Poroshenko claims Ukraine is now being offered weapons by NATO.

[Gator]

It will happen in 2017 when we have a real President again, instead of an imposter.

In reading some posts at RWD I wonder if the author is a poster or imposter. 

If it is not obvious,  I have well into my Friday cocktail hour. 

[SANDRO43]

The rest of us know that Europe manages to get themselves into some sort of war or quagmire every few decades ...

Ahem, we haven't had "some sort of war" for almost 70+ years now, but I wouldn't mind our annexing Switzerland - and their banks - they are surrounded .

[AC]

Ahem, we haven't had "some sort of war" for almost 70+ years now, but I wouldn't mind our annexing Switzerland - and their banks - they are surrounded .

Because the USA is over there keeping oil shipping lanes available and other such.  Don't underestimate the power of deterrence.  If we had not been in W. Germany before the fall of the wall do you really think that the Soviets in E. Germany would not have steamrolled the West? 

[JayH]

 

[AC]

In reading some posts at RWD I wonder if the author is a poster or imposter. 

If it is not obvious,  I have well into my Friday cocktail hour.

It's obvious.  You're probably having a good nap by now.   

[SANDRO43]

Because the USA is over there keeping oil shipping lanes available and other such.

IIRC, the Suez canal was closed by Nasser in 1956-7 and again in 1967-1975, without the USA "keeping oil shipping lanes available" to Europe - during this period, super-tankers were developed for circumnavigating Africa from the Arabian peninsula, and I remember our gas prices skyrocketing at filling stations.

Don't underestimate the power of deterrence. If we had not been in W. Germany before the fall of the wall do you really think that the Soviets in E. Germany would not have steamrolled the West?

Very likely. However, would it have been in the USA's interests to have a Soviet-ruled Europe just across the pond ? Interpreting recent history is always a perilous exercise.

[BillyB]

F-35s to Replace Troops in Europe as Russia Deterrent

The Pentagon announced Thursday, Jan. 8, that as part of its response to Russian aggression, it would dispatch two squadrons of next-generation fighter jets to the United Kingdom to replace military personnel currently being withdrawn.
The shift is part of the $985 million “European Reassurance Initiative,” the Obama administration’s effort to bolster European militaries in the wake of Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in March.


http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/08/f-35s-to-replace-troops-in-europe-as-russia-deterrent/?wp_login_redirect=0

Jay! Don't take only the parts out of the article to support your argument. Obama is not supporting Europe like you want to believe. Let's analyze that article. The $985 million “European Reassurance Initiative,” is the Obama administration’s effort to bolster European militaries in the wake of Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in March. When this military restructure is done, America will save $500 million. A few high tech fighter planes aren't going to replace $500 million dollars of troops and military hardware Obama is moving out of Europe. Obama is disguising his cutback of troops as a improvement to show Putin he's supporting Europe. Action speaks louder than words. Calling it the "European Reassurance Initiative" isn't fooling me and certainly won't fool Putin. You don't cut $500 million of support to your friends and claim you're doing more for them now than in previous years.

Russians don't employ 'armored divisions' they employ two types of tank brigades (heavy and medium).

Strange. I read your post a few hours ago and now replying to it but something is missing but there is no post editing note. Do you have magical forum powers? Fortunately I've got a good memory and a browser history that works. Here's the missing link you previously posted below. It supports what I've been saying that Russia will send divisions into Europe if Putin decides large scale war. It says Russia structured its army around brigades a few years ago instead of divisions which are better suited for world war style war. America too has broken up divisions into smaller brigades. Now, if Russia decides to go back to world war style war, they will assign the brigades under divisions. It doesn't really matter what you want to call it, whether it be 20 divisions or 100 brigades, 6000 tanks are going to inflict a lot of damage.

http://www.rusi.org/publications/newsbrief/ref:A5331667D996C4/#.VLB9O7k5CUl

The NATO brigade is touted as a 'tip of the spear' formation. It's not being formed to show Putin NATO mean business as much as to reassure it's less capable members and create a 'tripwire' type response to any potential use by Russia of military force presumably against a NATO country. I'd assume the idea would be deployment before invasion.

The NATO brigade is not a "tip of the spear" formation. The brigade is designed as speed bump to slow Russia down and a weak hint to Putin we are unified. Tip of the spear units are units who lead the battle on offense. NATO isn't planning offense or to strike first on Russia. America has around 30,000 troops in South Korea the last time I read about it. That is the equivalent of multiple brigades or a division. That small American force in South Korea isn't there for offense or to dominate a fight with North Korea while defending South Korea. It is a speed bump to slow North Korea down and a show of support for South Korea. Fellow American soldiers who served in South Korea told me they were going to die if North Korea initiated a full invasion. Don't ever believe a brigade sized unit is going to stop an army the size of Russia's.

I don't know where Global got that figure from but it's outlandishly inflated. The Russians have no more than 2000 T-90 MTBs and maybe twice that in modernized soviet era T-72s, T-80s and some other lesser known models. They have nowhere near 15,000 tanks combat ready or otherwise at there disposal.

Granted this wont make a difference for East European countries with similar equipment but for NATO forces it's the T-90 that's the concern.

If anyone's interested this article gives a pretty good overview of how the Russian land forces are organized...

http://www.rusi.org/publications/newsbrief/ref:A5331667D996C4/#.VK_rwul0zMw

This article gives a critical estimate of Russia's capabilities as opposed to the media hysteria surrounding same...

http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/how-not-to-do-maps-of-military-strength/

The information from the links you provided seem to be opinion an not based on facts from reliable studies. Take look at the first two links I provided below. You think 15,000 is inflated? They say Russia currently has over 20,000 tanks. If a single American city can have over a million cars on it's streets, why is it hard to believe an entire nation, Russia could have at least 15,000 tanks especially since they produce their tanks much cheaper than we produce ours?


The third link shows tank force by nation. Italy is Western Europe's #1 reigning tank champion with a total number of 600 tanks. Pitiful numbers compared to Russia's. In the world Italy ranks #28. Russia also has much more aircraft than any European nation which can help Russia dominate the skies and provide safe passage for their tanks. NATO is only powerful to stop Russia if you add American military hardware to the tally. I understand Western European nations military hardware is state of the art but there is simply not enough of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-worlds-10-biggest-battle-tank-forces/?view=all

http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp

Parts of Eastern Europe maybe but not all and I highly doubt Russia could shatter the economies of Western Europe. Germany is the European economic powerhouse not Russia.

When you have more, you have more to lose. If Russia landed on Germany's doorstep with their previous neighbors devastated, Germans will go into panic. The last thing on their mind will be to work and shop which are things essential to an economy. A couple of planes can crash into a building or a stock market can crash can have serious impacts on an economy. The thought that you and the citizens around you may have a few days left to live will have an impact too. But then again in the event of world war, maybe the Germans go out and buy that top of the line Mercedes they've always been wanting and keep their economy rolling?

Agreed for the most part to your Para 2 regarding mobilizing. What needs to be considered is in this day and age you can't mobilize large combat formations with the associated supply trains and rear echelons without it being known worldwide.

Russia was able to concentrate large formations for the invasions Georgia and Ukraine under the guise of 'large military (district) exercises in the past. That excuse wouldn't fly with NATO now. Any further concentrations would Alert NATO and they'd mobilize accordingly, probably in lock step with the Russian concentration.

When Russia mobilized large amounts of troops on Ukraine's border, I thought Putin was going to use those troops to invade. Putin was smart and use another option to accomplish his goals. There are thousands of Ukrainian rebels in Ukraine that are willing to give Ukraine to Putin and die for that cause. Why not use the guinea pigs first before sacrificing Russian soldiers lives. Maybe they will be successful if given some assistance.


The mobilization of large troops posturing for war wasn't for nothing though. Putin learn something. You are correct that we can see Russian movements of large troops but you are incorrect that NATO is going to do something about it by mobilizing correctly. Putin even withdrew his troops occasionally and remobilized numerous times. NATO did nothing to match Russia's troop buildup. NATO nations did impose sanctions. If Putin decides on taking Europe, he will have a head start and there's not much in his way that's ready. Obama did send 600 troops to Poland and Baltics for training exercises. Less than a speed bump.


 

Poland is not scared to death of Russia.

Poland reacted to Russia's aggressive behavior as if their life and way of life depended on it. If you said France is not scared to death of Russia, I'd agree with you. They are not worried about losing their lives to Russia and actually itching to $ell Russia a couple of warships.

With what money?  In Rubles?

In the summer, the Russian President was paying Chechen mercs $ 300 a day.  I don't think that is do-able which is prolly why he is begging Central Asian migrant workers to fight the war he started.

You have to pay the joes, Billy B.

How did Stalin do it? Did he offer his people top of the line wages? Did he offer a good pension and health care plan to get people motivated for the fight against Hitler? NO, you don't have to pay people well to create a well oiled war machine. If the Russian people are angry enough, they will mine the resources and manufacture weapons practically free and happily use them to kill the people who are destroying their way of life. Forcing people to work is another option but with the support Putin is getting, Putin may not need to use that option except on those few who don't support him.


Also nukes don't require much money to do their job. Gorbachev feels the anger mounting and bitterness can lead to a nuclear war.  I doubt there will be a nuclear war or a world war but if the right turn of events happen, anything can happen.

http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2015/01/09/gorbachev-russia-ukraine-europe-risk-nuclear-war/?mod=yahoobarrons&ru=yahoo

Ahem, we haven't had "some sort of war" for almost 70+ years now,

Europe's 3rd most deadliest war happened in the 90's that even NATO was participating in. That war was just around the corner, not 70+ years. Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore so I forgive you for forgetting about them. I'm sure Putin has used Yugoslavia's war as an example to educate his people that NATO is capable of going to war on a nation without UN approval or any of it's alliance members being threatened by the nation they initiate war with.


Sandro, on a side note, ISIS has used some of those WMD hiding in Iraq that wasn't supposed to exist. 

[JayH]

Jay! Don't take only the parts out of the article to support your argument. Obama is not supporting Europe like you want to believe. 

BB-- that article had simple explanation of policy direction-- a policy made in previous times--not the current situation.

I say Russian reserves are now well below that often stated minimum safe level--at a guess-close to to 1/2  These are all big picture issues--it still leaves Ukraine desperately in need of military help-- and now-not in a years time.

Following a few links quite a few people here need to read,--some were written well before the current collapse of the oil price was evident.

"The financing gap has reached 3pc of GDP, and they have to repay $150bn in principal to foreign creditors over the next 12 months. It will be very dangerous if reserves fall below $330bn," he said.
"The benign outcome is a return to the stagnation of the Brezhnev era [Застой in Russian] in the early 1980s, without a financial collapse. The bad outcome could be a lot worse," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11181297/Oil-slump-leaves-Russia-even-weaker-than-decaying-Soviet-Union.html
CIA role and oil price suicide
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/12/21/russia-us-sanctions-and-stupid-cia-oil-wars/

Russia US Sanctions and Stupid CIA Oil Wars

They now try a rerun of their 1986 Saudi oil price collapse strategy to topple Putin, Maduro in Venezuela and Iran according to informed reports from reliable Washington researcher Wayne Madsen.

In 1986, Vice President George H.W. Bush, father of George W., together with Secretary of State George Schultz and others convinced Riyadh, as John Kerry did in his September 2014 meeting with Saudi King Abdullah, to run a “reverse oil shock” that had the effect of toppling the over-stretched Soviet Union. It worked in 1986, why not in 2014? Is the thinking of some in Washington.

First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/12/21/russia-us-sanctions-and-stupid-cia-oil-wars/

Ex-CIA Chief : Hobble Russia by Forcing Down Oil Price
If we can find a way — and we can — to get the price of oil down so Russia doesn't have the advantage of being able to run their society on overpriced oil paid for by you and me, then we will be in a very much better situation than we are now," Woolsey, co-founder of the U.S. Energy Security Council, told "America's Forum" hosts J.D. Hayworth and John Bachman.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Oil-china-natural-gas/2014/05/20/id/572463/


The Secret Saudi-US Deal on Syria. Oil Gas Pipeline War
The US-Saudi oil price manipulation is aimed at destabilizing several strong opponents of US globalist policies. Targets include Iran and Syria, both allies of Russia in opposing a US sole Superpower. The principal target, however, is Putin’s Russia, the single greatest threat today to that Superpower hegemony. The strategy is similar to what the US did with Saudi Arabia in 1986 when they flooded the world with Saudi oil, collapsing the price to below $10 a barrel and destroying the economy of then-Soviet ally

The Kerry-Abdullah secret deal

On September 11, US Secretary of State Kerry met Saudi King Abdullah at his palace on the Red Sea. The King invited former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar to attend. There a deal was hammered out which saw Saudi support for the Syrian airstrikes against ISIS on condition Washington backed the Saudis in toppling Assad, a firm ally of Russia and de facto of Iran and an obstacle to Saudi and UAE plans to control the emerging EU natural gas market and destroy Russia’s lucrative EU trade.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130

[JayH]

Ex-CIA Chief Woolsey: Hobble Russia by Forcing Down Oil Price
Published on 20 May 2014


Saying Russia "cannot function as a society" if the price of its oil exports plunges, former CIA chief James Woolsey said

[JayH]

More !!


Saudi Arabia's SECRET to Cause a MASSIVE Drop in Price of Oil!

Saudi Arabia is pushing down the price of oil in order to put pressure on Russia and Iran. This is yet another deal that the Saudi's and U.S. have come to terms on. As billions of U.S. dollars flow into Saudi, they are willing to take advantage. This is effectively a sanction on Russia and Iran.

[lordtiberius]

You're so sweet.


A Polish officer can say whatever he wants. I'd be more interested in what Ms. Kopacz had to say about the Nigr.


As far as I'm concerned there are many in Europe and on this side of the pond who remember very fondly Poland's adventurism.

Kinda sick of you referring to the President as a Nigger and getting a way with it.  It is not funny or clever.  Its offensive.

[lordtiberius]

You go from claiming the Ukrainians can beat Putins military to this?  You are all over the map.  Billy is correct that if Putin wanted to he could steamroll tanks quickly across E. Europe.  Hopefully it will never come to that, as currently the USA and Nato are not prepared.  Poland and the Baltics are correct to fear the Bear, they know from the past what kind of atrocities the Russians (ie the Soviets which IMO are one and the same) are capable of.

You and Billy have fallen for Russian maskirovka.  There is no way Putin has 20 armored divisions that can execute combined arms warfare.  Even if he did, he can't pay them.  The Russians have lost another war and a civil war is about to begin.

[lordtiberius]

So are you saying that the Nigr fabricated over 300 electoral votes?

No one else refers to the President as a Nigger except you.  Why?

[lordtiberius]

when we have a Republican President.

Our version of Obama?

Yay!

[lordtiberius]

Billy B, Putin is not Stalin.  You have to pay the Joes.  They have guns.

[pokerintherear]

Kinda sick of you referring to the President as a Nigger and getting a way with it.  It is not funny or clever.  Its offensive.

uummm, We just had a massacre over freedom of speech and expression. If you feel offended dont read or look. Dont attack.

[Doll]

uummm, We just had a massacre over freedom of speech and expression. If you feel offended dont read or look. Dont attack.

They use freedom of speech for Putin only

[pokerintherear]

They use freedom of speech for Putin only

umm, Putin is offended by free speech also. Little man syndrome.

[lordtiberius]

uummm, We just had a massacre over freedom of speech and expression. If you feel offended dont read or look. Dont attack.

Now you are acting like (edit) ME (/edit)

[BillyB]

I say Russian reserves are now well below that often stated minimum safe level--at a guess-close to to 1/2  These are all big picture issues--it still leaves Ukraine desperately in need of military help-- and now-not in a years time.

Guessing isn't a good method of judging what an aggressive adversary owns. What is fact is the last few years Obama is reducing our military force and our roles around the world and Putin is growing his. Russia may have more weapons available than what studies have shown. Recently they've been accused of breaking nuke treaties by owning too many nukes.


Article below says tank factories are closing their doors in Europe and Russia is going to produce their latest tank, the T-14, 4 times more than America is producing the M-1. The T-14 is 40% bigger than the T-90 so it'll be in the same weight class as the M-1. Putin understands the West are making military cutbacks. We should understand Putin wants to grow and modernize his military. As we approach equality, Putin's, China's, and other countries odds of achieving their goals grows and the world will become a more dangerous place.


http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/10/tank-arms-race-introducing-russias-21st-century-ar.aspx

You and Billy have fallen for Russian maskirovka.  There is no way Putin has 20 armored divisions that can execute combined arms warfare.  Even if he did, he can't pay them.  The Russians have lost another war and a civil war is about to begin.

Well, that settles it. There is no reason to worry about Russia. They don't have the weapons, troops or funds to engage in combat. I guess Putin was right he didn't put tens of thousands of troops of Ukraine's border and he's not involved in Ukraine. Russia couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag. LT says so.

[lordtiberius]

Glad we agree.  Thx

[Brasscasing]

Strange. I read your post a few hours ago and now replying to it but something is missing but there is no post editing note. Do you have magical forum powers?  Fortunately I've got a good memory and a browser history that works. Here's the missing link you previously posted below.

To my knowledge the same link has remained visible and active from the time I placed it there. I just went and looked and it's currently working.

It supports what I've been saying that Russia will send divisions into Europe if Putin decides large scale war. It says Russia structured its army around brigades a few years ago instead of divisions which are better suited for world war style war. America too has broken up divisions into smaller brigades. Now, if Russia decides to go back to world war style war, they will assign the brigades under divisions. It doesn't really matter what you want to call it, whether it be 20 divisions or 100 brigades, 6000 tanks are going to inflict a lot of damage.

http://www.rusi.org/publications/newsbrief/ref:A5331667D996C4/#.VLB9O7k5CUl

"It supports what I've been saying that Russia will send divisions into Europe if Putin decides large scale war."

No, it doesn't Billy it says nothing even close to that conclusion.

"It says Russia structured its army around brigades a few years ago instead of divisions which are better suited for world war style war."

..."The present structure of the Russian ground forces was established through the military reforms of 2008–11, which saw the army reorganized from a force designed to wage a large-scale, Second World War-style war into a more flexible force structured around brigades (rather than divisions)"...

That's the exact opposite of how you've interpreted Sutyagin's statement. If you're referring to another statement in the article please paste it because I can't find it.

"Now, if Russia decides to go back to world war style war, they will assign the brigades under divisions. It doesn't really matter what you want to call it, whether it be 20 divisions or 100 brigades, 6000 tanks are going to inflict a lot of damage.""

However, this is not how their ground forces are currently organized which is what my point was...

..."At the same time, the ground forces’ twenty-four combined-arms divisions and twelve combined-arms brigades were reorganised into four tank brigades; forty-one motorised rifle, mountain and reconnaissance  brigades; and one tank, one motorised rifle, and one ‘fortifications’ division, as well as numerous specialist brigades and regiments. The overall size of the 395,000-strong force was also reduced to the current 270,000, alongside reserve forces and capabilities designed on a similar basis to the US"...

If at some point in the future if the Russian forces reverted back to divisional command structures after spending years reforming/reorganizing their ground forces to the Brigade format I'd be surprised but anything's possible.

The NATO brigade is not a "tip of the spear" formation. The brigade is designed as speed bump to slow Russia down and a weak hint to Putin we are unified. Tip of the spear units are units who lead the battle on offense. NATO isn't planning offense or to strike first on Russia.

..."At their Wales Summit in September 2014, Allies agreed to create a spearhead within the NRF – a Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), able to deploy at very short notice, particularly at the periphery of NATO’s territory. The VJTF should consist of a land component with appropriate air, maritime and Special Operations Forces available."...

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49755.htm

Right from the horse's mouth. I can't make it any clearer than their own words. As I've already stated this is not a 'speedbump' it's a 'tripwire' strategy.

America has around 30,000 troops in South Korea the last time I read about it. That is the equivalent of multiple brigades or a division. That small American force in South Korea isn't there for offense or to dominate a fight with North Korea while defending South Korea. It is a speed bump to slow North Korea down and a show of support for South Korea. Fellow American soldiers who served in South Korea told me they were going to die if North Korea initiated a full invasion. Don't ever believe a brigade sized unit is going to stop an army the size of Russia's.

Two divisions actually but who's counting. I'm not aware of the state of American service personnel moral in Korea but it would seem placing 30,000 personnel in harm's way as a "speed bump" would be akin to a policy of gross criminal negligence by the U.S. government. Something I doubt would be institutionalized over seven or eight successive administrations. Sorry Billy but I'm not buying your interpretation of this at all.

The information from the links you provided seem to be opinion an not based on facts from reliable studies. Take look at the first two links I provided below. You think 15,000 is inflated? They say Russia currently has over 20,000 tanks. If a single American city can have over a million cars on it's streets, why is it hard to believe an entire nation, Russia could have at least 15,000 tanks especially since they produce their tanks much cheaper than we produce ours?


The third link shows tank force by nation. Italy is Western Europe's #1 reigning tank champion with a total number of 600 tanks. Pitiful numbers compared to Russia's. In the world Italy ranks #28. Russia also has much more aircraft than any European nation which can help Russia dominate the skies and provide safe passage for their tanks. NATO is only powerful to stop Russia if you add American military hardware to the tally. I understand Western European nations military hardware is state of the art but there is simply not enough of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-worlds-10-biggest-battle-tank-forces/?view=all

http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp

The links (two of them, anyways other two's a press release and tank bio) I've provided are in depth studies from people who've dedicated their professional careers to Russian studies. I'd put that up against an anonymous figure placed on a non governmental website any day.

However, I'm starting to see where confusion may arise regarding the figure you've quoted. From one of your links...

..."Tank value includes Main Battle Tanks, light tanks and tank destroyers, either wheeled or tracked"...

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=russia

I refer you to a press release from TASS dated October 1 of last year...

Russia’s Ground Forces to get 5,000 pieces of new armored vehicles by 2020

..."Under the country’s unprecedented army re-equipment program, the share of advanced weaponry in the Russian army is set to reach 70% by 2020

MOSCOW, October 1. /TASS/. Russia’s Ground Forces are due to receive 5,000 pieces of new armored vehicles and 6,000 pieces of modernized weaponry by 2020, Colonel General Oleg Salyukov said on Wednesday.

“In total, up to 2020 it is planned to buy over 5,000 new and around 6,000 modernized samples of armored vehicles and military hardware, and around 14,000 pieces of modern samples of vehicles,” said Salyukov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Ground Forces."...

..."The government is planning to buy modernized T-72B3 tanks, which were seen at Russia's tank biathlon world championship outside Moscow in early August and during the last month’s Vostok-2014 military drills in Russia's Far East."...

..."Under the country’s unprecedented army re-equipment program, the share of advanced weaponry in the Russian army, currently estimated at 16%, is set to reach 70% by 2020"...

http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/752093

Giving the Russians the best case scenario and we assume those "armored vehicles" are all MBTs. We can project the math

A rearmament/replacement by 2020 of 70% being a total of 5000 units means the current number of units stands at somewhere just under 7200 units or armored vehicles if my interpretation of this article is correct.

When you have more, you have more to lose. If Russia landed on Germany's doorstep with their previous neighbors devastated, Germans will go into panic. The last thing on their mind will be to work and shop which are things essential to an economy. A couple of planes can crash into a building or a stock market can crash can have serious impacts on an economy. The thought that you and the citizens around you may have a few days left to live will have an impact too. But then again in the event of world war, maybe the Germans go out and buy that top of the line Mercedes they've always been wanting and keep their economy rolling?

What if is fun to play but what if Germany and NATO saw the Russian build up prior to your supposed Russian march to Germany's doorstep and the German/Europeans were already on a war time footing?

Read the papers Billy. The Europeans are already on an increased vigilance. The Nordic nations are already dealing with Russian incursions, Poland's for all pratical purposes on a war footing, The Baltic nations are issuing pamphlets on what to do in the event of war and reorganizing their meager militaries.

The German collective national psyche is not intimidated by Russia, that's a given.  I'd say the opposite is more a reality if anything.

You base your scenario from a position of fear, Billy. I don't agree with you that the Germans would panic.

When Russia mobilized large amounts of troops on Ukraine's border, I thought Putin was going to use those troops to invade. Putin was smart and use another option to accomplish his goals. There are thousands of Ukrainian rebels in Ukraine that are willing to give Ukraine to Putin and die for that cause. Why not use the guinea pigs first before sacrificing Russian soldiers lives. Maybe they will be successful if given some assistance.

Of course they were going to invade they were following the exact same doctrine as the Georgia invasion. Agitate (locals and little green men) then invade under the pretext of saving the ethnic Russians. What they weren't counting on was Ukraine's military initially kicking the so-called separatists a$$ and MH17. Blew the whole operation out of the water. They managed to secure Crimea out of the boondoggle but we'll see how long that lasts.   

The mobilization of large troops posturing for war wasn't for nothing though. Putin learn something. You are correct that we can see Russian movements of large troops but you are incorrect that NATO is going to do something about it by mobilizing correctly. Putin even withdrew his troops occasionally and remobilized numerous times. NATO did nothing to match Russia's troop buildup. NATO nations did impose sanctions. If Putin decides on taking Europe, he will have a head start and there's not much in his way that's ready. Obama did send 600 troops to Poland and Baltics for training exercises. Less than a speed bump.

I'd suggest to you that a similar mobilization near the Baltics or Poland's front door would elicit  a stronger response now.

Poland reacted to Russia's aggressive behavior as if their life and way of life depended on it. If you said France is not scared to death of Russia, I'd agree with you. They are not worried about losing their lives to Russia and actually itching to $ell Russia a couple of warships.

Poland is reacting because their life and way of life does depend on it but don't confuse determination with fear.

So far France is doing exactly what they should be doing and more power to'em.

Brass

[AC]

It's entertaining and also enlightening to read both Billy B's and Brasscasings posts on this subject.  Brass do you really think that NATO could (or would is probably a better question) stop Mr. Putin if he did an all out invasion of Ukraine and headed towards Moldova?  Obviously he could (and would) have troops break-out from the Crimea as well.  Any Ukrainian troops and armor in between would likely be annihilated.  I am not trying to be pessimistic, just facing facts.  I believe he could quickly have his corridor from where he is (E. Ukraine) all the way to Transnistra.  I believe he has already put Nuclear weapons in Sevastopol and would warn the West to mind their own "sphere of influence".  Remember an all out invasion is going to include air superiority and unless the West wants to start WWIII he would quickly have it over Ukraine's air force.

There is nothing in Article 5 which states that NATO countries must come to the aid of Ukraine and Obama certainly does not have the backbone to do it; neither do any European countries I know of want to take the risk in standing up to him within Ukraine.

I think if he is going to do an all out invasion of Ukraine he will do it in the spring once it warms up.  Although the sanctions have hurt the Russian economy it's a long way until it shuts it down enough for Russians to rise up against him.  Right now with his popularity as high as it is he likely feels he must get his land bridge to Crimea to keep the ultra nationals who are his best supporters happy.  To claim he doesn't have the money for this invasion is ludicrous, just look at what the Soviets accomplished in WWII when they were down on their luck.

The question is whether or not he could hold large swaths of Ukrainian territory.  He may try to negotiate with the West after he gets his land bridge, but I am afraid it may be too late to stop this.  NATO forces over in Poland are too far away and the little help Ukraine has gotten is not sufficient.

[AC]

Two divisions actually but who's counting. I'm not aware of the state of American service personnel moral in Korea but it would seem placing 30,000 personnel in harm's way as a "speed bump" would be akin to a policy of gross criminal negligence by the U.S. government. Something I doubt would be institutionalized over seven or eight successive administrations. Sorry Billy but I'm not buying your interpretation of this at all.

You don't have to believe Billy's interpretation but it's the closest thing to reality that there is.

Upon being stationed where I was stationed all of us new guys were told by the CO of the overwhelming forces assembled just over the border and we were told point blank that if the enemy invaded they hoped we might last 72 to 96 hours until reinforcements from elsewhere (Fr. Bragg NC US mainland, etc) could arrive.

Clearly tactical Nukes might have been used to stop an invading enemy as they certainly were available.

Now reverse this scenario and it's Russia who has Nukes in both Sevastopol, Kaliningrad and likely their section of Moldova and they are telling the West to keep out.

[lordtiberius]

Bravo Brass