Russian military is not Prepared for any real War

[TigerPaws]

[color="#0000ff"][size="4"] To continue with something Rvrwind  posted in the no comment section, during the first Gulf War we (the U.S.) set up  for the then Soviet High Command a direct satellite link from our command  center, though his action was not classified but it was not widely known to the  general public. The Soviets were allowed to see live video feeds as well as raw  video directly from the battlefield, there was very little censorship, the  Soviet General Staff received a first hand look at what they would face in the  event of any aggression against western Europe.[/size][/color]   [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

  From various briefings I came to  understand the Soviet High Command had no idea how far advanced we (the U.S.)  were in comparison to their forces both technologically and in the quality of  our fighting force as well as our C3 capabilities (Command, Control and  Communications). One incident comes to mind when an Army Staff Sergeant who's  squad was under direct fire by a superior force called in for an air strike, our  C3 capabilities put that Staff Sergeant in direct communication with the flight  leader of a group of F-16's carrying air to ground ordnance who at the Sergeant's  direction placed the ordnance directly on the enemy force. The Soviet General  Staff were in complete awe that we had such capabilities as well as shocked that  we would allow a "lowly" foot soldier to make such a call.[/size][/color]    [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 At the end of the 100 day  campaign the Soviet General Staff and High Command who were privy to the video  feed and Intel we (the U.S.) provided to them came away knowing they had no  chance in a conventional conflict against U.S. forces.[/size][/color]

[Rvrwind]

knowing they had no chance in a conventional conflict against U.S. forces

I Was with you right up until this line Tiger.

The wars the Us fights now are by no means 'conventional'. The modern day wars are fought from 50 miles away & from the air. This is modern warfare, warfare that means you don't have to look a man in the eyes while you cut his throat.

Conventional warfare is exactly that, you gey blood on your hands. You bleed he bleeds & the one who walks away is the winner. Its very easy to fight a war that is more of a video game than a war & you don't get any blood on your shoes.

The Russian army may not be able to fight a modern war because of their lack of technology but I dare say that a conventional war they'd give the US a run for their money. Most of the guys I know back home in the forces would piss themselves if they had to kill a man up close & personal. The problem with war today is that all the humanity has been removed and it has been disconnected from the reality. Wars will never end unfortunately, but to remove the human factor & let computers do the fighting for us just makes it that much easier to continue.

I say lets sort out the wheat from the chaff & everybody fight hand to hand & with nothing more than a sword & a knife. I don't think you would have too many guys lined up on the battlefield to fight under those conditions, at least not in this day & age.

RVR-Canadian Cowboy/Agency Owner[/size][/color][/font]

[Oosik]

dup

[Oosik]

Rvr, Conventional warfare means non-nuclear. This is the non-negotiable definition of the term. Perhaps you are trying to distinguish between low-tech and high-tech.

I have also suspected that one reason why the USSR just gave up, that our security was so poor (maybe on purpose) that the USSR knew on every level that we were able to whip them, and at the same time, that we had no desire to start WWIII.

Also, when all people had were swords and spears, we still fought. Why on earth would you think human nature has changed that much? War happens when at least two sides think they have a cause worth fighting for, and those causes are in opposition. Just like crime, someone wants to take something from you, and you have to choose between surrendering it or fighting.

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]Rvrwind,

 I am sorry maybe I should have been more clear in my use of words for the non-military reading this conventional warfare means non-nuclear.[/size][/color]

[Bruno]

At the end of the 100 day campaign the Soviet General Staff and High Command who were privy to the video feed and Intel we (the U.S.) provided to them came away knowing they had no chance in a conventional conflict against U.S. forces.

From my own experience, i am not sure of this...

Yes, it was great during the first golf war... i was in the CIC of my freqate, fully radio/radar silent... and we was able to shoot missile without seing the ennemy... only because of data send via link...

Never, Russia was ready to attack someone like USA... but i am sure that attack Russia will not be a easy task too... during our excercice in the baltic sea, we have see that Russian was very strong in any type of jaming... false return to our radar, communication scramble... don't worry, they have a very good defense and are able to jam our network...

Our second problem is logistic... we depend too much on it... when our material become defect, we wait that logistic send us the spare... Russian, due to the lack of spare have always use imagination... they can repair themself complex thing, using what they find...

Russian army is not a offensive army but these army can be very difficult to fight when we attack them on his own territory... and never forget that they are very good for copy and adapt our modern technologie...

A simple example... the AIM-54 Phoenix... a long range ( 140 km ) air to air missile used with Tomcat... was a wonder missile... until USA have supply Iran with 285 AIM-54 during the periode 80-88... directly, Iran have give one examplar to Russia, and russia have build a copy of it... the Vympel R-37, with a range of 280 km, speed Mach 3... Several Mig 25, Mig 31 and TU-22M3 can use these missile... Try to attack Russia with plane and you will be down without knowing from where it come...

The main problem now for russian army is money !!! They have technologie but not the found for build them in big quantity... Underestimate a potential ennemy is a dangerous thing...

A other advantage of russian army... they don't fear sacrifice thousand of life for reach the planned goal...

[ronin308]

Bruno you know the Mig-25 and 31 run on vacuum tubes and have a huge radar signature, they stand out like a naked man on Kreshatic in December.  The were built during the Cold war and were designed for a convential threat.  The Phoenix and Russian equivilant were designed for use against large targets like bombers, they are not very effective against fighter aircraft.  While they are fast, they also leave a nice smoke plume and as I said lack real manuvuering capabilities compared to a fighter.  The US is phasing out the Phoenix because of this.

The Mig-25 and 31 are not effective dogfighters, they were aircraft we faked the Russians into building because of our XB-70 program in the 60s.  We've already seen into the Mig-25 thanks to a defecting pilot so we're well aware of it's capabilities and limitations.

To me the scary question is why does Russia want to even entertain the idea of being attacked by the US?  Are they planning on pulling something we don't know about? 

While the 2nd Gulf War is a little different, we typically do not use our forces without provocation or a need to protect ourselves or our allies (which includes Belgium). 

So why is they have this mindset?

[Bruno]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

The Mig-25 and 31 are not effective dogfighters, they were aircraft we faked the Russians into building because of our XB-70 program in the 60s.  We've already seen into the Mig-25 thanks to a defecting pilot so we're well aware of it's capabilities and limitations.

Now, for some $$$, your are able to fligh in a Mig 31... at each big airshow, russian make some money in so way...

To me the scary question is why does Russia want to even entertain the idea of being attacked by the US?  Are they planning on pulling something we don't know about? 

No really... but the only one real military power left is USA... the last year have show that USA can attack other country... what will happen if some "techene terrorist" put bomb in USA... on the other side, with time, China can become a problem for Russia... Russia have no wish to attack and have not the fund needed for build and keep a offensive army... but a defensive army is not really a problem for the world stability...

While the 2nd Gulf War is a little different, we typically do not use our forces without provocation or a need to protect ourselves or our allies (which includes Belgium). 

For the second Gulf War, i cannot say something since i was not there... my info for these periode is only press report... not always reliable...

In any case, related to the post of TP, Russia is not a danger for the rest of the world but never take to attack Russia on his own territory... Several have try and all have fail... Each russian can become a soldat and they are million... and a war is never finish until ground troops have the full control... something who can be very difficult if not impossible in Russia... all US army will be too much little for control a country with 11 time zone, where people have strong character and ready to defend how country... never forget that the majority of russian people are proud to be russian, same with the actual problem...

[Rvrwind]

I should have been a little clearer in my post as well.

First I will submit that everyone considers non conventional warfare as non nuclear. I however still believe you gotta get blood on your hands, killing from a distance with a computer is just way too easy. Yes I will submit that centuries ago this was the way war was fought but I submit in this day and age too few are willing to die in such a manner or to kill in the same manner. We have dislocated the human factor & made war a game, instead of the deadly gruesome reality that it really is.

Bruno stated what I should have said. Russia does possess the technology, some of it even better than the US. Russia has missile systems & radars that have no analogues in the world. They have also applied stealth technology to their new versions of the Mig as well as to the new submarines they have devised.

The problem is that the Russian Defence Ministry doesn't have the money to supply these updated weapons to their own forces but billions of $'s worth are sold every year by Roxboronexport to other countries. The samples they sell however are only versions of what they keep for themselves for the time when they can afford to supply them to their own troops.

Russia is building a defensive force & has no intentions of mounting an all out attck on anybody, they just want to make sure no one can mount a succesful attack on them.

To me the scary question is why does Russia want to even entertain the idea of being attacked by the US?  Are they planning on pulling something we don't know about?

Actually it s not the US that they find to be the biggest threat at this time, it is NATO. Why? Simply because countries like Georgia & Ukraine & many others are allowing Nato  bases on their soil, right next door to Russia. You may well say big deal!!! But look at it this way, look how threatened the US became when Russia was setting up on Cuba. Is there any difference, no, there isn't. The US & Nato are building missile bases in the former CIS & the Baltic States, where is that any different than Russia & the OSCE building missile systems in Cuba or Mexico for that matter.

If you look at it from Russias point of view you can plainly see that in the last 20 years the only agressive state there has been is the US backed by NATO. But yet Russia should not fear this chain of events.

At present Russia is very much concerned with China as China is trying to encroach on Russian territory in the south. Chinese expantionist policies are the biggest problem at present. Already there are over 1 million Chinese people living in the south of Russia close the the border because China is running out of room & needs to expand.

The Russian Forces are slowly being cut back to a force of 1 million men with another 1 million in the reserves. This is by far a lot less than previously. They want no hassles with anybody, just to be left alone, they are not expanding their territory like China or NATO & have only the desire to keep what they have left, without outside interference. Is that too much to ask?

RVR-Canadian Cowboy/Agency Owner

[BC]

I'm not going to get into a who is better or worse debate but from what I've seen over the years two points seem to stick out like sore thumbs:

Modern weaponry like bombs whether blanket type as used in Vietnam causing mass destruction or pinpoint bombing used in Iraq.. - they were effective to a point but did not achieve the desired results.  The enemy was not demoralized to the point of giving up.  Considering the low population/area density there would simply be not enough of any conventional weapon to cover RU with any effect.  The ground war and enemy resistance is still THE factor to be reckoned with.

Reliance on often troublesome high tech is decieving.. it's those that can do the most with less that in the end will be more effective.  Look at the current condition of RU and US manned space efforts as an example.. who's doing it?  Afghanistan and Iraq were quite weak countries militarily. Due to embargoes and sanctions they had limited access to good arms from the beginning.. look at how much 'smart' ammo we had to throw at them.   I don't think the US or anyone else would have much success at all against countries with modern people/ground based military.  Think the US or anyone else for that matter could successfully invade Turkey for example using air/water superiority models? .. I don't think so.

Sure RU military may be a bit 'dormant' at the moment but they have technological knowledge, ability to produce quality weapons and skilled manpower to use it.. enough so to make anyone think twice.. maybe a hundred times..

[Bruno]

A little detail i wish add... when make war, army force always try to see the economical return...

By example, during the first yougoslavia war, we have use 60 million missile for sink speedboat around 50% of price...

Second war in yougoslavie, we have use cheaper method, simple gun with 0.50 caliber...

Golf war was very different... a potential high value was possible with petrol...

Attack a country like russian with sevaral thousand tomahawk is not a good business plan... the expense will be over the return... never forget that modern warfare is very expensive and if no return is expected, the use of classical warfare is recommended... and in this domain, russian are not bad... in russian, the life of a soldat mean almost nothing... on our side, several thousand soldat dead mind the end of a politic life...

Why do you thing that russian accept a president like Putin... a ex from KGB... he is not good for the economie, he is not good for business... but he will never negociate with ennemy, same when terrorist take 100 of children in hostage... Russian need, have and wish a strong man, goverment and country...

This is part of the russian spirit... it can be difficult but they never give up...

I don't fully agree with what USA make now... but when i see the intern reaction because more of 1000 US soldat are dead in several year during the golf problem, i laught... what will happen if a real war happen, when it will be several thousand soldat dead... US gouverment will give up... Marines from USA are ready to give own life for their country but the Goverment is not ready, people are not ready... and it is the same in each western country...

Russia is a country ready to fight until the last man... these people have honor, atre proud to be russian, ready to give own life for the country ( i say country, not gouverment ).... Russia is not a danger for us but if we try something against russia, don't worry, we will pay the high price...

Russia does possess the technology, some of it even better than the US. Russia has missile systems & radars that have no analogues in the world.

 

I was always surprised with the passive detection system from russia... the infrared system are used on our side... but the sound matrix is really something without equivalent here... thousand of sound sensor are able to detect a "invisible" plane flying over russia... at high altitude, they are not able to intercept it but at conventional high, it is not a problem for them...

I have work so much year on both side, russian and nato, for know the value of russian army... never underestimate them... they are difficult friend but are worse when they become ennemy...

The Russian Forces are slowly being cut back to a force of 1 million men with another 1 million in the reserves. This is by far a lot less than previously. They want no hassles with anybody, just to be left alone, they are not expanding their territory like China or NATO & have only the desire to keep what they have left, without outside interference. Is that too much to ask?

 

NATO is not the ennemy of Russia... Belgium is a NATO country but we have work incolaboration with FSU navy... the real danger is south... for both side... but russia is not ready to give his military independance... they are ready to collaborate with NATO but not to be a little part of the NATO...

Russia is not more the bad guy... see more south with the Corea, Iran, pakistan... and several other extremist country who have or almost have the nuclear weapon... the only weapon able to fully destroy the world...

[TigerPaws]

[color="#0000ff"][size="4"]Bruno,[/size][/color]    [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 Maybe because of language  difficulties you misunderstood the tenure of my post. The old Soviet military  might and I say might have been a fair defense force but that is not what the  U.S. was planning on, the issue was always a fear of a Soviet land invasion of  western Europe. What many within the U.S. military did not know or understand  was that fully 70% of the Soviet land forces were not operational because of  lack of maintenance additionally the Soviet conscript military was ill trained  and totally unmotivated.[/size][/color]    [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 Fast forward to 2006, the Russian  military is still largely a conscript force, families have to feed their sons  because the Russian military can not even feed their own troops, medical care is  all but nonexistent, training is all but nonexistent and brutality is common  place. Evading the military has become a national pastime, books have been  written about how to avoid conscription into the military. Only 1% of Russian  military equipment would even be considered close to western standards and the  people who run and more importantly maintain those systems are ill trained and  unmotivated. The vast bulk of Russian equipment sits in storage depots quietly  rusting away.[/size][/color]    [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 The Russian military has become  nothing more than a very basic home defense force barely[/size][/color] [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]able to hold itself together, they no longer have the  ability or the capability to mount any kind of cohesive fighting force, they are  at best a semi organized group of thugs.[/size][/color]

[BC]

[color="#0000ff"][size="4"][/size][/color][color="#0000ff"][size="4"][/size][/color][color="blue"][size="4"]

The Russian military has become nothing more than a very basic home defense force barely able to hold itself together, they no longer have the ability or the capability to mount any kind of cohesive fighting force, they are at best a semi organized group of thugs.

[/size][/color][color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

[color="red"][size="3"]Tiger,

I'm sure watching the evening news over the last 5 years you are well aware of the havoc even a semi organized group of 'thugs' can produce..

Your comparison does not bear weight considering all that is needed for RU to rebuild their forces is the will to do so.. They obviously have every resource necessary.

btw.. disregard the red font etc.. battling with firefox with this reply..
[/size][/color][/size][/color]

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]BC,[/size][/color] [color="blue"][size="4"] [/size][/color]  [color="blue"][size="4"]

 While I agree all Russia has the  ability to rebuild their forces that is vastly different that the will to do so.  The current Russian military is very much stuck in the old Soviet thinking and  it would cost tens of Billions of dollars and maybe as long a 20 years for the  Russian government to modernize their forces. Sorry but it simply will not  happen, their force structure will continue its decline into a home defense and  populice control force.

By-the-way I changed to Firefox a few weeks ago and I am still very much in the learning phase so do not feel bad.
[/size][/color]

[BC]

Tiger,

They do seem to be willing and able to modernize other countries arms and equipment   I think their arms industry is growing about 30% each year..

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]BC,[/size] 

  [/color][color="blue"][size="4"] As long as someone in their  government is turning a profit for a new Mega Yacht I am sure that is true, then  again modernizing a 3rd world country with 1960/70 weapons is not saying  much.[/size][/color]
[size="4"]
[/size]

[Elen]

Just try Tiger and you will see what Russians can and what they can't

[TigerPaws]

[color="#0000ff"][size="4"]Elen,[/size][/color]    [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 As usual you are living the fantasy  propagated by a belief that you are still living in the "old" Soviet glory days,  the U.S. was never interested in conquering and overtaking Russia, contrary to  the stated goal of your old country (which in case you forgot no longer exists)  to conquer the world. [/size][/color]    [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 But back to the point of this  thread, Russia today could not mount a force equal to the original Afghan  campaign and even then the Soviet military could now prevail against illiterate  tribal warlords let alone a modern assault force. The Russian military today is  not even a shadow of they force they once thought they were.[/size][/color]

[ronin308]

Bruno, you don't seem to understand war isn't entirely based on $$$$.  What the US has done by modernizing it's forces is remove the need for a human to be directly harmed during an engagement.  To us the cost of a cruise missile means nothing compared to the cost of a human life.  However once we have established air superiority over the country where the risk to a human is less we will roll in with cheaper assets. 

Say what you will about the 1st Gulf War but it wasn't just about Petrol.  We considered the Saudis and Kuwaitis as friends and allies and went to help them.  By your twisted logic the only reason the US was involved in World War II was to protect it's market share in Europe.

Bruno, the fact that you laugh at our protests over 1000 dead really shows your ignorance.  The people who are upset about the casualties would be protesting if even 1 person were.  The protests have to do with the fact that not everyone in this country understands why we invaded Iraq the second time, the protestors use the body count to further justify their actions.  You should note there are very few protests over our invasion of Afgahnistan since most feel it was a legitimate response.

The US has proven in the past that when the chips are on the table we will support those in battle.  AFter all look at US casualties during WWII and tell me we are weak and not willing to lose our own men.  The fact is we aren't as long as the country believes in the reason our men are fighting, in Iraq a good portion of the country does not share that belief.  It was the same thing in Vietnam and why we "lost" there.

As to getting blood on your hands, as I stated above, the idea behind the high tech methods is to reduce casualties on the friendly side.  You will still need soldiers to hold the ground.  The difference is that it's a lot easier to take and hold ground when the entire armoured column supporting that Motorized Rifle Division is destroyed in less than 30 minutes.  The when the US armour column rolls in they have 2 choices surrender or be slaughtered.

While understand the concern Russia has with it's "buffer" (which was the purpose of eastern europe after all) being slowly turned into camps for NATO and those who have a different ideology I think by making statements like Putin has in the last few weeks they are further reducing world support which is a bad thing to do.  I know a part of this has to do with their historical bias, after all at some level they still think the Germans are going to come after them. 

There seems to be something more there, like they really didn't understand Iraq and fear we might do this to them as well.  Even Elen has eluded to this time from time in her posts.  They seem to not really understand the term friends, for them everything is based on strength.

By continuing down this road though it's going to make Siberia a good target for the energy hungry Chinese who have millions to spare and a military who is much more ready to fight a war.  An entirely plausible scenario is that the Chinese mount a rapid attack, swoop in and get the most lucrative areas and then simply hold a stalemate until things are worked out diplomatically leaving them in control of vast natural resources. 

[Elen]

Elen,    

 As usual you are living the fantasy propagated by a belief that you are still living in the "old" Soviet glory days, the U.S. was never interested in conquering and overtaking Russia, contrary to the stated goal of your old country (which in case you forgot no longer exists) to conquer the world.    

 But back to the point of this thread, Russia today could not mount a force equal to the original Afghan campaign and even then the Soviet military could now prevail against illiterate tribal warlords let alone a modern assault force. The Russian military today is not even a shadow of they force they once thought they were.

Well if you are not threat to us then why bother with good army? To other hand if we are not a threat to you then why do you bother with NATO at our boards ?

[ronin308]

Tiger, don't forget the VietCong weren't much different than the Afghans were at the beginning of that war and they still forced us out of the country.  Comparing a guerrilla war with a conventional war is like comparing F-1 to Rally racing.  Both require a different style and equipment and neither the US or Russia was able to truly understand guerilla war at the decision making level.

Elen, you understand that the US would never attack Russia unless they do something dumb like try and retake Ukraine by armed force.  There simply is no gain there and the global upset wouldn't be worth it.  Hell if the Chinese where to invade you now, within 24 hours you'd have US troops racing to help defend Russia. 

The only sort of military action the US would ever take against your country is if they determined that you were shipping somthing to a nation unfriendly to the US that we would fear would be used against us.  For example sending a nuclear warhead to Iran would have us attempt to find and recover or destroy it. 

 As to us "trying it", why?  We don't desire your resources, definately not your people or your government who can't even distribute the vodka tax stamp 1 month after the new year.  No what would happen is the destruction of your air assets and defense systems over about 5-6 days following by most of your armoured vehicles and large military encampments over the next month.  The we'll simply make life uncomfortable enough for your government to reconsider whatever folish move they made.  This would occur without the need for a single US troop to set foot on Russian soil.

The point Tiger was making with his initial post is that it doesn't matter if you have acoustical systems to detect incoming aircraft because with poor C3I that information would never make it to the missile batteries until after they were destroyed.  The Russians do have some pretty good technology.  For example I saw a 3d facial recognition system that was simply amazing.  All of the software behind it came our of Moscow because they are on the leading edge.

[TigerPaws]

Elen,    

Well if you are not threat to us then why bother with good army? To other hand if we are not a threat to you then why do you bother with NATO at our boards ?

[/quote][color="#0000ff"][size="4"]Elen,[/size][/color]    [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 I will take your statement above  that you have been seriously out of touch with world news sense 09/11/2000.[/size][/color]    [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

As for NATO, it was never and is not a threat  to Russia you are listing to propaganda again and again and again. [/size][/color]

[TigerPaws]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

Tiger, don't forget the VietCong weren't much different than the Afghans were at the beginning of that war and they still forced us out of the country.  Comparing a guerrilla war with a conventional war is like comparing F-1 to Rally racing.  Both require a different style and equipment and neither the US or Russia was able to truly understand guerilla war at the decision making level.

[color="#0000ff"][size="4"]
ronin308,[/size][/color]   [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 I agree you can not compare gorilla  and conventional warfare, unfortunately our (U.S.) force levels in Afghanistan  have been seriously compromised by operations in Iraq. While I have long  maintained and history has proven that "[color="red"]a force that will not be defeated  can not be defeated[/color]" we can knock them down for a while. Our problen in  Afghanistan is that we are fighting a idea and a belief which we can not  possibly win against, only contain as best we can.[/size][/color]

[ronin308]

Actually the need for a good army has nothing to do with 9/11, in fact the money spent by the military won't prevent another 9/11.  We should have used the money that has gone into Iraq to better prepare the country but we haven't and it's gone now so no use crying about it.

We have a good army so that we can defend ourselves and our allies.  It's the same reason why Russia and most nations in the world have one. 

Why does NATO/ the US put bases on your borders?  As usual there are 2 sides to every coin.  I understand the fear the Russians would have in this. 

The real reason though is that we learned from WWII that should an event happen it's a lot easier and quicker to respond to it with forces that are already there than have to bring them in from somewhere else.  Also by being based in a foreign country that is an ally it gives us the ability to practice with them so that if we ever had to fight side by side with them we can do so better.

A good example of this would be an invasion of Russia by China.  If this were to occur the fastest way to get help to you should you ask for it is through our bases in Europe.  By having a base in Ukraine for example that just saved us at least a day or more in travel time to get to where the fighting is.

[Elen]

Elen, you understand that the US would never attack Russia unless they do something dumb like try and retake Ukraine by armed force.  There simply is no gain there and the global upset wouldn't be worth it.  Hell if the Chinese where to invade you now, within 24 hours you'd have US troops racing to help defend Russia.

Pssss what for we need to invite Ukraina As for you it would be better to help them to pay for their gaz like you do that with Georgian than to promice them your help in a case of Russian invation

As for China inviting us then you would racing no to help us but to take a conlrol at Seberia So actually for us it would not be too much difference

I will take your statement above that you have been seriously out of touch with world news sense 09/11/2000.  

I don't catch your "idea" Tiger What has 9/11/2000 to do with Nato at our boards? Enlight me