Ukraine joins Poland

[Texas]

Oh dear. You think the only pipe to Europe is through Ukraine? Russia doesn't need Ukraine to sell gas to europe. NATO membership of Georgia doesn't help since Russia could invade and occupy anyway. Then NATO loses a large chunk of credibility. Russia doesn't need militry force to threaten Ukraine (indeed other than a stupidly minor boarder dispute of an island there has never been a suggestion it would do so) it just needs to keep it's hands on the gas tap.

You do know that 85% of Europe's Natural gas goes through Ukraine don't you?

 

[geni]

You are wrong;


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060...-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

From 2006. Things have been changeing somewhat fast.

It is also facing a world in which it has no allies.

Did it have any before recent events? (Transnistria doesn't count we don't talk about Transnistria)

Russia had its hands full in Chechnya

Not so much these days. A population of only a little of a million combiened with a relaxed atitude to useing large amounts of force has resulted in the area becomeing somewhat pacified (turns out you can pacify islamic extreamists if you drop enough hyperbaric weapons on them).

and if you think the Russian military in its present state can act with immunity against the former Warsaw pact countries you are mistaken.

I never suggested it could.

Logistics is not the determining factor it is the effectiveness of the opposition.

If that was the case the nazis would have won WW2. Their kit was better and the soldiers were at least as good. US logistics and production capacity made that meaningless.

Try reading what I wrote, Russia can threaten the west with its energy exports but doing so would wreck its economy that is just barely viable as it is.

I didn't say the west I said Ukraine. Russia can cut off suppy to Ukraine without cutting off supply to the west.

As for NATO losing credibility if it admitted Georgia then it has no credibility anyway.

Why? As it is it has a fair bit credibility. At the present time it can defend with conventional force any NATO member from an invasion by a third party. It could not do that in the case of Georgia.

You may think that Russia is back to being a military Juggernaut

Never said that.

but even Putin isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO nation.

Why? If Georgia was a NATO memeber what on the ground difference would it make?

 

[skepticalbeliever]

I don't know why the US is going to risk a nuclear war over these states. I say it is enough to enjoy freedom at home. Let the former soviet states defend them selves. I really could care less about weather or not Russia invades her neighbors. I am tired of people my age being sent off to die to give other people freedom. I really don't want to see another war involving american soldiers in my life time.

The situation with Georgia scares me because it remindes me of world war 1. I do not believe it is worth it for me to give my life to defend the freedom of people thousands of miles a way. I think America should only go to war do protect her boarders.

 

[geni]

You do know that 85% of Europe's Natural gas goes through Ukraine don't you?

Doesn't have to. Russia has switched off the pipeline in the past they can do it again. There is also that one they are working on in the baltic. Ukraine is playing with a very weak hand. Something of a problem for europe. Ukraine is something of a problem for both russia and europe at the moment post Orange Revolution it's politics have been somewhat erratic.

 

[geni]

I don't know why the US is going to risk a nuclear war over these states. I say it is enough to enjoy freedom at home. Let the former soviet states defend them selves. I really could care less about weather or not Russia invades her neighbors. I am tired of people my age being sent off to die to give other people freedom. I really don't want to see another war involving american soldiers in my life time.

Depends on which neighbors. the effects on the world ecomomy and geoplotical situation of russia being allowed to invade EU memeber states are unlikely to be acceptable in the west. However such an invasion is unlikely to be practicle.

 

[Texas]

From 2006. Things have been changeing somewhat fast.

It is less that 2 years ago and you don't change an outdated Nuclear arsenal that fast. You are just moving goal posts.

Did it have any before recent events? (Transnistria doesn't count we don't talk about Transnistria)

It was on track to at least becoming a respectable nation. It has now shown itself not to want that. It is so steeped in its historic inferiority complex it can't accept the fact that it lost its empire.

Not so much these days. A population of only a little of a million combiened with a relaxed atitude to useing large amounts of force has resulted in the area becomeing somewhat pacified (turns out you can pacify islamic extreamists if you drop enough hyperbaric weapons on them).

So you agree with the Iraq war?

If that was the case the nazis would have won WW2. Their kit was better and the soldiers were at least as good. US logistics and production capacity made that meaningless.

Ukraine has a large standing army and is well equipped. Poland has a well trained and equipped military not to mention NATO membership and a very large military arms production capacity. Russia has the same military doctrine it had in Afghanistan and your vaunted logistics advantage is not one that Russia enjoys.

I didn't say the west I said Ukraine. Russia can cut off suppy to Ukraine without cutting off supply to the west.

Nope since 85% of Russian gas is piped through Ukraine all Ukraine would have to do is tap into the European pipelines exactly as they did when Russia tried to increase the prices they charged Ukraine. The Ukrainians have control over Russia's exports unless Russia is willing to cut off all of Europe and they are not going to do that.

Why? As it is it has a fair bit credibility. At the present time it can defend with conventional force any NATO member from an invasion by a third party. It could not do that in the case of Georgia.

NATO has yet to defend a member nation from invasion so that is a moot point.

Why? If Georgia was a NATO memeber what on the ground difference would it make?

Because it would invoke article 5 and NATO would be bound by treaty to act. BTW Did you see this today?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDNLWfQWKrQc48pITBUg9KT_6oVwD92K2SE80

Germany offers support for Georgia's NATO bid
By MICHAEL FISCHER – 14 hours ago

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) — German Chancellor Angela Merkel is offering strong support for Georgia, saying the country is on track to become a member of NATO.

Merkel flew to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi on Sunday, two days after she met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

In a speech Sunday, Merkel also suggested that NATO could help rebuild the tattered Georgian military.

Merkel supports the EU cease-fire, saying it needs to be followed "immediately" and that Russian troops need to pull out of neighboring Georgia.

As I said before Russia overplayed a very weak hand and it is now becoming quickly encircled.

 

[geni]

It is less that 2 years ago and you don't change an outdated Nuclear arsenal that fast. You are just moving goal posts.

No you don't change it. You don't need to other than some of the early warning systems the system is fundimentaly sound. Just a matter of employing people to actualy do routine maintenance and provide them with materials and equipement.

It was on track to at least becoming a respectable nation. It has now shown itself not to want that.

Did you see the last elections? Thats like calling china respectable. It was on track to being taken for granted.

It is so steeped in its historic inferiority complex it can't accept the fact that it lost its empire.

More that after being invaded by just about everyone over the centrues it is somewhat paranoid over it's boarders.

So you agree with the Iraq war?

Saddam wasn't as islamic extreamist. Indeed Saddam was of the class of leaders that bin lardern's brand of islamic extreamists were looking to overthrow. Much like Mubarak still is.

Ukraine has a large standing army and is well equipped.

So was the Russian army in the mid 90s

Poland has a well trained and equipped military not to mention NATO membership and a very large military arms production capacity.

Short of Poland invadeing Kaliningrad I really can't see Russia trying to use militry force against Poland even than only maybe. Poland is safe enough as are the other EU states.

Russia has the same military doctrine it had in Afghanistan and your vaunted logistics advantage is not one that Russia enjoys.

Russia has a logistics advantage in Georgia although it helps that someone failed to block the Roki Tunnel. Afghanistan isn't comparible to any of the uses of militry force that Russia is likely to consider.

Nope since 85% of Russian gas is piped through Ukraine all Ukraine would have to do is tap into the European pipelines exactly as they did when Russia tried to increase the prices they charged Ukraine. The Ukrainians have control over Russia's exports unless Russia is willing to cut off all of Europe and they are not going to do that.

See that new undersea pipline being built in the north?

NATO has yet to defend a member nation from invasion so that is a moot point.

The general assumption is that that is the fundimental reason for it's existance.

Because it would invoke article 5 and NATO would be bound by treaty to act.

And how exactly should it act? NATO is not in a position to carry out a war in georgia at this time. Heck Russia could have occupied the entire place before last weekend if they had wanted to.

BTW Did you see this today?

Merkel wants to talk tough. Fair enough how much is she planning to increase german militry spending by this year? We are haveing a hard enough time getting them to accept their complete eurofighter order as it is.

As I said before Russia overplayed a very weak hand and it is now becoming quickly encircled.

Russia has been encircled since about 1991. Its actualy fractionaly less so than it was at the start of current events.

 

[Texas]

No you don't change it. You don't need to other than some of the early warning systems the system is fundimentaly sound. Just a matter of employing people to actualy do routine maintenance and provide them with materials and equipement.

Do you know what routine maintenance means in regards to Nuclear weapons? If 85% of their ICBMS are inoperable then you have no effective nuclear deterrent against the United States. More from the same paper:

The third leg of Russia's nuclear triad has weakened the most. Since 2000, Russia's SSBNs have conducted approximately two patrols per year, down from 60 in 1990. (By contrast, the U.S. SSBN patrol rate today is about 40 per year.) Most of the time, all nine of Russia's ballistic missile submarines are sitting in port, where they make easy targets. Moreover, submarines require well-trained crews to be effective. Operating a ballistic missile submarine -- and silently coordinating its operations with surface ships and attack submarines to evade an enemy's forces -- is not simple. Without frequent patrols, the skills of Russian submariners, like the submarines themselves, are decaying. Revealingly, a 2004 test (attended by President Vladimir Putin) of several submarine-launched ballistic missiles was a total fiasco: all either failed to launch or veered off course. The fact that there were similar failures in the summer and fall of 2005 completes this unflattering picture of Russia's nuclear forces.

More that after being invaded by just about everyone over the centrues it is somewhat paranoid over it's boarders.

LOL, poor picked on Russia.

Saddam wasn't as islamic extreamist. Indeed Saddam was of the class of leaders that bin lardern's brand of islamic extreamists were looking to overthrow. Much like Mubarak still is.

From the 1991 indictment of Bin Laden:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development

See that new undersea pipline being built in the north?

Scheduled for completion when?

And how exactly should it act? NATO is not in a position to carry out a war in georgia at this time. Heck Russia could have occupied the entire place before last weekend if they had wanted to.

NATO, as a whole, has NEVER been in the position to wage war except for two of its members. It is a total failure so far in Afghanistan. Putin well knows who would he would be facing in any NATO action.

Merkel wants to talk tough. Fair enough how much is she planning to increase german militry spending by this year? We are having a hard enough time getting them to accept their complete eurofighter order as it is.

Or maybe being from East Berlin she knows a bit about what Russia is all about.

 

[leonAzul]

It would seem that Russia is back in the game.

Russia launches another ballistic missile, prepares to create sea-based carrier systems Link

Russia to set new record with 8-billion-dollar arms sales in 2008 Link

Russia test launches sea-based ballistic missile in Pacific Link

OTOH, there is this:

The need to be open-minded about Russia's approaches Link

Texas, I'm not adding these links to refute you--AAMOF, I agree with you on a number of points you have made--but rather to provide a little more context for the discussion. These reports and opinion pieces need to be read just as critically as the material you have linked to.

One of several things about recent reports of events in the area of South Ossetia that keep me from drawing anything like firm conclusions is their fragmentary nature. Each source seems to have its own bias and suffers from enormous gaps, yet they manage not to be contradictory. Claims of wrong-doing are not being answered by refutation, but rather by counter-claims.

A very interesting game of chess is unfolding, as we watch.

 

[Magtor]

See that new undersea pipline being built in the north?

No, I don't see anything more than plans if I look.

 

[WildCat]

Russia has a logistics advantage in Georgia although it helps that someone failed to block the Roki Tunnel.

Last time I checked there was a large NATO member country on Georgia's southern border. This same country has ports on the Mediteranean Sea.

If Georgia had been a NATO member the logistics wouldn't be a great problem.

 

[GreyICE]

Texas, how many successful nuclear weapon detonations are acceptable in a nuclear war?

 

[Thunder]

Russia needs to learn that its old "satellites" will not succumb to its bullying any longer.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Last time I checked there was a large NATO member country on Georgia's southern border. This same country has ports on the Mediteranean Sea. If Georgia had been a NATO member the logistics wouldn't be a great problem.

Not so fast.

First, the political problem we saw with the 4th ID not being allowed into Turkey on the way to Iraq. Screwed the campaign plan a bit.

The Turks will look out for Turkey first, and having to live close to the Bear, will be cautious is enabling armed forces to traipse across their railways and highways to staging areas in Northeastern Turkey.

I worked on reinforcement planning and infrastructure projects, Turkey and elsewhere, on a NATO staff about a decade ago. I'll posit that they've improved since, but I'd still not call those Lines of COmmunication, from the Med to Northeastern Turkey, robust. No, logistic support for a significant formation is very much a problem, and one easily degraded by Spec Ops, SPEZNAZ, or terrorist style operations.

Gumboot, elsewhere, posited the US dropping the XVIIIth Airborne Corps into Georgia. He's not being mindful of the logistics issues, for a sustained operation. There is also the strategic element. US tends to use XVIIIth Airborne Corps as first in, to be replaced rather rapidly with follow on forces. If XVIIIth is in Georgia, and follow on are all in Iraq, US has no 9-11 force of the sort XVIII was designed to be to handle a contingency Anywhere On The Globe. (Ever hear of a place called Korea? )

No, no, and no. I am seeing handwaves rather than nuts and bolts thinking. Being buried in the tarbaby of Iraq at the moment significantly curtails the sort of force projection you guys have been talking about.

And Putin knows it.

DR

 

[WildCat]

Not so fast.

First, the political problem we saw with the 4th ID not being allowed into Turkey on the way to Iraq. Screwed the campaign plan a bit.

The Turks will look out for Turkey first, and having to live close to the Bear, will be cautious is enabling armed forces to traipse across their railways and highways to staging areas in Northeastern Turkey.

Iraq was not a NATO operation. If Article 5 was invoked (remember I'm using a hypothetical that Georgia was a member of NATO) Turkey would be obligated to help.

Not that I think there's a chance in hell that Putin would be so reckless as to attack a NATO member.

 

[CapelDodger]

They don't start one. They invade then NATO's only option to counter that is nuclear war we do not realisticaly have the capacity to defend Georgia with conventional forces at this time.

The NATO commitment wouldn't just apply on the ground in Georgia. It implies general war on Russia to force its withdrawal. That war can be fought far from Georgia and in much more favourable circumstances. But nobody remotely wants to. Which is why Georgia will never become a NATO member in either of their lifetimes.

 

[CapelDodger]

Russia needs to learn that its old "satellites" will not succumb to its bullying any longer.

That's not what they've learnt from their march through Georgia. I guess the lesson will have to come another day, and in a different place.

 

[CapelDodger]

First, the political problem we saw with the 4th ID not being allowed into Turkey on the way to Iraq. Screwed the campaign plan a bit.

The campaign wasn't the problem. The staff-work (with this thrown in at a late stage) was exemplary; the execution was more than professional; bish, bosh, job done.

The problems came in the aftermath.

 

[Policenaut]

That's not what they've learnt from their march through Georgia. I guess the lesson will have to come another day, and in a different place.

Maybe they picked the right one. I don't know much about the military prowess of the former Soviet territories but Georgia seemed very weak and totally unorganized militarily. If they went into a different country with a better fighting force and were inflicted with many casualties Russia might be thinking differently.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe they picked the right one. I don't know much about the military prowess of the former Soviet territories but Georgia seemed very weak and totally unorganized militarily.

Georgia's problem, militarily, is primarily one of relative size compared to Russia, and there's not much they could have done about that. Its soldiers are decent enough (Russian troops not being exactly stellar themselves), but they've largely been equiped to fight counter-insurgency, since that's the security problem they had up until the Russian tanks came rolling in.