NATO vs Russia
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
Article 5 was implemented, successfully, by the US, after 911.
That’s a pretty damning assessment of the military capabilities of other members of NATO.
The Baltic state invaded would invoke Article 5. If the US chose not to get involved it would indeed signal troubling times for NATO.
The following 3 users liked this post by pr00ne:
If you want to tangent out, that’s fine but it doesn’t speak to the observation I made, you know that as well.
Can NATO invoke Article 5 even if the USA does not go along?
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,900 Likes
on
1,242 Posts
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.
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.
Ukraine War Thread Part 2
It's very important to talk smack..if you are Linas Linkevicius.
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.
Oh, dear, being in agreement? Are we allowed to do that?
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.
Oh, dear, being in agreement? Are we allowed to do that?
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.
The following 2 users liked this post 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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following 2 users liked this post by GlobalNav:
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?