Pentagon to quadruple European budget
Thread Starter
Pentagon to quadruple European budget
US 'to quadruple defence budget for Europe' - BBC News
"The Pentagon is to propose quadrupling its budget for European defence in 2017 in the light of "Russian aggression", US Defence Secretary Ash Carter says"
Any thoughts?
cheers
"The Pentagon is to propose quadrupling its budget for European defence in 2017 in the light of "Russian aggression", US Defence Secretary Ash Carter says"
Any thoughts?
cheers
That Pacific pivot went well then........
While it's to be welcomed, let's hope it doesn't lead to a re-occurrence of the Homer Simpson defence policies ("why can't someone else do it?") so beloved of our European leaders in recent times......
While it's to be welcomed, let's hope it doesn't lead to a re-occurrence of the Homer Simpson defence policies ("why can't someone else do it?") so beloved of our European leaders in recent times......
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Perhaps they will stay at RAF Mildenhall after all... ?? 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly
War games show NATO’s eastern flank is vulnerable. To deter Moscow, the United States will need to deploy heavy armor on a large scale, a new study says.
If Russian tanks and troops rolled into the Baltics tomorrow, outgunned and outnumbered NATO forces would be overrun in under three days. That’s the sobering conclusion of war games carried out by a think tank with American military officers and civilian officials. “The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members,” said a report by the Rand Corp., which led the war gaming research.........
The report was released Tuesday, the same day Defense Secretary Ash Carter unveiled plans to add more heavy weapons and armored vehicles to prepositioned stocks in Eastern Europe to give the Pentagon two brigade sets worth of heavy equipment on NATO’s eastern frontier........
Since Russia’s intervention in Ukraine sparked alarm in Eastern Europe, the United States has repeatedly vowed to defend Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the event of an attack, citing its mutual defense obligations under the NATO alliance. In a September 2014 speech in Tallinn, President Barack Obama made an explicit promise to protect the Baltic countries. “We’ll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you will never lose it again,” Obama said.
But the Rand report said “neither the United States nor its NATO allies are currently prepared to back up the president’s forceful words.”
The war games run by Rand underscored how U.S. and NATO forces lack the vehicles and firepower to take on their Russian adversaries, which have maintained more mechanized and tank units. NATO ground troops also lacked anti-aircraft artillery to fend off Russian warplanes in the Baltic scenario.
“By and large, NATO’s infantry found themselves unable even to retreat successfully and were destroyed in place,” the report said.........
War games show NATO’s eastern flank is vulnerable. To deter Moscow, the United States will need to deploy heavy armor on a large scale, a new study says.
If Russian tanks and troops rolled into the Baltics tomorrow, outgunned and outnumbered NATO forces would be overrun in under three days. That’s the sobering conclusion of war games carried out by a think tank with American military officers and civilian officials. “The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members,” said a report by the Rand Corp., which led the war gaming research.........
The report was released Tuesday, the same day Defense Secretary Ash Carter unveiled plans to add more heavy weapons and armored vehicles to prepositioned stocks in Eastern Europe to give the Pentagon two brigade sets worth of heavy equipment on NATO’s eastern frontier........
Since Russia’s intervention in Ukraine sparked alarm in Eastern Europe, the United States has repeatedly vowed to defend Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the event of an attack, citing its mutual defense obligations under the NATO alliance. In a September 2014 speech in Tallinn, President Barack Obama made an explicit promise to protect the Baltic countries. “We’ll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you will never lose it again,” Obama said.
But the Rand report said “neither the United States nor its NATO allies are currently prepared to back up the president’s forceful words.”
The war games run by Rand underscored how U.S. and NATO forces lack the vehicles and firepower to take on their Russian adversaries, which have maintained more mechanized and tank units. NATO ground troops also lacked anti-aircraft artillery to fend off Russian warplanes in the Baltic scenario.
“By and large, NATO’s infantry found themselves unable even to retreat successfully and were destroyed in place,” the report said.........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
But in those days, having switched from "Tripwire" to "Flexible Response", and with a range of tactical nukes from Davy Crockett to GLCM, we had a ladder of escalation the USSR knew no one could guarantee to control if use started.
Now, there's only the ICBMs on our side. And the Russians don't believe anyone would use them.
Now, there's only the ICBMs on our side. And the Russians don't believe anyone would use them.
Last edited by ORAC; 4th Feb 2016 at 12:39.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that I am reading 'Battleground Prussia' by Prit Buttar at the moment.
Similar scenario in 44/45. The Wehrmacht and SS had substantial Armour Assets and Panzer troops plus artillery and Landser on land and sea - they held the Russians for a long time from a series of defence lines and fotress positions. A controlled retreat ultimately handicapped by seaborne evacuations and political 'interference'.
The Germans had nearly a year to prepare but were still over-run in a matter of months. I do wonder how we would respond if the Russian steamroller came into town..................
It's an interesting read, and some lessons to be learned there............
Arc
Similar scenario in 44/45. The Wehrmacht and SS had substantial Armour Assets and Panzer troops plus artillery and Landser on land and sea - they held the Russians for a long time from a series of defence lines and fotress positions. A controlled retreat ultimately handicapped by seaborne evacuations and political 'interference'.
The Germans had nearly a year to prepare but were still over-run in a matter of months. I do wonder how we would respond if the Russian steamroller came into town..................
It's an interesting read, and some lessons to be learned there............
Arc
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
The Germans had nearly a year to prepare but were still over-run in a matter of months. I do wonder how we would respond if the Russian steamroller came into town..................
Then the paperwork, risk assesment and all that entails would take months to process...
We wouldnt'
What, the NATO allies once again aren't paying up because it hurts? (And it does, as the years go by these defense expenditures just keep getting more expensive ...)
I am reminded of the 80's era bickering on who offered what percent GDP for defense budget and why, or why not ...
I remember the "expansion of NATO" advocates sucking their teeth a lot when I'd ask how to fold extra nations into the already bickering gaggle that was the 16 nations of the time. What all of those nations wanted was bilateral American security guarantees. They knew their neighbors locally well enough to be wary of them being bold and brassy enough for the purpose.
This was 20 years ago.
Granted, the situation has changed somewhat, but I worry that the underlying issues I saw then have not.
I am reminded of the 80's era bickering on who offered what percent GDP for defense budget and why, or why not ...
I remember the "expansion of NATO" advocates sucking their teeth a lot when I'd ask how to fold extra nations into the already bickering gaggle that was the 16 nations of the time. What all of those nations wanted was bilateral American security guarantees. They knew their neighbors locally well enough to be wary of them being bold and brassy enough for the purpose.
This was 20 years ago.
Granted, the situation has changed somewhat, but I worry that the underlying issues I saw then have not.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the people who said in the 80's "the Military are just in a panic - we don't need to spend the cash" will turn round and say "Well we were right .... 30 years of peace"
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the main topic, IMHO:
Good thing is that this budget increase and following deployment of extra NATO troops will create some jobs for poor local people. Food supply, cleaning services, perimeter guards, and so on... At least cutting (or not creating) a few thousands of black jobs in the Western Europe.
From the military standpoint it makes little sense as it would be just a few hours of extra work for the Russian machine to wipe out all this stuff in case of a serious conflict, which Russia is obviously not interested in, but some crap film makers love to imagine.
Good thing is that this budget increase and following deployment of extra NATO troops will create some jobs for poor local people. Food supply, cleaning services, perimeter guards, and so on... At least cutting (or not creating) a few thousands of black jobs in the Western Europe.
From the military standpoint it makes little sense as it would be just a few hours of extra work for the Russian machine to wipe out all this stuff in case of a serious conflict, which Russia is obviously not interested in, but some crap film makers love to imagine.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
just a few hours of extra work for the Russian machine to wipe out all this stuff in case of a serious conflict
The Russians do like to think themselves as a super power, when they are nothing of the sort.The invasion of Ukraine, Georgia and Syria is/was hardly impressive.
The defense spending has increased considerable in the Baltics, with weapons that could make a considerable difference against the flimsy Russian armour.
The defense spending has increased considerable in the Baltics, with weapons that could make a considerable difference against the flimsy Russian armour.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 peter we
1. Regarding "superpower", it depends on the domain. As a whole - Russia is not a superpower. The economy is too weak and not a modern one, because the current regime lost the time to convert oil bucks into technologies. But if we talk about military or space (which I am proudly belonging to), here we are in the same category as US, then come China and France. BTW, UK is obviously in the second division as far as the mil. domain is concerned, and in space it is likely in the 3rd one (behind Italy, India and some others). But in general, the UK is a more developed country than Russia, who could argue?
2. You wrote:
"The invasion of Ukraine, Georgia and Syria is/was hardly impressive".
You read/listen to too much propaganda. No invasion in Ukraine at all - if it were, on the next day Kiev would have another government. Maybe a couple hundreds of Russian advisors to Ukraine separatists are there, plus a few thousand of volunteers, but the latter are on both sides.
Georgia? The troops were withdrawn in a few days after the Georgian forces (who attacked the UN-mandated peacekeeping forces) started running towards its capital. Again, it was a matter of a day or two to take over their capital, but this was not done and even the regime was not changed.
Syria? What invasion are you talking about? The forces were invited by the government. The same way as US troops are in Iraq, and nobody says they have "invaded" the country.
1. Regarding "superpower", it depends on the domain. As a whole - Russia is not a superpower. The economy is too weak and not a modern one, because the current regime lost the time to convert oil bucks into technologies. But if we talk about military or space (which I am proudly belonging to), here we are in the same category as US, then come China and France. BTW, UK is obviously in the second division as far as the mil. domain is concerned, and in space it is likely in the 3rd one (behind Italy, India and some others). But in general, the UK is a more developed country than Russia, who could argue?
2. You wrote:
"The invasion of Ukraine, Georgia and Syria is/was hardly impressive".
You read/listen to too much propaganda. No invasion in Ukraine at all - if it were, on the next day Kiev would have another government. Maybe a couple hundreds of Russian advisors to Ukraine separatists are there, plus a few thousand of volunteers, but the latter are on both sides.
Georgia? The troops were withdrawn in a few days after the Georgian forces (who attacked the UN-mandated peacekeeping forces) started running towards its capital. Again, it was a matter of a day or two to take over their capital, but this was not done and even the regime was not changed.
Syria? What invasion are you talking about? The forces were invited by the government. The same way as US troops are in Iraq, and nobody says they have "invaded" the country.
From the experience in Ukraine, Russian tanks (all up to the t-90) are very vulnerable to artillery, they burn easily. Which explains the renewed interest in the Central/Eastern states for artillery and MLRS.
A Van: Yes, Russians are deluded.
A Van: Yes, Russians are deluded.
