Reply With Quote
I can believe that. Especially with Obama and his likes running the free world.If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly
Now I'll read the first post.
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.
In numerous tabletop war games played over several months between 2014-2015, Russian forces were knocking on the doors of the Estonian capital of Tallinn or the Latvian capital of Riga within 36 to 60 hours. U.S. and Baltic troops — and American airpower — proved unable to halt the advance of mechanized Russian units and suffered heavy casualties, the report said.
The study argues that NATO has been caught napping by a resurgent and unpredictable Russia, which has begun to boost defense spending after having seized the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine and intervened in support of pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine. In the event of a potential Russian incursion in the Baltics, the United States and its allies lack sufficient troop numbers, or tanks and armored vehicles, to slow the advance of Russian armor, said the report by RAND’s David Shlapak and Michael Johnson.
“Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, all bad,” it said.
The United States and its NATO allies could try to mount a bloody counter-attack that could trigger a dramatic escalation by Russia, as Moscow would possibly see the allied action as a direct strategic threat to its homeland. A second option would be to take a page out of the old Cold War playbook, and threaten massive retaliation, including the use of nuclear weapons. A third option would be to concede at least a temporary defeat, rendering NATO toothless, and embark on a new Cold War with Moscow, the report said.
...
A force of about seven brigades in the area, including three heavy armored brigades, and backed up by airpower and artillery, would be enough “to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states,” it said. The additional forces would cost an estimated $2.7 billion a year to maintain.
...
Rest at:
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-started...123950130.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three heavy armored brigades is about a US Armored division (generally about 4 total brigades, with supporting divisional assets).
Think:
1st Cav or so with some attached units, or roughly 50,000 troops. (my own mental calculation, based on a US division being about 30,000)
Not a minor commitment.
I can believe that. Especially with Obama and his likes running the free world.If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly
Now I'll read the first post.
I didn't bother going to the link, but from my knowledge, I agree with what you quoted.
stupid ing measuring
More U.S. troops deploying to Europe in 2017
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...2017/79693680/
http://www.businessinsider.com/only-...et-goal-2015-2
Only the US and Estonia are meeting NATO's defense budget goals
Fourteen NATO countries have so far announced their defense budgets for 2015. Of those fourteen, only the US and Estonia have passed the 2% of GDP threshold that every NATO nation pledged to have as their goal for military expenditure.
According to a new study from the European Leadership Network (ELN), six nations will increase their budgets in 2015 while six military budgets will shrink. France's budget will remain flat. And the UK and Germany, two of the largest military powers in Europe, will be among those seeing their budgets shrink.
Canada's defense budget has not been formally announced but it too is likely to fall, according to the ELN report. Canada has opposed target defense budget goals for NATO and will likely not abide by a September 2014 pledge by NATO countries to increase their defense spending.
This stagnation in military expenditure from the larger military powers in NATO — the UK, France, Germany, and Canada — has led to several smaller NATO states to increase their funding. Not coincidentally, some of them would be frontline states in a future military conflict between Russia and the NATO alliance.
Poland has increased its budget in 2015 and has pledged to raise it again in 2016 to the 2% threshold. Likewise, Latvia is undertaking a gradual increase and aims at reaching the target goal by 2020. Lithuania, which is so concerned over potential Russian aggression that it will bring back military conscription starting in 2016, increased its defense budget from 0.78% to 1.11%.
The ELN report notes that Norway increased its defense budget by 3.5% to 1.6% of GDP over concerns of falling defense spending in western Europe and the idea that it may need to be increasingly self-reliant. Romania, too, increased funding over concerns of Russian intervention in neighboring Moldova.
Although NATO touts its goal of having its member states meet a 2% threshold of GDP for military spending, there are legitimate concerns that European nations could not realistically meet the goal without significant reforms of their military structure.
Ian Anthony, the director of the European Security Program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Ins ute, wrote for Carnegie Europe that for some countries, meeting the target threshold would only lead to significant waste and mismanagement of funds.
"Germany would have to increase its military budget from roughly €37 billion ($42 billion) to over €74 billion ($84 billion) to meet the target," Anthony writes.
"If the German parliament authorized that scale of increase — in itself highly implausible — the country’s armed forces could not effectively absorb the money. The result of pumping that level of spending into current structures would probably be inefficiency and waste, rather than an increase in useful capability."
Lisa Aronsson, a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council, echoed Anthony's views at Carnegie Europe.
"Planners across NATO understand that the way the alliance spends money is more problematic than the amount spent. The results are duplication, poor readiness, and a lack of deployability," Aronsson writes. "NATO has tried to shift the emphasis away from the 2 percent target and onto more useful tools to address these problems."
The question of NATO defense funding has become increasingly urgent thanks to heightenined tensions throughout Europe over potential Russian aggression. Russia has been aiding anti-government separatists in eastern Ukraine and has launched a series of military flights across Europe that have forced NATO members to scramble their own aircraft.
OMG...
Does Obama really want to start Cold War II?
How about Europe doing more of the heavy lifting and picking up the tab for a change?
NATO/EU and the US Ambassador to Ukraine already did that by overthrowing Ukraine's Soviet protege.
How about we simply do nothing except abide by NATO contract should something real happens.
Stay out of the "cold war" aspect of it.
Anyone know why Obomba has an itchy trigger finger? I can't help but think, with the thousands of cruise missiles he ordered launched, that he might start WWIII.
if it were a Repug beefing up US's Euro presence, you'd be ing everywhere.
did you forget wc's expertise in battle?
Old news tbh. But what a hilariously stupid statement:
"if Russia starts a war in the Balkans..."
So if Russia is defending themselves due to NATO moving troops and weapons next door to them. They are "starting a war"
So I am guessing US didn't defend themselves but started during the Cuban crisis right???
Pick up a tab for what?
American imperialism I guess. Contribute Europe!
That was Bush. He and his neocon administration were so obsessed with Russia they ignored al Qaeda - and you know what happened then.
You blamed Clinton.
Is that your wet dream?
Please keep me out of it.
Did I blame Clinton, or point out his hypocrisy?
Remind me please.
After 911, how many democrats signed on to going in?
How many similar things have made it essential to interfere with the middle east since 911?
One more thing.
Have you read this yet:
what was your favorite part? the part where they lied about wmd's or the part where he wants to apologize to powell?Did I blame Clinton, or point out his hypocrisy?
Remind me please.
After 911, how many democrats signed on to going in?
How many similar things have made it essential to interfere with the middle east since 911?
One more thing.
Have you read this yet:
LOL...
Wouldn't you like to know.
And from your description, it's obvious you didn't read it.
Maybe you should give me a page number and the first three words of a paragraph.
does he say they were wrong?
does he say he wants to apologize?
you can go ahead and admit that they lied.
no way could we think any less about you.
LOL...
can't get the context right. I suspect you are reading it from a blog that lies.
See page 98, the second paragraph.
hmmmm....guess i got it all wrong.
why does he want to apologize to powell?
Is your problem with context ignorance, stupidity, or intellectual deceit?
After 9/11?Did I blame Clinton, or point out his hypocrisy?
Remind me please.
After 911, how many democrats signed on to going in?
How many similar things have made it essential to interfere with the middle east since 911?
One more thing.
Have you read this yet:
I'm talking about before.
I've read Against All Enemies, The Looming Tower and At the Center of the Storm. If you can tell me anything new that book provides about the period those cover, go ahead and post it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
