NATO vs Russia

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[pr00ne]

Originally Posted by West Coast

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]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

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]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

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]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

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]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Ukraine War Thread Part 2

[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 will be "neutralized" if Moscow challenges NATO on the Baltic Sea. Linas Linkevicius, who served as Lithuania's foreign minister and defense minister before he assumed his ambassador position, made the comments on X, formerly Twitter, in a post related to Sweden's accession to NATO.

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.

Originally Posted by t43562

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]

Article 5

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]

Originally Posted by Canary Boy

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]

Originally Posted by DogTailRed2

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

The US could do what Obama did in Western Africa and Lybia in the teens, and lead from the rear. 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]

Article 5

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?