NATO to Triple Size of Reaction Force

This doesn't sound good at all....I just hope any war in the future won't have nukes go off. I also despise the notion of M.A.D. Life is precious and so is the earth. These mad men have serious issues not seeing this.

a reply to: JHumm

Name me one country that the US is "occupying"..Just one...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: JHumm

What is clear is if they weren't 'wanted', they would be allowed to land and deploy by the EU.

Most of the EU's 27 nations are NATO members and all of them will be contributing something to this new RRF. NATO isn't the US - in fact, the combined military might of the EU is on par with the US in terms of manpower and conventional capability in many area's, it just lacks unity.

You can guarantee though that if Russia thinks it can roll over Europe they're in for a shock. Despite internal differences, Europe would rally quite quickly and has more than enough b[]professional and well equipped forces to give the Russia's a hiding on their own.

a reply to: stumason

I can't argue that. Combined, it is a formidable force.

As we've seen in both Crimea and the Ukraine, segments both within the political sphere as well as outside have been influenced (subverted) before any Russian move.

Putin is smart enough not to move unless he feels he holds the better hand. It's an area I know zero about, but what nations in NATO have the potential to 'bend knee' to Russia and not participate in a NATO coalition?

Bottom line is this 'expansion' of the reaction force is a token effort and, I suspect, nothing more than a bolster to the weak link in the EU/NATO which seems to be political will and/or the lack of a nation that fills the leadership role that the U.S. provided in the day.

I am more concerned about Islamic State at the moment. We have just witnessed several attacks in the Middle East this week and in France. What happens when they turn to Russia. And you can guarantee they will after Russia invaded Cheynza. Will Putin go and puts boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq and wipe the monsters out? What then? Will Putin keep his troops there and become embedded and gain influence in the Middle East? If you have ever watched the film Threads WW3 started in the Middle East. Could this scenario happen? Just putting a different angle on all of this.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Putin is smart enough not to move unless he feels he holds the better hand. It's an area I know zero about, but what nations in NATO have the potential to 'bend knee' to Russia and not participate in a NATO coalition?

Oddly, the most likely to "bend knee" are two of the three most powerful nations - France and Germany. The eastern nations are very pro-NATO and fearful of Russia and it's them who have been making the most noise at NATO meetings about bolstering defences.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Bottom line is this 'expansion' of the reaction force is a token effort and, I suspect, nothing more than a bolster to the weak link in the EU/NATO which seems to be political will and/or the lack of a nation that fills the leadership role that the U.S. provided in the day.

It's just enough to make Russia pause. 40,000 is not enough to repel a full Russian invasion, but it is certainly enough to hold them long enough for full mobilisation to take effect.

a reply to: Wirral Bagpuss

Indeed - that film started with a Russian invasion of Iran, who then use nuclear tipped AA missiles to wipe out a US bomber force, if memory serves.

That said, Russia can ill-afford a deployment of any strength to the ME. They simply don't have the military capacity or the finances to support that at any length, much less the will at home when the body bags of conscripted teenagers start coming home. The Ukraine conflict is already causing a stir on the home front for them and the Russian forces have been taking quite heavy casualties against the embattled Ukraine forces.

Also, with the loss of the Mistral ships, their sea lift capacity is now hamstrung and they have limited prospects for getting there by land. NATO could block the Bosporus and stop them if needs be and the Black Sea "Fleet" (more of a flotilla) is in no way capable of pushing out.

a reply to: stumason

The Ukraine conflict is already causing a stir on the home front for them and the Russian forces have been taking quite heavy casualties against the embattled Ukraine forces.

And it doesn't get better once Ukraine National Guards take advantage of the training they are receiving.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Indeed... Once the Ukraine forces have taken stock, had their training and what have you they'll be more than enough of a match for the rebels and the Russian "volunteers", meaning either the conflict will be resolved or the Russians will have to commit properly, at which point the jig is up and everyone can see what Russia is really up too.

a reply to: stumason

Once the Ukraine forces have taken stock, had their training and what have you they'll be more than enough of a match for the rebels and the Russian "volunteers", meaning either the conflict will be resolved or the Russians will have to commit properly, at which point the jig is up and everyone can see what Russia is really up too.

I say Putin denies it even when the jig is up.

a reply to: stumason

The French I considered a given to 'opt out'. Germany is a bit of a surprise....

I'd have put Turkey of the top of the list of NATO members who would decide not to play with perhaps Italy being overly focused to the south. The rest, I haven't a clue.

Giving pause to Putin seems a good move militarily. Add in the political aspect of potential direct conflict with the U.S. should add to that "pause".

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: stumason

The French I considered a given to 'opt out'. Germany is a bit of a surprise....

I'd have put Turkey of the top of the list of NATO members who would decide not to play with perhaps Italy being overly focused to the south. The rest, I haven't a clue.

Giving pause to Putin seems a good move militarily. Add in the political aspect of potential direct conflict with the U.S. should add to that "pause".

Turkey would be all in. They and their close buddies Azerbaijan and Georgia would love to remove the Russians from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. France and Germany would also be in. If for no other reasons than NATO is the basis of their national security and losing that would lead to chaos and an arms race in Europe. The only nation that might not play along would be Greece. Greece not only is dirt poor but, also is the only NATO member with an air force of decent size that has never sent fighters to defend the Balkans air space.

A good idea of who would be all in is to look at the first 4 leaders of the new NATO response force, they also provide the bulk of the troops on their watch Germany, Spain, UK, Italy, Poland and France are in line so far.

Now when I say Greece would not play that is not to say they would do nothing. They would just do the least amount possible help secure Bulgaria's airspace and patrols the Med. but, not send forces to face Russia. Not that I think the alliance would ask anyway. Mostly you would have US, French, UK and German heavy units supported by light units and Special Forces from Spain, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada. Along with air support from those nations. All that would fall in to Poland, Rumanias, and Baltic forces with additional forces from some of the other smaller eastern states. Denmark and Norway would likely responsible for helping secure Sweden and Finland. You might find other jumping in as well, Moldava to remove its Russian troops, states who want to join NATO and non NATO EU members all to different degrees. NATO's Close allies in Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco would help secure the southern flank and maintain NATO dominance of the Med.

a reply to: MrSpad

So you think the "Ottoman Empire" dreams of resurrection wouldn't make the Turks sit it out and let the 'infidels' bleed themselves down to size?

Any scenario of freeing up Georgia, Armenia, et al, implies a full out war. I was thinking more of blocking any further nibbling at Europe by Putin. in that scenario, a 'smallish' event and I could see a number of nations very reluctant to participate.

Major, full out, European style fracas? Sure. Then everyone goes all in. Otherwise? I'm not so sure.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: MrSpad

So you think the "Ottoman Empire" dreams of resurrection wouldn't make the Turks sit it out and let the 'infidels' bleed themselves down to size?

Any scenario of freeing up Georgia, Armenia, et al, implies a full out war. I was thinking more of blocking any further nibbling at Europe by Putin. in that scenario, a 'smallish' event and I could see a number of nations very reluctant to participate.

Major, full out, European style fracas? Sure. Then everyone goes all in. Otherwise? I'm not so sure.

Well a small scale would most likely be handled by whomever was leading the reaction force at the time. Germany, Spain, UK, Italy, Poland and France have all offered to take the spot when needed so clearly they would be nations that not only would be involved but, want to be a key part of that involvement. The US of course. The Turks would not be involved as their job would be to secure NATO's flank. Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and Canada are always at the front of any NATO action but in a limited scenario would not be needed. Albania, Bulgaria, Czechs, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungry would also not likely be called in something small scale as they are all still upgrading forces. Portugal has been very aggressive with its support for Poland and Baltic NATO states but, distance would again make them unnecessary.

Ideally in such a case you would have whatever local forces, the reaction force mostly manned by whomever is leading it at the time (Germany to start with) backed by US forces coming onto pre pro equipment. You could also expect symbolic commitments by the UK, Germany and France (if they were not leading the reaction force at the time) to show solidarity but, in the meantime preparing for a possible bigger conflict. To be completely honest in something small scale the US would likely ask everybody else to fall into support mode and deal with it directly.

The real problem folks is that Putin WOULD use nukes. Can please somebody post him a selection of nuclear war films that shows the dreaded post apocalyptic after effects of even a limited nuclear exchange. I don't want to get nuked thank you very much. On the other hand nuking my credit card debt would come in handy!!

Seriously though I do think Putin is a very dangerous individual because he is so unreasonable in his behaviour. He certainly wont give up power unless there is a coup or he is bumped off. Sure every country is entitled to their own way of living but at least have a leader who is pragmatic. Very much like Gorbechev was when he was in power. We owe him a great deal. But he should have seen the danger Putin represented and cut him off. Oh well. I guess we cant blame him too much. Putin stole the revolution especially with Yeltsin being drunk much of the time and did nothing to stop wolves like Putin from destroying the birth of democracy in Russia. If only one had a time machine... say has anyone seen a blue Police box around lately?!!!

a reply to: MrSpad

Yes you are correct, however this will show us if Putin is intelligent and tones down his lip service or if he wants to keep talking smack and force NATO to put full U.S. Army divisions on his doorstep again.

When Russia moves heavy divisions of armor and 160,000 troops up to Ukraine and other nations borders making it look like they are going to invade someone they have no room to talk over 40,000 NATO troops far off the actual border.

Europe needs to get their act together or Putin will steam roll them if Hostilities break out. The U.S. is not in Europe, in a strong enough roll to stop anything he does.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: MrSpad

Yes you are correct, however this will show us if Putin is intelligent and tones down his lip service or if he wants to keep talking smack and force NATO to put full U.S. Army divisions on his doorstep again.

When Russia moves heavy divisions of armor and 160,000 troops up to Ukraine and other nations borders making it look like they are going to invade someone they have no room to talk over 40,000 NATO troops far off the actual border.

Indeedy...

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
Europe needs to get their act together or Putin will steam roll them if Hostilities break out. The U.S. is not in Europe, in a strong enough roll to stop anything he does.

Even if Europe made no effort to pre-position it's Armed Forces, the Russians lack the capacity to "steamroll" anyone. They are totally outmatched and outnumbered in the Air, which is critical, not to mention on the ground and at sea. The best Russia could hope for is steamrolling Ukraine - beyond that, they have no hope.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: MrSpad

Yes you are correct, however this will show us if Putin is intelligent and tones down his lip service or if he wants to keep talking smack and force NATO to put full U.S. Army divisions on his doorstep again.

When Russia moves heavy divisions of armor and 160,000 troops up to Ukraine and other nations borders making it look like they are going to invade someone they have no room to talk over 40,000 NATO troops far off the actual border.

Europe needs to get their act together or Putin will steam roll them if Hostilities break out. The U.S. is not in Europe, in a strong enough roll to stop anything he does.

A real invasion is not realistic. At least not without some serious build up time. Russia active military is under 800,000 and of that only 280,000 are professional soldiers with the remainder being 1 year conscripts. In theory the Russian can call out another 2 million men. They however would be mostly former 1 year conscripts who require a great deal of equipping and training to get combat ready. At least a 3 to 1 advantage would be required to go on the offensive. And getting that into place would take a long long time. Time enough for NATO to respond.

The real risk Russia poses is just grabbing something small, reinforcing it and daring NATO to attack and take it back. The new reaction force should end that threat. The next real problem is Russia attacking Finland, Sweden or Moldova. Non NATO members, so not no response by treaty is required. Would NATO go to war for them? That is a question nobody knows.

Passive Aggression

When considering the role of the NATO Response Force (NRF), I think it's important to bear in mind that it is far less likely to be needed for a direct invasion than for security and peacekeeping roles in areas affected by Russian subversion operations.

Ukraine provides a textbook example of how Russia would approach other neighbors in Eastern Europe. Instead of overtly sending in troops, it would provide covert support to militant dissident groups and foment political instability. As the instability turned violent, Russia might choose to send in little green men and unmarked military equipment as it has in Ukraine.

All the while flatly denying any involvement, of course.

While large-scale invasions are possible, I think Russia's new formula for regional dominance in the 21st century has less to do with rolling in tanks Soviet-style and more to do with using financial pressure, political manipulation (influencing elections, bribery, blackmail, etc.), intimidation -- and where those fail to produce the desired results -- covert operations, political destabilization and unmarked, "deniable" troop and equipment deployments. In other words, Russia is starting more and more to draw from the Western playbook.

If Russia were to push NATO into open war, they lose, lose big, and they know it. But they also know they can slowly chip away at their less vigilant neighbors, and if they do it right, potentially gain more than they would from direct aggression.

When that occurs, it will be up to the NATO Response Force to intervene, and when it does, it is probably going to find itself in the middle of civil unrest or a guerrilla war, rather than a classic invasion.

Hopefully they will be adequately prepared for it.

originally posted by: Majic
When that occurs, it will be up to the NATO Response Force to intervene, and when it does, it is probably going to find itself in the middle of civil unrest or a guerrilla war, rather than a classic invasion.

Thankfully, something that NATO forces are actually well versed in, having been in Iraq and Afghan doing exactly that.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: MrSpad

Well said. I'd part ways with the last comment.

The west IS weak, will-wise.

Democracies are weak, bickering, unstable and noisy almost all of the time. Dictatorships seem vigorous, virile and strong in these cases.

But when truly challenged and threatened, free societies gain an indominable iron will and deadly purpose, and tyrannies crack and fall from their people's weariness of pretending to be patriotic for the benefit of scumbags.