routes across the Arctic are one of the main flash points for the next 20 years…

[ORAC]

https://x.com/ukdefjournal/status/1759684468325965877?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


A British RC-135 'Rivet Joint', a dedicated electronic surveillance aircraft, has conducted a patrol along the borders of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland. The UK undertakes such flights in order to gather intelligence about Russian forces.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1213x792/image_49cd3eaaafec096c86c06292e4ba03a3854bdcc7.png
​​​​​​​

[Asturias56]

It’s one of the places they might - access to, and ownership of, the seabed resources and ice-free routes across the Arctic are one of the main flash points for the next 20 years…


Ice free routes - people have been talking about those all my life - its as the same as fusion power stations - always " a few years away"

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-triggers-germanys-nuclear-nightmare/

Trump triggers Germany’s nuclear nightmare

German leaders fear confronting Putin’s menace without the protection of America’s nuclear umbrella.

[Lonewolf_50]

MAD has been not quite the scenario for about a generation. They are just now waking up to this, apparently.

[Less Hair]

Nuclear is the current deterrence concept. Germany even bought new F-35s and the US just modernized and upgraded the B61 to continue.

[henra]

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-triggers-germanys-nuclear-nightmare/

Trump triggers Germany’s nuclear nightmare

German leaders fear confronting Putin’s menace without the protection of America’s nuclear umbrella.

The real problem with this is not the fact that Russia would attack Germany 'out of the Blue' with Nukes. The problem ist that should Russia invade the Baltics, the one sided Nuclear Threat may keep Germany from defending its Eastern Neighbours. So the real risk of the US retiring it's Nuclear Umbrella is for the Baltics and to some extent Poland. And the damage is already done by having this discussion alone. Should Trump win the Election I expect an invasion into one of the Baltics quickly afterwards.

[henra]

Nuclear is the current deterrence concept. Germany even bought new F-35s and the US just modernized and upgraded the B61 to continue.
But these are only about 20 tactical Nukes. OK, you could wipe out Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg with that and with stretching one's luck also Moscow. But not the Rest of Russia.

[Less Hair]

Without the US nuke shield we might see Russia racing to conquer as much as possible before the West can set up some reaction.

[Asturias56]

But these are only about 20 tactical Nukes. OK, you could wipe out Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg with that and with stretching one's luck also Moscow. But not the Rest of Russia.

if you destroy "the rest of Russia" Europe isn't going to be a very healthy spot....................

[henra]

Without the US nuke shield we might see Russia racing to conquer as much as possible before the West can set up some reaction.
And when Europe starts to fight back and regain ground they may threaten to nuke said Countries. In which case all bar FR + UK might be strongly tempted to stop continuing fighting back lost territories. Super dangerous and stupid game. And needless.

[DogTailRed2]

About 800 megatons. That's a lot of fallout.

[Asturias56]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/874x866/on_the_beachpg_c1771c51b9e85e57006009e04de28685863f4cbd.jpg

[minigundiplomat]

What annoys me is that the Europeans have used the blanket of NATO in order to cut their own defence spending, and in a few cases, cosy up to Russia for cheap energy.

Now the foolishness of that strategy is laid bare, they’re calling for the Uk to introduce conscription and bail them out.

Ukraine is 1600 miles from the UK - I’d like to see Europeans defending Europe. There seems to be a lot of fighting age Eastern European males in the UK, whom I’d expect to return and fight before we start feeding our youth into the grinder.

And if the EU need a nuclear deterrent - £38b should cover it. If you want to be on a club you have to pay, if I recall correctly…,

[henra]

MAD has been not quite the scenario for about a generation. They are just now waking up to this, apparently.
Well, what's new is that it will now be OSAD (One Sided Assured Destruction).

[henra]

Now the foolishness of that strategy is laid bare, they’re calling for the Uk to introduce conscription and bail them out.

???
I don't think conscription in UK is what European Defence most urgently needs. For the whole of Europe we simply need massive upstocking of Ammo and an additional 1000+ Warheads.

[Less Hair]

And first stages that ignite as intended.

[Recc]

Now the foolishness of that strategy is laid bare, they’re calling for the Uk to introduce conscription and bail them out. Ukraine is 1600 miles from the UK - I’d like to see Europeans defending Europe. There seems to be a lot of fighting age Eastern European males in the UK, whom I’d expect to return and fight before we start feeding our youth into the grinder.

1. I have not heard anyone in the rest of Europe (or the USA) ask the UK to introduce conscription. I have heard the former head of the army suggest that our own defence failures mean that we would be forced to introduce conscription if required to meet our treaty obligation in a future (hypothetical) conflict.
2. Nobody has asked the UK (or any other European country) to send personnel to fight in Ukraine. We have been asked to consider our own strategic interests in: preserving the post cold war order; constraining Russian imperialism and preventing a wider conflict in Europe (which would almost certainly involve us whether or not we wanted it to). To this end, the UK has done a reasonable (but not exceptional job) of financing and supplying Ukrainian defences. Eastern Europe (as you might expect) is well ahead of us. Estonia, for example, has committed about 3 times more than us (as % of GDP).

[Low average]

???
I don't think conscription in UK is what European Defence most urgently needs. For the whole of Europe we simply need massive upstocking of Ammo and an additional 1000+ Warheads.

It's worth noting that since 2022 Putin is brainwashing and militairizing Russia's next generation - those who were young teens in 2022 will shortly be of fighting age and, since 2022 have been exposed to a far greater barrage of propoganda and false history. The textbooks have been changed. Heroes are everywhere.

This is intentional - military awareness and skills are taught and viewed positively in schools - they will grow up to firmly believe Putin's lies as they will not be told anything else, believing they are fighting for their very existence and will hate the Free World and admire the heroes of the "SMO" until they are much, much older and wiser and can look back with regret.

As each year goes past, Russia's next fighting generation is becoming more psychologically prepared (brainwashed) to survive, fight, die and be grateful for it.

Now look at our next generation. Have we adequately prepared them against this threat? I would say no - we've only just discovered our peaceful worldview was grossly naive. How can we prepare them? Conscription is one way, but severe, and we are tarnished by Afghanistan.

I do however think we need to urgently change how military skills, mindset and people are valued and perceived by our very diverse society. I think our education system has a part to play in that, but exactly how will need to be thought through carefully.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1761309766830211077?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


​​​​​​​Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski hints that countries such as Poland could get nuclear weapons because of lack of aid for Ukraine.

He says the gridlock in the U.S. will have consequences for how its security guarantees are viewed by allies.

[henra]

He says the gridlock in the U.S. will have consequences for how its security guarantees are viewed by allies.
It's sad to see how Trust and Relationships built up over decades are destroyed within one or two Years of internal political skirmishes. The damage done to the Trustworthiness of the US by this cannot be overestimated. Close to irreparable. Will also be disastrous for building alliances against China. Who after this mess would put all bets on the US to bail him out should he support the US against China and get under pressure from them consequently. Absolutely f**king stoopid.

[West Coast]

It's sad to see how Trust and Relationships built up over decades are destroyed within one or two Years of internal political skirmishes. The damage done to the Trustworthiness of the US by this cannot be overestimated. Close to irreparable. Will also be disastrous for building alliances against China. Who after this mess would put all bets on the US to bail him out should he support the US against China and get under pressure from them consequently. Absolutely f**king stoopid.

The US has provided a nuclear umbrella that allowed, almost promoted the atrophy of euro military capabilities. I say if only euro leaders had acted upon the back room urging of past US Presidents, y’awl wouldn’t be as afraid of the situation you may find yourself in.

[DogTailRed2]

If the US pulls support from Ukraine why does the UK still need US bases on British soil?

[Video Mixdown]

The US has provided a nuclear umbrella that allowed, almost promoted the atrophy of euro military capabilities. I say if only euro leaders had acted upon the back room urging of past US Presidents, y’awl wouldn’t be as afraid of the situation you may find yourself in.
We assumed that our transatlantic alliance was about more than just bombs and bullets. We thought it was about shared values, a dedication to freedom and democracy and a rejection of totalitarian and brutalist regimes. If the US can no longer be relied upon to uphold and defend those values it is not a trustworthy ally. Is that where we are now?

[henra]

The US has provided a nuclear umbrella that allowed, almost promoted the atrophy of euro military capabilities. I say if only euro leaders had acted upon the back room urging of past US Presidents, y’awl wouldn’t be as afraid of the situation you may find yourself in.
Wouldn't we? Why?
Would we really have 5x more Nukes than we currently have? The main concern is about asymmetry in Nukes. Conventionally filling up the Ammo depots will be sufficient to be not overly concerned. Nothing that can't be fixed in a few Years. But achieving our own European true MAD capability will be more complicated. And that is all that worries me.

[Less Hair]

If Mr. Trump pulls out everybody will need his own nukes as life insurance against Russia.

[ORAC]

We really do have to modify the NATO treaty to allow expulsion…

https://x.com/noelreports/status/1761455662259745163?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


​​​​​​​Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico with an appalling video statement regarding the anniversary of the full scale war in Ukraine.

He said the West started a demonization of Putin in hope to get him on his knees, but failed. He furthermore stated that the war already started in 2014 by Ukrainian neo-nazis and also pointed towards NATO 'expanding to the east' which is against Russian interest.

He considers Ukraine joining NATO as the basis for World War III and once again expressed that Ukraine, Russia and Europe need peace and security guarantees by the strongest international players.

[Mil-26Man]

What annoys me is that the Europeans have used the blanket of NATO in order to cut their own defence spending, and in a few cases, cosy up to Russia for cheap energy.

I hope you're including the UK in that blanket generalisation, because we're as guilty of all of that as anyone.

[dead_pan]

If the US pulls support from Ukraine why does the UK still need US bases on British soil?

If the US pulls out of NATO, I'm intrigued how it will support its commitments in the ME and Africa, without access to the likes of Ramstein, Spang, Moron, Aviano, Incirlik, Lajes, Mildenhall etc?

That said, Westie is right about us getting complacent, having had a free ride under US protection for so long. Its about time we stood up.

[West Coast]

If the US pulls support from Ukraine why does the UK still need US bases on British soil?

Sure those bases pump a lot of money into the local economy. If however the British decide the US isn’t wanted, there will be other nations that’ll be happy to have them.

[stevef]

Sure those bases pump a lot of money into the local economy. If however the British decide the US isn’t wanted, there will be other nations that’ll be happy to have them.

It'll save the Americans having to learn to drive on the left. :}

[West Coast]

We assumed that our transatlantic alliance was about more than just bombs and bullets. We thought it was about shared values, a dedication to freedom and democracy and a rejection of totalitarian and brutalist regimes. If the US can no longer be relied upon to uphold and defend those values it is not a trustworthy ally. Is that where we are now?

On this side we thought the alliance was about pulling one’s share of the collective defense. Yah, those are noble goals, but why does the US have to carry the lion's share of helping Ukraine? This is your backyard.

[West Coast]

It'll save the Americans having to learn to drive on the left. :}

Well, there is that.

[Mogwi]

On this side we thought the alliance was about pulling one’s share of the collective defense. Yah, those are noble goals, but why does the US have to carry the lion's share of helping Ukraine? This is your backyard.

I think that you will find that Russia is pretty damn close to Alaska’s back yard!

Mog

[West Coast]

I think that you will find that Russia is pretty damn close to Alaska’s back yard!

Mog

The US is equipped to deal with Russia. Can the same be said for Western Europe ability to deal with Russia? I’d suggest no.

[Mil-26Man]

On this side we thought the alliance was about pulling one’s share of the collective defense. Yah, those are noble goals, but why does the US have to carry the lion's share of helping Ukraine? This is your backyard.

The US isn't. Collectively, Europe is carrying the lion's share - go look at the numbers.

[melmothtw]

...why does the US have to carry the lion's share of helping Ukraine?

Arguably, the US has the most to gain from a defeated and diminished Russia. I struggle to see how so many in America seem unable to grasp this.

[West Coast]

The US isn't. Collectively, Europe is carrying the lion's share - go look at the numbers.

What nation has provided the most to Ukraine?

[West Coast]

Arguably, the US has the most to gain from a defeated and diminished Russia. I struggle to see how so many in America seem unable to grasp this.

Not sure how that argument would pan out. The US isn’t worried about Russia invading Alaska, europe however is worried about Russian expansionism.

[melmothtw]

Not sure how that argument would pan out. The US isn’t worried about Russia invading Alaska, europe however is worried about Russian expansionism.

Uh?? You think 80 years of US policy towards the Soviet Union/Russia was solely concerned with deterring an invasion of Alaska? Such a myopic take, I'm astounded

What nation has provided the most to Ukraine?
I thought this was about collective defence. Collectively, Europe has provided the most to Ukraine (as well it should). The US needs to stand up as 'the leader of the Free World', though. If it doesn't, the ramifications for the US for its standing in the world, its economy, its perception in the eyes of its enemies, etc, won't stop at the Ukrainian border.

[ORAC]

Uh?? You think 80 years of US policy towards the Soviet Union/Russia was solely concerned with deterring an invasion of Alaska? Such a myopic take, I'm astounded
The USA was worried about the USSR as the centre of a global struggle of Communism against Capitalsim - Asia, South America, Africa as battlegrounds.

Russia as a capitalist gangster state, not so much. A risk to Europe, but not the USA.

[melmothtw]

The USA was worried about the USSR as the centre of a global struggle of Communism against Capitalsim - Asia, South America, Africa as battlegrounds.

Russia as a capitalist gangster state, not so much. A risk to Europe, but not the USA.

The notion that any of this will stay within Europe and not have any consequence for the US is as misguided and naive in 2024 as it was in 1939.

The USA was worried about the USSR as the centre of a global struggle of Communism against Capitalsim - Asia, South America, Africa as battlegrounds.

How about Russia as the centre of the Axis of Resistance with Iran, China, and North Korea (all of whom are supporting Putins war effort in Ukrsine for this reason). Is that concerning enough for the US?

[West Coast]

The notion that any of this will stay within Europe and not have any consequence for the US is as misguided and naive in 2024 as it was in 1939.

Should I expect Russian troop ships to appear off the NY or California coast soon? Russia is a threat to euroland, not to the US.

How about Russia as the centre of the Axis of Resistance with Iran, China, and North Korea (all of whom are supporting Putins war effort in Ukrsine for this reason). Is that concerning enough for the US?

So now it’s a new fangled axis of evil?

I thought this was about collective defence. Collectively, Europe has provided the most to Ukraine (as well it should). The US needs to stand up as 'the leader of the Free World', though. If it doesn't, the ramifications for the US for its standing in the world, its economy, its perception in the eyes of its enemies, etc, won't stop at the Ukrainian border.

Collective but unequal defense. Europe has benefitted from the nuclear umbrella far too much and for far too long.

[ORAC]

If you want a past comparison, take 1940/early 1941.

There is a war in Europe, but Congress has no interest in taking part - they’re watching the Pacific and Japan. FDR is struggling to get them to support the UK, but Lend Lease is as far as it goes.

Even when Japan attacked the USA they might only have concentrated on the Pacific - but Hitler made the colossal error of declaring war on the USA and gave FDR his opening.

If Biden is re-elected, China attacks Taiwan and Putin supports them, things might go the same way. But Trump is an isolationist with the Republicans resembling those of 1940 under Wilkie.

[West Coast]

Don’t quite see it that way. China won’t by estimates of those in the know be in a place to be successful in attacking (could attack today, key word is successful) Taiwan for a number of years. Anything short of victory would be the end of Xi Jinping so he’ll bang on his drum until victory is an eventuality and that’ll likely take him past a second Biden administration. Trump isn’t an isolationist, he’s transactional, that would have him in places literally and figuratively not consistent with isolationism. To be clear I didn’t vote for him, and I think he’s an asshole but in certain topics, he’s right.

[Video Mixdown]

Should I expect Russian troop ships to appear off the NY or California coast soon? Russia is a threat to euroland, not to the US.
So now it’s a new fangled axis of evil?
Collective but unequal defense. Europe has benefitted from the nuclear umbrella far too much and for far too long.
​​​​If you don't want to be in NATO and are unwilling to fulfil your treaty obligations stop whining and just leave. Go. An untrustworthy ally is worse than an enemy. At least we'd know where we stand.

[henra]

Collective but unequal defense. Europe has benefitted from the nuclear umbrella far too much and for far too long.
I don't even deny this. But to build up credible MAD will take time. So there needs to be a transition phase where new SSBNs and hundreds of new IRBMs/ICBMs can be built . Otherwise stupid things might happen.
Besides that even if Europe would have lived up to the 2%+ promise we wouldn't have a significantly bigger Nuke Arsenal. We might have more Tanks of Fighter Aircraft but that wouldn't really have changed the balance re Russia. This change in Paradigm should have been communicated earlier. Not just you need to be better able to conventioally defend yourself but: You will have to ensure MAD yourself. Totally different statement. With totally different implications.
If the US is still that relaxed if Russia takes over Europe by Nuclear threat (conventionally they can't even dream of but on a Nuclear level they are still a Super Power) and then collectively opposes (or at least forces Europe to stay neutral) the US together with China, I'm not so sure....

[melmothtw]

Europe has only 'benefitted' in so far as it has been in the US interest for Europe to benefit. The US defence-industrial complex has done rather well out of Europe over the last 80+ years.

[t43562]

One argument you could make is that Europe has had to defend itself politically - keep its population happy and stop far left or far right demagogues from gaining a foothold. It has done that more successfully than the US has and that might be because of social spending that the US is slacking off on.

Hence some of the population which is less educated is flirting with the US equivalent of Erdogan, Mugabe, Orban and maybe even Putin. All such people seem "right" about something or other but it doesn't stop them from being a disaster for their country.

[henra]

Collective but unequal defense. Europe has benefitted from the nuclear umbrella far too much and for far too long.
BTW: Wouldn't the US have to reduce their Nuclear Arsenal if Europe needed to increase theirs? Aren't there max numbers for NATO vs. Russia agreed/signed? In other words: Are we allowed to simply start tomorrow building up the necessary additional strategic Weapons?

[minigundiplomat]

Hence some of the population which is less educated is flirting with the US equivalent of Erdogan, Mugabe, Orban and maybe even Putin. All such people seem "right" about something or other but it doesn't stop them from being a disaster for their country.

The 'more educated' segment of the population elected Biden; hasn't that been a doozy......

[melmothtw]

The 'more educated' segment of the population elected Biden; hasn't that been a doozy......

What's he done to undermine NATO and alienate his allies while cozying up to and emboldening tyrants and dictators?

[t43562]

The 'more educated' segment of the population elected Biden; hasn't that been a doozy......
Well, he's not a Mugabe, Erdogan, Orban, whatever - failing to accept elections that don't go his way (which is such a typical behaviour for people like them). He's helping Ukraine now rather than being a spanner in the works. Since I'm also interested in other issues I see lots of investment going into chips and cleantech happening now in the US that wasn't before which seems absolutely necessary if there is to be any alternative to the world relying totally on China. Things could be much worse. In fact the biggest problem I see there is the sabotage of the effort to help Ukraine and we know where that comes from.

In the UK we had a liar, a lettuce and now a billionaire. We're not in a world of amazing leaders at the moment but having lived under Mugabe I can smell another one like him a million miles away and "average" is great compared to them.

[Lonewolf_50]

One argument you could make is that Europe has had to defend itself politically - keep its population happy and stop far left or far right demagogues from gaining a foothold. It has done that more successfully than the US has and that might be because of social spending that the US is slacking off on. The Americans chose guns, you all chose butter and you now reap what you sow.
The US has a global security posture, not simply a European one. President Obama told you people a decade ago that the US was pivoting toward Asia. Suggest you go and read the last two pages of the South China sea thread. You people, all of you, were told and yet you still kept your heads in the sand.
Hence some of the population which is less educated You who live in a glass are best not to throw stones. What do you call 18 years (Going back to W's 2006 initial proposal of the 2% minimum which Obama followed up on) of the deliberate dismantling of the European defense industrial base while increasing dependence on Russian energy supplies?
It sure isn't, and wasn't, smart.
To borrow an analgy from the insurance industry: you all paid cut-rate prices (on security) and expected gold standard insurance coverage. When has that ever worked out?
If you want to point a blame finger, point it into a mirror.

[t43562]

To borrow an analgy from the insurance industry: you all paid cut-rate prices (on security) and expected gold standard insurance coverage. When has that ever worked out?
If you want to point a blame finger, point it into a mirror.

I think that's what I'm trying to say - security is not only military. A certain subprime mortgage issue that happened in 2008 has a lot to answer for IMO in the rise of populist politics.

[melmothtw]

The US has a global security posture, not simply a European one.

Which, incidentally, is an argument against the NATO 2% defence spending goal. Why should Croatia, Belgium, Canada, etc, which have no global commitments or security posture, have to commit to spending the same GDP on defence as the US which does? It makes no sense.

The Americans chose guns, you all chose butter

Not being rude, but do you have any serious points to make?

[West Coast]

BTW: Wouldn't the US have to reduce their Nuclear Arsenal if Europe needed to increase theirs? Aren't there max numbers for NATO vs. Russia agreed/signed? In other words: Are we allowed to simply start tomorrow building up the necessary additional strategic Weapons?
Presumably you’re worried about a treaty that may not exist or of its scope of it does when Russia doesn’t worry about such. Europe doesn’t lack the capacity, it lacks the will to re-arm.
​​​​If you don't want to be in NATO and are unwilling to fulfil your treaty obligations stop whining and just leave. Go. An untrustworthy ally is worse than an enemy. At least we'd know where we stand.
Have the US not fulfilled its NATO obligations?
Europe has only 'benefitted' in so far as it has been in the US interest for Europe to benefit. The US defence-industrial complex has done rather well out of Europe over the last 80+ years.
And my tax burden and my children’s tax burden reflects that.

[melmothtw]

Have the US not fulfilled its NATO obligations?
We haven't had a chance to find out yet, Incidentally, every other member has fulfilled its NATO obligation the one time that Article 5 was invoked, by the US no less. That's what allies do.
And my tax burden and my children’s tax burden reflects that.
FMS sales add to your GDP, and so reduce not increase your tax burden.

[West Coast]

I think that's what I'm trying to say - security is not only military. A certain subprime mortgage issue that happened in 2008 has a lot to answer for IMO in the rise of populist politics.
A contented population, if such was to exist isn’t a defense against an existential threat.
FMS sales add to your GDP, and so reduce not increase your tax burden.
A goodly portion of the military equipment in Europe, there to meet NATO obligations has US stamped on the side of it.

[Winemaker]

Good news, Hungary has approved Sweden's entry into NATO.

[melmothtw]

A goodly portion of the military equipment in Europe, there to meet NATO obligations has US stamped on the side of it.

So be prepared to use in support of your commitment to your allies, or take it home.

[t43562]

A contented population, if such was to exist isn’t a defense against an existential threat.

It's a defense against a dictatorship and the meddling with internal politics that your enemies can do. After all it's much cheaper to get control over people by political means than by war - or at least encourage them to do stupid things and abandon their allies. Every group can find complaints that divide them - as an opponent you certainly love it when those divisions arise. Orban is an example of how it works and you can see how Hungary's past economic struggles may have encouraged people to vote for such a man.

[West Coast]

So be prepared to use in support of your commitment to your allies, or take it home.
There’s a reason it sits in Europe and not in Kansas. Either way my tax dollars are paying for it to be purchased and maintained, the defense of Europe, seemingly an ungrateful Europe.
It's a defense against a dictatorship and the meddling with internal politics that your enemies can do. After all it's much cheaper to get control over people by political means than by war - or at least encourage them to do stupid things and abandon their allies. Every group can find complaints that divide them - as an opponent you certainly love it when those divisions arise. Orban is an example of how it works and you can see how Hungary's past economic struggles may have encouraged people to vote for such a man.
Is the UK all that harmonious? Brexit, perhaps an independant Scotland in the forseeable future. Political division, etc.

Either way, when you see the amphibious crossing in progress, standing arm in arm singing Kumbaya with a notionally unified citizenry isn’t going to stop it. Ask Ukraine if you have doubts.

[melmothtw]

There’s a reason it sits in Europe and not in Kansas. Either way my tax dollars are paying for it to be purchased and maintained, the defense of Europe, seemingly an ungrateful Europe.

When has Europe ever been ungrateful?

[West Coast]

When has Europe ever been ungrateful?

By not meeting spending goals, and the pushback from Europe when this is pointed out.

[t43562]

Is the UK all that harmonious? Brexit, perhaps an independant Scotland in the forseeable future. Political division, etc.

Either way, when you see the amphibious crossing in progress, standing arm in arm singing Kumbaya with a notionally unified citizenry isn’t going to stop it. Ask Ukraine if you have doubts.

You're making my point for me with Brexit. I'm sure it delighted our enemies. Defence is irrelevant if you don't need to take over at all to get people to do what you want?

[henra]

Presumably you’re worried about a treaty that may not exist or of its scope of it does when Russia doesn’t worry about such.

Currently Russia is still sticking to the numbers in NewSTART but has suspended it. It is wary of UK and France not being counted in that treaty currently. Lately the US was concerned that Russia might retreat entirely from NewSTART forcing them back into an Arms race regarding Nukes (which does not help against China but costs precious resources). Taking this into consideration I'm not so sure if the US is currently keen on a massive Nuclear Up- arming of Europe. But from a European perspective I see little choices. This will have to happen if we don't want to become suspetable to blackmailing.

[West Coast]

You're making my point for me with Brexit. I'm sure it delighted our enemies. Defence is irrelevant if you don't need to take over at all to get people to do what you want?

We’re at differing steps on Maslow's Hierarchy. You must have the lower tiers satisfied first.

[Lonewolf_50]

Currently Russia is still sticking to the numbers in NewSTART but has suspended it. It is wary of UK and France not being counted in that treaty currently. Lately the US was concerned that Russia might retreat entirely from NewSTART forcing them back into an Arms race regarding Nukes (which does not help against China but costs precious resources). Taking this into consideration I'm not so sure if the US is currently keen on a massive Nuclear Up- arming of Europe. But from a European perspective I see little choices. This will have to happen if we don't want to become suspetable to blackmailing. Indeed, an unfortunate problem. Remember the sigh of relief and the enthusiasm after the Wall fell and the hope for a better future was everywhere?
I remember, and it's a great disappointment that this is where things stand now.
As to NATO members bickering with NATO members**: heck, it was normal every day at the office when I was in a NATO billet - except - at the time everyone took Article V guarantees as a given. (And that right there is why those former bloc nations wanted in ...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
** The Greek-Turk friction wasn't the only example, but it certainly was reliable. :uhoh:

[L4key]

Apologies for intruding, but both can be true. It is absolutely correct that Europe has not pulled its weight and has been happy to sit under the umbrella of the US for too long.

However, this is appears to be a key point in global geopolitics, and making these threats is seriously damaging and may have existential repercussions for years to come.

This is what Russia wants, to divide allies; and even on the medium of a sensible discussion board it is manifesting itself.

We’ve had a big wake-up call, hopefully not too late, but a unified West is the only thing that will stop Putin.

Back to lurking, thanks to all who have served.

[Lonewolf_50]

This is what Russia wants, to divide allies; and even on the medium of a sensible discussion board it is manifesting itself. Yes, Putin wants that. He bided his time and struck when he thought that conditions favored his big gamble.
Since his military team wasn't able to achieve that 'quick victory' (how many times has that "it will be a short war" fantasy been dispelled..."home by Christmas" in Korea comes to mind) he's going to try whatever he can to force, and exploit, any cracks in the alliance that he sees looking west. (See Hungary and others who have been somewhat obstructionist).
But he's also ended up adding two important countries to NATO in the North: Finland and Sweden.
NATO versus Russia looks quite a bit different if those two are both on side, as compared to the previous situation.
However, this is appears to be a key point in global geopolitics, and making these threats is seriously damaging and may have existential repercussions for years to come.
Indeed. Not well played by he-who-shall-not-be-named-to-avoid-getting-this-moved-to-JB.

[West Coast]

Macron hinting that Western forces may be heading to Ukraine.

https://apnews.com/article/paris-conference-support-ukraine-zelenskyy-c458a1df3f9a7626128cdeb84050d469

[melmothtw]

Macron hinting that Western forces may be heading to Ukraine.

https://apnews.com/article/paris-conference-support-ukraine-zelenskyy-c458a1df3f9a7626128cdeb84050d469

No, he's just maintaining some strategic ambiguity by not taking them off the table.

[West Coast]

No, he's just maintaining some strategic ambiguity by not taking them off the table.

Semantics. If there’s French boots on the ground in Ukraine, this war is going to get warmer.

[NutLoose]

China thinks Kalingrad could be at risk.

https://twitter.com/BrunellaCapitan/status/1762368122177138991

​​​​​​​https://twitter.com/BrunellaCapitan/status/1762368122177138991

[Less Hair]

What a strange narrative. Is this on Russia's request? Russia based new nuke missiles at Kaliningrad only recently.

[NutLoose]

https://twitter.com/matapet/status/1762270268142096744

​​​​​​​https://twitter.com/matapet/status/1762270268142096744

[Lonewolf_50]

Sinister convoy of Russian mobile missile launchers on 250-mile journey to Moscow (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sinister-convoy-of-russian-mobile-missile-launchers-on-250-mile-journey-to-moscow/ar-BB1iXWEh?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=b248a4e69356498195b7c846546a2a4f&ei=21)Video footage showed the hulking dark green Yars missile launchers being wheeled 250 miles to the capital more than two months ahead of the country’s Victory Day parade in Red Square.
Capable of flying 17,500 miles per hour, 25 times the speed of sound, these mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles are a frequent feature of Russia’s annual celebration of its victory over Nazi Germany (https://metro.co.uk/tag/germany/?ico=auto_link_news_P3_LNK1) in the Second World War (https://metro.co.uk/tag/world-war-two/). The convoy clad in Russian flags is just the latest flaunting of Russia (https://metro.co.uk/tag/russia/?ico=auto_link_news_P4_LNK1)’s nuclear arsenal as 71-year-old Vladimir Putin (https://metro.co.uk/tag/vladimir-putin) seeks to taunt the West amidst the military gridlock two years on from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine (https://metro.co.uk/tag/ukraine/?ico=auto_link_news_P4_LNK2).

Just a day earlier, Putin flew in the pilot’s seat of a Tu-160M strategic bomber (https://metro.co.uk/2024/02/21/russia-launch-nuclear-weapon-space-this-year-us-warns-20322131/), a key component of Russia’s nuclear triad.

Yars missiles are currently the core of the ground-based component of Russia’s strategic nuclear force. They have a range of up to 7,500 miles, enables strikes on countries like the UK and USA, a realistic threat if the words of Putin lapdog Dmitry Medvedev (https://metro.co.uk/2024/02/22/putins-top-crony-crazy-plans-us-state-become-independent-20324782/) are anything to go by.

He warned: ‘Sad as it may sound, this [nuclear war] scenario is real. We must do everything we can to prevent it from happening. But this very clock, which is ticking in a certain direction, has now accelerated very much. ‘And in this I also see the inability, excuse me, the impotence of these Western authorities. ‘[They] keep saying the same thing: ‘No, it’s the Russians who are scaring us, they will never do it’. They’re wrong.

‘If it comes to the existence of our country, and I said this recently, what choice is left for the [Russian] leadership, for the head of state? None.’
He said: ‘So this is, unfortunately, a real threat, a direct and clear threat to all of humanity. ‘And secondly, there are also accidents, from which no one is immune.
‘And the accidental, unintentional start of a nuclear conflict cannot be discounted.
Gee, thanks, Dimitry, your "We might just screw up and start a nuclear war" is just the kind of message that will bring people to your point of view. I guess vodka for breakfast brings its side effects.

[melmothtw]

Semantics. If there’s French boots on the ground in Ukraine, this war is going to get warmer.

Not semantics at all, maintaining strategic ambiguity by not ruling something out is absolutely NOT the same as saying you are going to do that thing.

[NutLoose]

The European Union aims to purchase up to half of its military equipment from inside the Union by 2035, knock on effect due to the perceived unreliability of the USA in supplying arms?

That would make sense, if you now see the USA as a threat in a growing conflict by putting a squeeze on arms supplies for your weapons systems, then remove them as a supplier and build in house. I wonder how much they will reduce dependence post 2035.

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1762421365695529038

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1762421365695529038

[DirtyProp]

Should I expect Russian troop ships to appear off the NY or California coast soon? Russia is a threat to euroland, not to the US.
........
.

Really? I thought it was a threat to the whole civilized world, not just us old European farts. Silly me.

[West Coast]

Not semantics at all, maintaining strategic ambiguity by not ruling something out is absolutely NOT the same as saying you are going to do that thing.

Can you point out where I said French troops would absolutely be headed to Ukraine? Below are my words, save you the effort of having to go look it up.

Macron hinting that Western forces may be heading to Ukraine.

[melmothtw]

Can you point out where I said French troops would absolutely be headed to Ukraine? Below are my words, save you the effort of having to go look it up.

Macron hinting that Western forces may be heading to Ukraine.

The 'may be heading' is where you overplayed his statement. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate.

[West Coast]

The 'may be heading' is where you overplayed his statement. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate.

Wrong. Macron only gets traction and reaction from this threat if western troops may head there, ergo “may be heading there” is accurate.

[melmothtw]

Wrong. Macron only gets traction and reaction from this threat if western troops may head there, ergo “may be heading there” is accurate.

Not a threat, but strategic ambiguity. There is an important difference, but no matter.

[West Coast]

Not a threat, but strategic ambiguity. There is an important difference, but no matter.

Saying western forces may end up in Ukraine is a threat to Russia, plain and simple. Doesn’t mean it will happen if that’s what you’re falling back on. Doesn’t mean it won’t which is my assertion.

[Spunky Monkey]

Could French Forces deploy to Ukraine under the guise of Military Aid to a Civilian Power?
For example to maintain a humanitarian corridor between Kiev and the Polish Border?
Of course they would need protecting with Radar and Air Defence assets thereby rendering Russian drone and missile strikes on Kiev impotent and risky.
Meanwhile freeing up Ukrainian assets to move close to the front or to areas less well protected.
With humanitarian corridors stretching to Odessa in the South but more importantly to Kherson in the North they would in effect stop Russians opening another front and freeing up further assets.

I realise this is all a pipe dream, but there will be teams of planners who will have gamed the scenarios to see if other options reveal themselves.
Maybe something like this is where Macron is coming from.

[Big Pistons Forever]

NATO’s ultimate power is article 5, but this has never been tested.

The really scary possibility is that Trump wins the election and Putin invades one of the Baltic states. Not invoking article 5, a distinct possibility and NATO instantly becomes irrelevant.

[pr00ne]

NATO’s ultimate power is article 5, but this has never been tested.

The really scary possibility is that Trump wins the election and Putin invades one of the Baltic states. Not invoking article 5, a distinct possibility and NATO instantly becomes irrelevant.

Article 5 was implemented, successfully, by the US, after 911.

[West Coast]

NATO’s ultimate power is article 5, but this has never been tested.

The really scary possibility is that Trump wins the election and Putin invades one of the Baltic states. Not invoking article 5, a distinct possibility and NATO instantly becomes irrelevant.

That’s a pretty damning assessment of the military capabilities of other members of NATO.

[pr00ne]

That’s a pretty damning assessment of the military capabilities of other members of NATO.

No, it would be a pretty damning assessment of the reliability of the US as an ally.

The Baltic state invaded would invoke Article 5. If the US chose not to get involved it would indeed signal troubling times for NATO.

[West Coast]

No, it would be a pretty damning assessment of the reliability of the US as an ally.

The Baltic state invaded would invoke Article 5. If the US chose not to get involved it would indeed signal troubling times for NATO.

If you want to tangent out, that’s fine but it doesn’t speak to the observation I made, you know that as well.

[GlobalNav]

No, it would be a pretty damning assessment of the reliability of the US as an ally.

The Baltic state invaded would invoke Article 5. If the US chose not to get involved it would indeed signal troubling times for NATO.

Can NATO invoke Article 5 even if the USA does not go along?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Article 5 was implemented, successfully, by the US, after 911.

Yes technically you are correct but it was mostly a symbolic gesture and the US was also obviously leading the response.

I would suggest Putin invading a Baltic country followed by a refusal of the US to actively participate in a military response, a significant possibility if Trump were President, would constitute the first real test of Article 5.

[DogTailRed2]

Invoking Article 5 is just that, the article is invoked. It doesn't necessarily trigger a response.

[Lonewolf_50]

Can NATO invoke Article 5 even if the USA does not go along? Technically, I think the answer is "yes" but I am not sure what that would look like since there is a whole lot of large muscle movement stuff involved with that from one side of the pond to the other-depending on the Op Plan/Con Plan involved

[NutLoose]

Could French Forces deploy to Ukraine under the guise of Military Aid to a Civilian Power?
For example to maintain a humanitarian corridor between Kiev and the Polish Border?
Of course they would need protecting with Radar and Air Defence assets thereby rendering Russian drone and missile strikes on Kiev impotent and risky.
Meanwhile freeing up Ukrainian assets to move close to the front or to areas less well protected.
With humanitarian corridors stretching to Odessa in the South but more importantly to Kherson in the North they would in effect stop Russians opening another front and freeing up further assets.

I realise this is all a pipe dream, but there will be teams of planners who will have gamed the scenarios to see if other options reveal themselves.
Maybe something like this is where Macron is coming from.

See my post in the Ukraine thread below, it is as you suggest.

https://www.pprune.org/11605598-post8843.html

[Lonewolf_50]

It's very important to talk smack..if you are Linas Linkevicius.
On Tuesday, Linkevicius warned Russia not to challenge NATO. Lithuania's ambassador to Sweden on Tuesday said Russia's Kaliningrad region (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-nato-ukraine-war-s400-air-defense-kaliningrad-poland-lithuania-suwalki-gap-1846945) will be "neutralized" if Moscow challenges NATO (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/nato) on the Baltic Sea. Linas Linkevicius (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-moscow-lithuania-independence-soviet-union-yevgeny-fyodorov-1714138), who served as Lithuania's foreign minister and defense minister before he assumed his ambassador position, made the comments on X, formerly Twitter (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/twitter), in a post related to Sweden's accession to NATO (https://www.newsweek.com/putins-week-off-terrible-start-1873485).
I suspect that he's right, in a literal sense, in that any Op Plan dealing with an incursion into NATO territory (particularly in the Northern Half) would need to ensure that Königsberg is neutralized.
I think that's what I'm trying to say - security is not only military. Oh, dear, being in agreement? Are we allowed to do that? :}

[Canary Boy]

Should the unthinkable happen and any NATO member felt the need to invoke article 5 I have no doubt whatsoever that the response from NATO would be unanimous. The US is obviously the pivotal member state but there’s absolutely no reason to suppose that they would renege on their responsibilities, regardless of the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Even more so given the response to the 9/11 invocation of the article by the US from their allies. I, for one, am exceedingly proud of our (UK) steadfast support (rightly or wrongly) to our closest ally.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The US is obviously the pivotal member state but there’s absolutely no reason to suppose that they would renege on their responsibilities, regardless of the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I wish I shared your optimism given the recent statements from a very possible occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I think it is important to publicly advocate for clarity on the question of the invocation of Article 5. For all EU countries this is the poster child for the maxim hope for the best, plan for the worst.

[GlobalNav]

Invoking Article 5 is just that, the article is invoked. It doesn't necessarily trigger a response.

I suppose that's technically true, so I will ask, does a military response under Article 5 require USA approval?

[GlobalNav]

Should the unthinkable happen and any NATO member felt the need to invoke article 5 I have no doubt whatsoever that the response from NATO would be unanimous. The US is obviously the pivotal member state but there’s absolutely no reason to suppose that they would renege on their responsibilities, regardless of the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Even more so given the response to the 9/11 invocation of the article by the US from their allies. I, for one, am exceedingly proud of our (UK) steadfast support (rightly or wrongly) to our closest ally.
I agree with your logic, but a change of occupancy in the White House, considering current US political polls, would likely mean illogical, irrational and disloyal responses toward American allies, as it has in the past. Such would certainly hinder NATO, but would it completely block military action in defense of a member?

[Herod]

Don't forget, NATO has a nuclear capability, even without the US.

[Lonewolf_50]

I suppose that's technically true, so I will ask, does a military response under Article 5 require USA approval?
The US could do what Obama did in Western Africa and Lybia in the teens, and lead from the rear. :p But I doubt that is how the Op Plans are written for a "REFORGER" style response.
As a practical matter, take a look at the 30,000+ already in Germany (permanently), the 10,000+ already in Italy (Permanently) and recent deployments
Sep 11, 2023 · Roughly 4,500 soldiers with the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division are in the process of deploying to Poland and the Baltic states as part of an ongoing U.S.-led effort to reinforce NATO’s ... And more recently.
Feb. 2, 2022 | By Jim Garamone | DOD News
The United States will move approximately 3,000 service members to Romania, Poland and Germany in response to Russia's continuing build-up of forces on its western border with Ukraine and in Belarus, Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby said today during a news conference.
If conditions for Article V trigger the US Forces are already there and seem unlikely to avoid being in the fight.
Beyond that, the ability to phase in significant air assets (critical for any rapid response plan) is already in place in a variety of op plans.

I will remind you all that Mr Trump is not the president. You are taking counsel of your fears.

With all of that said,
Mr Biden's Pentagon team has announced that the US Army is due to cut 24,000 from the force structure. (The news article I read suggested that this is tied to recruiting issues, but I am not sure what the truth is.
That sends a bit of a mixed message, as I see it.

[GlobalNav]

The US could do what Obama did in Western Africa and Lybia in the teens, and lead from the rear. :p But I doubt that is how the Op Plans are written for a "REFORGER" style response.
As a practical matter, take a look at the 30,000+ already in Germany (permanently), the 10,000+ already in Italy (Permanently) and recent deployments
And more recently.

If conditions for Article V trigger the US Forces are already there and seem unlikely to avoid being in the fight.
Beyond that, the ability to phase in significant air assets (critical for any rapid response plan) is already in place in a variety of op plans.

I will remind you all that Mr Trump is not the president. You are taking counsel of your fears.

With all of that said,
Mr Biden's Pentagon team has announced that the US Army is due to cut 24,000 from the force structure. (The news article I read suggested that this is tied to recruiting issues, but I am not sure what the truth is.
That sends a bit of a mixed message, as I see it.
Well, I hope our fears are entirely hypothetical with respect to the presidency, but unfortunately they were realized 8 years ago and many crazy things said 9 years ago became reality. Some of those things were repaired since then. The US and its allies around the world and especially in Europe need each other, but an alliance not honored becomes empty. These alliances are in peril if the wrong man is elected.

[Canary Boy]

If an hypothesis is that there is an orange occupant of the White House next term, does that hypothesis extend to a complete overhaul of personnel to the point where Donald can get through any of his off the wall ideas/plans/negative responses to article 5 invocation without expert advice to the contrary? Just how isolationist would he be allowed to be?

[The Helpful Stacker]

It'll save the Americans having to learn to drive on the left. :}

Speaking of which...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-68433109

[Lonewolf_50]

Well, I hope our fears are entirely hypothetical with respect to the presidency, but unfortunately they were realized 8 years ago and many crazy things said 9 years ago became reality. Some of those things were repaired since then. The US and its allies around the world and especially in Europe need each other, but an alliance not honored becomes empty. These alliances are in peril if the wrong man is elected. Funnily enough, we survived 4 years of that, I don't get what you are afraid of.
Back to NATO and Russia: it appears that the Dutch are publicly saying that they might send troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.

[GlobalNav]

Funnily enough, we survived 4 years of that, I don't get what you are afraid of.
Back to NATO and Russia: it appears that the Dutch are publicly saying that they might send troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.
I ‘m only afraid of four more years of destructive diplomacy that imperils our country and the free world. Just listen to the rhetoric and understand it’s not just rhetoric, he believes he can do it and will relentlessly attempt to do so. Meanwhile praising murderous tyrants.

[Lonewolf_50]

I ‘m only afraid of four more years of destructive diplomacy that imperils our country and the free world. Just listen to the rhetoric and understand it’s not just rhetoric, he believes he can do it and will relentlessly attempt to do so. Meanwhile praising murderous tyrants. Not taking the bait. The US Politics Hamsterwheel is over there. ============>
In thread related news:
The Russian Foreign Ministry on Wednesday said it will take "military-technical" steps in response to Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).On Monday, Sweden cleared the last hurdle in its bid to join NATO when Hungary's parliament voted to ratify the move. In order to join NATO, a country needs unanimous support from alliance members, and Hungary was the last holdout to approve Sweden.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been outspoken about his opposition to the expansion of NATO, and he has cited the possibility of the alliance growing as one of the justifications for his invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. However, it was the Ukraine war that spurred Finland and Sweden to simultaneously submit letters of application to join NATO in May 2022. Finland became a NATO member in April 2023.

Putin has yet to publicly comment on Sweden's accession to NATO, but his spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, provided a statement to Newsweek when asked about Hungary voting to ratify Sweden's bid.
"As we have repeatedly said, NATO enlargement in no way contributes to stability and security on the continent," Peskov said.
I will observe that Russia's attempted enlargement - through the invasion of Ukraine and occupation of parts of it, - in no way contributes to the stability and security on the continent. :p

[Video Mixdown]

I will observe that Russia's attempted enlargement - through the invasion of Ukraine and occupation of parts of it, - in no way contributes to the stability and security on the continent. :p
Yet another of the many pick 'n mix justifications for Putin's SMO. Will we ever know the real reason for it?

[Beamr]

Yet another of the many pick 'n mix justifications for Putin's SMO. Will we ever know the real reason for it?
the real reason? Putin wants to be the modern era Peter the Great. He parallels the expansions of Russia in early 18th century to his "SMO" in Ukraine. And he has said it out loud a few years ago, widely reported at the time.
Instead, in the end he'll be remembered as a murderous dictator.

[Video Mixdown]

the real reason? Putin wants to be the modern era Peter the Great. He parallels the expansions of Russia in early 18th century to his "SMO" in Ukraine. And he has said it out loud a few years ago, widely reported at the time.
Instead, in the end he'll be remembered as a murderous dictator.
Not sure I buy that - seems a bit too Ruritanian and poetic to my mind. I tend to think the truth will be rather more prosaic. Either way, let's hope the 'remembered' bit comes sooner rather than later before the title of this thread comes to pass.

[henra]

Funnily enough, we survived 4 years of that, I don't get what you are afraid of.

What we are afraid of? Stupid comments from an Orange Occupant in the White House leading to another stupidity in the Kremlin in invading the Baltics. Leading to whatever might happen then. Regarding this "whatever" I have very a hard time conceiving any realistic variant that doesn't ultimately lead to getting close to extinction of mankind.

[Charley]

Will we ever know the real reason for it?

The knowing may, if ever, only ever truly become obvious with hindsight.

Personally, I still think it's as much about resources as much as anything else... so not solely that, but no less significant than other factors. Let's assume Putin isn't 'just a nutter' - the losses he's willing to endure will seem worth it if he ends up winning something tangible. Many of the towns won by Russia at great cost have contained heavy industry and the nearby resources to feed them, e.g. Mariupol and Avdiivka. Ukraine is blessed with significant natural deposits of value in the modern world; lithium, titanium, iron, coal, oil & gas basins, and decent quantities of many rare earth metals (tantalum, beryllium, etc.). There's probably a reason why Wagner the 'Expeditionary Corps (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-68322230)' has similarly spent significant time and effort in Africa amassing mining concessions & minerals in exchange for their support in propping up governments there.

All the bully-boy stuff (no NATO in Vlad's backyard, no Western lifestyles for Russian people to see & envy just over their borders) still applies too, but I can envisage Putin trying to bring these important resources to within his control and fiefdom, rather than Europe's.

Also bear in mind that a large proportion of the world's neon (for use in making microchips) was provided, before the war, by.... Ukraine. Two big factories, the biggest near Odesa. Estimates vary; I read one suggestion of as much as 90% of the West's neon coming from Ukraine, this Reuters article (https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-ukraine-halts-half-worlds-neon-output-chips-clouding-outlook-2022-03-11/) suggests more like 50% of the global need. Either way, it was a significant output. One of the two factories is allegedly relocating to South Korea - the one that some sources suggest was still under Russian ownership via Cypriot shell companies.

Just a theory, and only one aspect to Russia's motivation.

[GlobalNav]

Presumably you’re worried about a treaty that may not exist or of its scope of it does when Russia doesn’t worry about such. Europe doesn’t lack the capacity, it lacks the will to re-arm.

Have the US not fulfilled its NATO obligations?

And my tax burden and my children’s tax burden reflects that.
Understandably there can be disagreement about the “fair share” that each member should provide, but America’s share has not been charity, only for the sake of being a good friend and ally. A strong NATO is key to American national security and that’s why we continue to be a major member. Alliances with other nations around the world, likewise, are not merely to support them unilaterally, but to bolster our own national security through cooperative arrangements. America has truly be fitted in the last few decades from such alliances and it behooves us to maintain and even strengthen them.

[DogTailRed2]

Perhaps the time for bickering is when this war is over. We need to show solidarity to each other including the USA. Anything else just demonstrates weakness.

[NutLoose]

Possible new secretary general of NATO. I agree with the comments re picking someone that does not know Russia plus he appears to come along with a lot of baggage.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1760584849646125179

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1760584849646125179

[NutLoose]

Just been watching Ukraine war from the air on Nat Geo on Sky, very good and worth watching, it covers the war from the early days

[henra]

Possible new secretary general of NATO. I agree with the comments re picking someone that does not know Russia plus he appears to come along with a lot of baggage.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1760584849646125179

On a more positive note, the Netherlands have been a steadfast supporter of Ukraine and have a very clear compass in things NATO. They are unemotional but very clear in statements and actions. I consider that a good mix. Personally I would consider this not a bad choice at all. NATO doesn't need so much big words or emotional statements but clear and stable actions. Clear compass. Rational and decisive, yet calm ans collected. Those are it's core strengths.

[GeeRam]

Possible new secretary general of NATO. I agree with the comments re picking someone that does not know Russia plus he appears to come along with a lot of baggage.



https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1760584849646125179

Wasn't there some controversy though regarding Kallas husband having some iffy ties to Russia...?

[Lonewolf_50]

Article in the Irish Star, courtesy of Charlie Bradley and Callum Hoare.
For those of you nostalgic for - "the good old days" like the 1970's - here you go, riding the nostalgia train with Vladimir Putin and friends. Vladimir Putin's 14 US targets in US he would likely aim for in nuclear war with WestRussian President Vladimir Putin has warned that the West is risking nuclear war if it sends troops to Ukraine (https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/vladimir-putin-nuclear-war-targets-32243272). In his State of the Union address, he claimed that NATO and the US are preparing to "strike Russian territory". He said: "They must realise that we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory. All this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilization. Don't they get that?" Putin previously threatened nuclear war with the West as tensions continue over the war in Ukraine. Putin also announced that his new RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, also known as the Satan-II, is ready for use by the Russian (https://www.irishstar.com/all-about/russia) military. The missile measures 116 feet in length, weighs 220 tonnes, and reportedly has a range of 6,200 to 11,180 miles. With tensions escalating, the map below shows the 14 locations in the US that Russia (https://www.irishstar.com/all-about/russia) would likely target in a nuclear war. {commentary edited out by me for brevity}The Pentagon, Naval Station Norfolk, Kings Bay Naval Base Area, Barksdale Air Force Base, Whiteman Air Force Base, United States Strategic Command, VLF Array Lualualei, Kirtland Air Force Base, 21st Force Support Squadron, Warren Air Force Base, Minot Air Force Base, Hill Air Force Base, Malmstrom Air Force Base, Naval Radio Station Jim CreekHe also said Camp David, a country retreat for the US president in Frederick County, Maryland, is a target. NATO General Secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Putin last year that a nuclear war "can never be won." He said: "Russia (https://www.irishstar.com/all-about/russia) must know that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought." Jens, Putin does not see the world through the same lens as you do.

[Lonewolf_50]

What we are afraid of? Stupid comments from an Orange Occupant in the White House leading to another stupidity in the Kremlin in invading the Baltics. Leading to whatever might happen then. Regarding this "whatever" I have very a hard time conceiving any realistic variant that doesn't ultimately lead to getting close to extinction of mankind. He spent 4 years saying all kinds of stupid stuff on Twitter while in office, and we are still here. I don't share your fear.
Perhaps the time for bickering is when this war is over. We need to show solidarity to each other including the USA. Anything else just demonstrates weakness. Well said.
Possible new secretary general of NATO. I agree with the comments re picking someone that does not know Russia plus he appears to come along with a lot of baggage.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1760584849646125179 Just gonna say that she's better looking than he is. :p

[henra]

He spent 4 years saying all kinds of stupid stuff on Twitter while in office, and we are still here. I don't share your fear.
Well said.

That was before Vlad got himself into self- destruction mode. I'm not sure this time stupid statements won't have different consequences. He will need something to make up for his humiliation in Ukraine. If the planet is lucky he will try the cheap shot at Georgia (The one in his backyard, not yours ;-)) instead of Suwalki Gap.

Just gonna say that she's better looking than he is. :p

Agreed ;-)

[Timmy Tomkins]

Possible new secretary general of NATO. I agree with the comments re picking someone that does not know Russia plus he appears to come along with a lot of baggage.



https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1760584849646125179

Another decision taken by a committee of self interested politicians.

[DogTailRed2]

Re "Putin targeting the west with Nuclear weapons" - this one only works if Putin is happy to destroy the planet, because that is what will happen.
Putin may, but his entourage probably doesn't. The people around him will make the final decision and if they don't well then it's game over for everyone.
Have to make a decision. Live in fear and let Putin win or push Putin out of Ukraine.

[ORAC]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/03/missile-woes-for-german-navy/

Missile Woes For German Navy Amid Red Sea Operation

German air warfare frigate experiences two missile intercept failures while questions loom over Bundeswehr ammunition stockpile supporting warships

[ORAC]

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1765145808708550784?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


​​​​​​​BREAKING:

Poland’s Defense Minister @KosiniakKamysz announces that the Polish Army will create special drone units after having observed the war in Ukraine.

The drone units will be:

- Aerial
- Naval
- Land-based

[DogTailRed2]

BREAKING:

Poland’s Defense Minister @KosiniakKamysz announces that the Polish Army will create special drone units after having observed the war in Ukraine.

The drone units will be:

- Aerial
- Naval
- Land-based

Who will be the first to create anti-drone units?

[Ninthace]

Escort drones to make sure the drones get through? Where will it all end?

[Beamr]

Who will be the first to create anti-drone units?
Anti-aircraft units would per se be responsible already.

[grizzled]

Anti-aircraft units would per se be responsible already.

Only for a portion. More and more drones (i.e. uncrewed mobile weapons systems) will be land based and sea based (both on the surface and submerged). This is one key aspect of the evolution of modern warfare that the war in Ukraine is giving us a glimpse of.

[Beamr]

Only for a portion. More and more drones (i.e. uncrewed mobile weapons systems) will be land based and sea based (both on the surface and submerged). This is one key aspect of the evolution of modern warfare that the war in Ukraine is giving us a glimpse of.
Yes, add air force and navy respectively as necessary. Why would there be a need for yet one more branch? Essentially you have an aircraft, a maritime vessel and a terrain vehicle.

[Geriaviator]

Easy, it will need lots more VSOs to keep 'em in line

[NutLoose]

I wonder what the job description will bee, worker drones?

As one currently gets a set of wings to operate the larger drones, will it be wings for everyone?

[DogTailRed2]

Only for a portion. More and more drones (i.e. uncrewed mobile weapons systems) will be land based and sea based (both on the surface and submerged). This is one key aspect of the evolution of modern warfare that the war in Ukraine is giving us a glimpse of.
I see lots of potential for different types of drone and ai drone equipment in the near future. Smaller drones for surveillance. Autonomous mines and defence drones. We have already seen claymore style drones. For aircraft I see bigger wing man drones from large aircraft sized to smaller annoyance style drones. Imagine a fighter being able to deploy smaller jamming or harassing drones or indeed having ai driven actual wing men. Then there are submersible drones. Tunnelling drones. Sniper kamikaze drones. A drone that was small enough to target an individual person.
Then there is the role of countermeasures. Jamming, catching, preventing, targeting or even hacking and subverting drones. You could gain control of a drone and then follow it back to it's base and hit the base.
I can even see the need for space drones and a space corps. Yes we sneered at Trump but he was right. The next battleground will be in space.