What I've heard is he forged not only his academy graduation certificate, but two others(an university certificate among them - padding up his resumé). Funnily enough, it seems the guy was good at what he did, and well regarded by his colleagues...
Mil News NATO Military News
- Thread starter snapper
- Start date
-
- Tags
- military news nato
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2017
- Messages
- 39,825
- Points
- 463
Multinational MRTT Fleet project makes steady progress
The current global crisis has emphasised the need for multinational cooperation and the ability of Allied armed forces to respond to a broad range of missions in different operating environments. In this context, the newest NSPA multinational programme, the Multinational Multi-Role Tanker and Transport Fleet (MMF), stands out as a unique example of successful cooperation among NATO and EU Agencies and nations, enabling participating nations to be flexible and to rapidly respond to emergencies in multiple capability domains.
The MMF, managed by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) with strong support of the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR), under the ownership of NATO and operated by an international unit, will provide its six participating nations (Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway and the Netherlands) with strategic tanker and transport capabilities.
Based on a pooling and sharing concept, the nations will soon have access to a total of eight Airbus A-330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft, which can provide strategic transport (pax and cargo), air-to-air refuelling and medical evacuation capabilities.
While the first two of eight A330 MRTT, MMF1 and MMF2 are ready for acceptance, the third and fourth aircraft are currently under conversion at the Airbus Defence facilities in Getafe, Madrid and the fifth aircraft, currently a “green aircraft”, was flown from Toulouse to Getafe last week. The handover of the first two aircraft to the Main Operating Base in Eindhoven is scheduled to start next month.
Based on the participating nations requirements, eight Airbus A330 MRTT aircraft were procured by OCCAR, on behalf of NSPA. These state of the art aircraft are configured for a variety of missions, from air-to-air refuelling (both boom and hose and drogue), to troop transport, VIP transport, cargo/freight transport and can also be re-configured for aeromedical evacuation.
The 111 tonnes basic fuel capacity enables the aircraft to excel in air-to-air refuelling missions without the need for any additional fuel tanks. Moreover it can provide, a maximum fuel flow rate of approximately 2,200 litres a minute, using a boom and a hose and drogue mechanism, can quickly fuel all of the aircraft in inventory with the MMF nations ( F-16, F-35, C-17, Eurofighters, Tornado and Gripen ) and most of the other aircraft used within NATO.
https://www.nspa.nato.int/en/news/news-20200514-6.htm
The current global crisis has emphasised the need for multinational cooperation and the ability of Allied armed forces to respond to a broad range of missions in different operating environments. In this context, the newest NSPA multinational programme, the Multinational Multi-Role Tanker and Transport Fleet (MMF), stands out as a unique example of successful cooperation among NATO and EU Agencies and nations, enabling participating nations to be flexible and to rapidly respond to emergencies in multiple capability domains.
The MMF, managed by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) with strong support of the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR), under the ownership of NATO and operated by an international unit, will provide its six participating nations (Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway and the Netherlands) with strategic tanker and transport capabilities.
Based on a pooling and sharing concept, the nations will soon have access to a total of eight Airbus A-330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft, which can provide strategic transport (pax and cargo), air-to-air refuelling and medical evacuation capabilities.
While the first two of eight A330 MRTT, MMF1 and MMF2 are ready for acceptance, the third and fourth aircraft are currently under conversion at the Airbus Defence facilities in Getafe, Madrid and the fifth aircraft, currently a “green aircraft”, was flown from Toulouse to Getafe last week. The handover of the first two aircraft to the Main Operating Base in Eindhoven is scheduled to start next month.
Based on the participating nations requirements, eight Airbus A330 MRTT aircraft were procured by OCCAR, on behalf of NSPA. These state of the art aircraft are configured for a variety of missions, from air-to-air refuelling (both boom and hose and drogue), to troop transport, VIP transport, cargo/freight transport and can also be re-configured for aeromedical evacuation.
The 111 tonnes basic fuel capacity enables the aircraft to excel in air-to-air refuelling missions without the need for any additional fuel tanks. Moreover it can provide, a maximum fuel flow rate of approximately 2,200 litres a minute, using a boom and a hose and drogue mechanism, can quickly fuel all of the aircraft in inventory with the MMF nations ( F-16, F-35, C-17, Eurofighters, Tornado and Gripen ) and most of the other aircraft used within NATO.
https://www.nspa.nato.int/en/news/news-20200514-6.htm
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2017
- Messages
- 39,825
- Points
- 463
Greece & Turkey:
Greek and Turkish fighter jets engaged in mock dogfights this week over the Greek island of Kastellorizo, just a mile and a half from the Turkish coast, causing tourists to flee. Meanwhile, there is a growing risk that the Turkish and Greek navies will clash, hundreds of miles to the west if Turkey pushes forward with its plans to survey for has in Greece’s exclusive economic zone. Greek officials say that all options are on the table, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has rushed to mediate as U.S. officials remain largely absent.
There has never been any love lost between Turkey and Greece, but the danger of war between the two NATO members has not been this high since the Cyprus conflict more than forty-five years ago. In the past, Turkey and Greece have gone to the brink, but policies initiated by Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan may very much push the two neighbors over the edge.
In question are two interrelated issues: Erdoğan’s efforts to walk away from the Lausanne Treaty and his increasing desperation to find resources to bail out Turkey’s flagging economy.
The Lausanne Treaty was signed ninety-seven years ago today to tie up loose ends remaining from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. While Kurds lament the treaty for reversing promises of statehood, the Treaty set Turkey’s borders with Bulgaria, Greece, Syria, and Iraq. Whatever flaws came with those borders, the post-Lausanne system enabled nearly a century of stability.
For reasons of ideology, economics, and ego, Erdoğan now seeks to undo the Lausanne Treaty: Ideology because Erdoğan seeks to regain control of certain Ottoman territories and change the demographics of areas outside Turkey’s borders; economics because Turkey seeks to steal resources from recognized Greek and Cypriot exclusive economic zones; and, ego, because Erdoğan wants to top Atatürk’s legacy as a military victor.
Erdoğan has already set the stage for scrapping the Lausanne Treaty. In December 2017, Erdoğan shocked a Greek audience when, on a visit to his neighbor, he floated the idea. Three months later, he suggested that the Bulgarian town of Kardzhali was within Turkey’s “spiritual boundaries,” drawing protests from Bulgaria which at the time held the European Union presidency. State-controlled Turkish newspapers have gotten in on the game showing maps of Turkey with its borders revised at the expense of neighboring states.
His latest post-Lausanne push is his most dangerous. Turkey has dispatched the seismic survey ship Oruc Reis to operate in the waters surrounding Greek islands. Such an action would be both illegal and provocative. Under terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Greece claims territorial waters around its islands for exploration and exploitation of marine resources. Turkey is not a UNCLOS member (nor, for that matter, is the United States) but, unlike the United States, Turkey ignores customary law and stands alone in its interpretation.
In effect, Turkey seeks to revise not only international law but also potential control over the resources of hundreds of Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. While the Oruc Reis remains in port, this appears to have less to do with Turkish restrain and more with high winds that should soon dissipate. Turkey has the largest indigenous navy in the region and promises to escort the Oruc Reis; there are at least eighteen warships in the immediate vicinity. Given the stakes, Greece has no choice but to respond, hence the panic in European Union capitals.
European leaders also recognize that this is not just a dispute about the Aegean Sea. In November 2019, Turkey signed a deal with Libya establishing a joint maritime boundary between the two countries, something only possible if Turkey ignores Greek islands up to and including Crete, an island more than 25 percent larger than Delaware.
More:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-between-greece-and-turkey-now-real-possibility-165465
Greek and Turkish fighter jets engaged in mock dogfights this week over the Greek island of Kastellorizo, just a mile and a half from the Turkish coast, causing tourists to flee. Meanwhile, there is a growing risk that the Turkish and Greek navies will clash, hundreds of miles to the west if Turkey pushes forward with its plans to survey for has in Greece’s exclusive economic zone. Greek officials say that all options are on the table, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has rushed to mediate as U.S. officials remain largely absent.
There has never been any love lost between Turkey and Greece, but the danger of war between the two NATO members has not been this high since the Cyprus conflict more than forty-five years ago. In the past, Turkey and Greece have gone to the brink, but policies initiated by Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan may very much push the two neighbors over the edge.
In question are two interrelated issues: Erdoğan’s efforts to walk away from the Lausanne Treaty and his increasing desperation to find resources to bail out Turkey’s flagging economy.
The Lausanne Treaty was signed ninety-seven years ago today to tie up loose ends remaining from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. While Kurds lament the treaty for reversing promises of statehood, the Treaty set Turkey’s borders with Bulgaria, Greece, Syria, and Iraq. Whatever flaws came with those borders, the post-Lausanne system enabled nearly a century of stability.
For reasons of ideology, economics, and ego, Erdoğan now seeks to undo the Lausanne Treaty: Ideology because Erdoğan seeks to regain control of certain Ottoman territories and change the demographics of areas outside Turkey’s borders; economics because Turkey seeks to steal resources from recognized Greek and Cypriot exclusive economic zones; and, ego, because Erdoğan wants to top Atatürk’s legacy as a military victor.
Erdoğan has already set the stage for scrapping the Lausanne Treaty. In December 2017, Erdoğan shocked a Greek audience when, on a visit to his neighbor, he floated the idea. Three months later, he suggested that the Bulgarian town of Kardzhali was within Turkey’s “spiritual boundaries,” drawing protests from Bulgaria which at the time held the European Union presidency. State-controlled Turkish newspapers have gotten in on the game showing maps of Turkey with its borders revised at the expense of neighboring states.
His latest post-Lausanne push is his most dangerous. Turkey has dispatched the seismic survey ship Oruc Reis to operate in the waters surrounding Greek islands. Such an action would be both illegal and provocative. Under terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Greece claims territorial waters around its islands for exploration and exploitation of marine resources. Turkey is not a UNCLOS member (nor, for that matter, is the United States) but, unlike the United States, Turkey ignores customary law and stands alone in its interpretation.
In effect, Turkey seeks to revise not only international law but also potential control over the resources of hundreds of Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. While the Oruc Reis remains in port, this appears to have less to do with Turkish restrain and more with high winds that should soon dissipate. Turkey has the largest indigenous navy in the region and promises to escort the Oruc Reis; there are at least eighteen warships in the immediate vicinity. Given the stakes, Greece has no choice but to respond, hence the panic in European Union capitals.
European leaders also recognize that this is not just a dispute about the Aegean Sea. In November 2019, Turkey signed a deal with Libya establishing a joint maritime boundary between the two countries, something only possible if Turkey ignores Greek islands up to and including Crete, an island more than 25 percent larger than Delaware.
More:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-between-greece-and-turkey-now-real-possibility-165465
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 6,521
- Points
- 293
NATO can't kick Turkey out as there is no provision to revoke a member's NATO membership. To do so would involve amending the NATO treaty which requires a unanimous decision from all member states.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2019
- Messages
- 7,860
- Points
- 269
Turkey won't be getting any 5th generation fighters any time soon unless they build their own
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 6,526
- Points
- 378
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2019
- Messages
- 7,860
- Points
- 269
that's 6th ++++ super stealth - hypersonic - even a S5000000 cannot track it as it never gets off the ground
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,428
- Points
- 298
US looks to relocate 12,000 troops from Germany.
www.bbc.com
About half to return to the US and the rest to go to Italy and Poland.
US to withdraw 12,000 troops from Germany in 'strategic' move
President Trump says the move is a response to Berlin's failure to meet targets on defence spending.
www.bbc.com
About half to return to the US and the rest to go to Italy and Poland.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
- Points
- 234
What strikes me as ironic is that Italy and Belgium spend less of their GDP on defence on Germany (1.22% and 0.93% vs. 1.38%), so much of this relocation scheme doesn't even seem to make sense given Washington's reasoning… and the message is, kids, don't buy affordable Russian gas if The Donald offers you the expensive American one!
Which has another humorous element to it since according to him NATO has become obsolete and Vlad Pootin is a great guy anyway, begging the question why he continues to damn the Russo-German pipeline as a "security threat" rather than coming clean and calling a spade a spade: It's merely a deal that he lost out on.
The fact is, Russia supplied gas to Western Europe even at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Which has another humorous element to it since according to him NATO has become obsolete and Vlad Pootin is a great guy anyway, begging the question why he continues to damn the Russo-German pipeline as a "security threat" rather than coming clean and calling a spade a spade: It's merely a deal that he lost out on.
The fact is, Russia supplied gas to Western Europe even at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,428
- Points
- 298
If Belgium upped their game to 2% it makes no difference to the overall strength of NATO. Likewise it's great that the Baltic nations are meeting their obligation but it adds almost nothing.
There is one nation that can make a difference and Germany as the biggest and most powerful nation in Europe is playing silly buggers about spending. Without it being serious about defence none of the other nations matter. Trump is right that many of Europe's NATO members are happy to say "screw this, we'll spend the money on social or corporate welfare instead" and expect the US to carry the security burden.
I'm also pretty sure that the Russo-German pipeline was not a thing that was started during the Trump administration.
There is one nation that can make a difference and Germany as the biggest and most powerful nation in Europe is playing silly buggers about spending. Without it being serious about defence none of the other nations matter. Trump is right that many of Europe's NATO members are happy to say "screw this, we'll spend the money on social or corporate welfare instead" and expect the US to carry the security burden.
I'm also pretty sure that the Russo-German pipeline was not a thing that was started during the Trump administration.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 8,967
- Points
- 328
How long before Russians and Turks openly start shooting each other in Syria and Libya. I say "openly" since it's rumored that Russians have already attacked Turkish forces in both Syria and Libya under the auspices of plausible deniability.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
- Points
- 234
That'd be a good pretext to show Turkey the door. Already once did they try to get NATO to help them after they'd attacked targets in Syria out of their own volition and got the snot kicked out of them. Maybe, if history repeats itself in Libya and NATO again tells them: "Thanks, but no thanks!" the Sultan gets pissed off enough to just piss off.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 8,967
- Points
- 328
I believe Trump has already informed Erdo not to declare an Article 5 if things get too hot in Syria.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
- Points
- 234
There is no burden. There is none in theory, and there is none in practice. NATO is not a defensive alliance, it's a security pact.
The American troops in Germany are mostly relevant to America's ability to project power to Africa and the Middle East. Consequently the vast majority of them are combat service support, and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't have been possible without logistical hubs like Ramstein or major medical facilities like Landstuhl.
And we even finance their infrastructure – at a cost of €1 billion last year. When Trump says America is "owed" money it is simply not true.
His rhetoric is designed to tap into a growing American isolationism first seen during the second term of Bush the younger, beholden to the narrative that the world forced America to play world police and has only ever repaid her with ingratitude. Some of that sentiment may even be grounded in reality, but NATO's course must determined by all its members.
Right now, no such objective exists other than a vague sense amongst Europeans, Republican hawks and the Democrats that Russia's expansionism is kinda scary, and the opposition which believes that China and Iran are bigger threats.
The deal was finalised in 2017, construction began in earnest in 2019. It's always brought up along the lines of: We protect them, and they thank us by buying Russian gas. Trump even said as much during a campaign rally recently.
They now talk imposing sanctions that could effectively led to the arrest of German government officials, which is quite frankly bonkers.
Comments by Lieutenant General (ret.) Mark Hartley, former commanding officer of US Army Europe, on the "relocation":
Having just watched the SecDef, Vice CJCS and @US_EUCOM Commander, I am sickened by this decision and explanation. It is not tied to any strategic advantage, and in fact is counterproductive to showing strength in Europe. A couple things:
First, what is obvious to me - having served 12 years in Germany and having participated in the last force structure change from 2004-2011, this is not a "strategic" move... it is specifically a directed personal insult from Trump to our great & very supportive ally Germany.
The Headquarters in Stuttgart - both EUCOM and AFRICOM - will take billions of dollars to move, and will disrupt those HQs in their operation. AFRICOM location is "to be determined" because there is no valid answer... consolidating EUCOM w SHAPE in Belgium will be challenging.
As GEN Hyten stated, this will cost more than "a few billion" dollars. During the last force posture change in 2004-2011, billions of dollars were spent to secure and consolidate key locations in Germany... upgrades in base housing, schools, support facilities, HQs, barracks.
Similar facilities - barracks, motor pools, logistics facilities, airfields, railheads - are now required in the areas where rotational troops will deploy. That will cost billions. One lesson we learned... "rotational forces are more expensive & they don't built trust."
Rotational troops will now require more time away from their families... a key moral issue. Rotational troops do deploy in increased readiness state, because they spend time at training centers preparing for rotation. More time away from families.
The 2d Stryker Brigade is at Vilseck, a great transport hub for that mobile unit to transit to ANY area (Baltics, Caucasus, Nordic, Poland, etc). They have been doing this for over a decade. Their families are cared for at Vilseck, and time away from families is less.
That training location (within Grafenwoehr, Bavaria) is also a world-class training location for all of NATO and the US. Forces train there, together. This kind of "allied training" not done anywhere in the US. Without US troops, it will be hard to maintain that center.
When I commanded at Grafenwoehr as a 1-star, that based was transformed. Over a billion dollars in construction costs for barracks, motor pools, family housing. That was in 2004-6.
Not sure of other Army forces moving out of Germany, but it seems like several large ones. Aviation in Ansbach (move to Belgium, as stated by GEN Wolters?), likely logistics, intel & US Army Europe Headquarters? Many brand new facilities, with a large/new command facility.
BTW, many of the requirements for "new facilites" are the same facilities that were raided of funds when the "border wall efforts" needed funds. It's interesting that those funds were for upgrades for servicability but they will now require more funds for construction.
The move of aircraft from UK to Germany was smart. Moving other USAF units from Germany to Italy doesn't make strategic or operational sense. Italy's flight restrictions & civilian workforce much more challenging to work with than Germany's, and again... more new costs.
Having had to notify families, move units and equipment, and go through the redeployment process will - as GEN Wolters said - take months and years, not weeks. It is disruptive, and affects readiness... especially when this is all happening without a previous plan.
A couple final comments. SecDef Esper's statement that he "knows" what it's like because he used to serve in Germany in the 80's is disingenuous. I served in Germany in the 70's, 80's, 90's and first decade of 2000. NATO and forces in Europe aren not how he remembers it.
2d, these actions are primarily:
1. Punishing Merkel & Germany
2. Knee-jerk reaction to Trump vs collaborative US strategy
3. A gift to Russian expansionism & Putin's plan
4. Another wedge for NATO
5. Further disruption of US Military
6. Something Congress should not allow
Is he being political? Of course he is, just in the way a retired coach still feels passionate about his former team. But he's also been there done that and raises many good points:
It's hilarious how some people in his feed try to argue what's good military policies with a retired general.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,428
- Points
- 298
I would be more inclined to agree with you if it wasn't for the continued complaints (some from senior German politicians) that the relocations (to Eastern Europe no less) are somehow serving Russia and that it's a threat to Europe's security.
I find it hard to describe it as gift to Putin when the very last thing he wants is yet more troops on Russia's borders.
It's not (as far as I can tell) about the cost of keeping US Troops in Germany (which is pretty marginal compared to the costs of operating a military that big), it's that Germany does not spend anything like a proportionate amount of it's budget on defense. Nor does it show any sign of taking it seriously. A promise to get there by 2035 is utterly meaningless.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
- Points
- 234
If you mean that moving to bases not as well established and connected has been described as not a smart strategic move on Trump's part – that's true. And it's also quite accurate a point of criticism for the reasons outlined by General Hartley.
NATO has learnt as much rotating troops through Eastern Europe. It's precisely why they brought back large logistics exercises, and it's also the reasoning behind the EU's recently set-up fund to improve its eastern members' infrastructure purely with military necessity in mind.
High-capacity railway connections and expressways along the predicted axes of movement do not exist in sufficient numbers, and some regions do not even possess suitable bridges. And there exists only one seaport theoretically capable of servicing large freighters (albeit after retrofitting and in direct range of conventional Russian weaponry).
All supplies and all personnel hopping over the pond would still have to be rotated through Germany and all heavy units would still have to go to Grafenwoehr for training, only increasing spending in USAREUR's area of responsibility.
As for all that being described a risk; the fact is that if they pulled out right now today's status quo in terms of capabilities, readiness and established procedures wouldn't be restored before the middle of the decade. And that's assuming the current status quo is recoverable and America and potential new host countries immediately begin pouring billions into a major infrastructure programme.
I beg to differ. I'm not one to buy into all that nonsense about Trump being a Russian agent but it stands to reason that he simply does not care or does not understand the implications of his actions. He wouldn't be the first world leader who sucks at strategy.
Just as an aside, one could argue that having NATO right on its doorstep is indeed the very first thing that Putin wants: He's pretty much the only world leader profiting from that rekindled rivalry.
However, the aspect actually being labelled a gift to Putin is the division created within NATO.
Right now, this so-called alliance is utterly unable to speak with one voice. It's not even capable of settling a largely inconsequential dispute amicably. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has to contend with no one. That is a strategic disadvantage at the highest of levels.
1. The US defence budget is geared towards the global projection of power according to American interests (and towards subsidising an absurdly big defence industry complex). Expecting an ally to up the ante for that is somewhat like a recently divorced wife demanding alimony payments after she's moved into the biggest house she could find.
2. Myself, I would be most happy about a more sizable German Army. However, the 2% goal – a non-binding guideline, by the way – is not the key to achieving that end.
(Not to mention I'm extremely doubtful Germany is ever going to spend that much on defence without a clear external threat. We're talking $85 billion USD here, tantamount to a 71% increase. Even adjusted to purchasing power the country never spent that much on defence in 1989.)
It's not that the German Army is underfunded anyway. The application of funds is where the rub lies. The military has to live with an exorbitant proportion of payroll costs which would only increase if numbers grew.
The other major issue is we transformed our conscription army geared towards mechanised homeland defence into a light expeditionary force – but got only halfway there before Putin's masked green men annexed the Crimean.
Now the Army is stuck in a state of limbo. Every dollar thrown at the problem prior to a time-consuming reorganisation done right will just trickle off not making a difference.
3. Last but not least I can't help but repeat myself: What does it matter? Back from an all-time low in 2014, Germany has increased its spending from just shy of 1% to about 1.4% in 2019. Did that change impact the geostrategic situation? Was that increase met by a decrease in American defence spending?
And even if Berlin stumped up those $85 billion after all it still wouldn't move the needle – simply by virtue of both countries security interests being not aligned at the moment… which is the why we're having this dispute in the first place.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2019
- Messages
- 3,188
- Points
- 288
I also see it as a grave strategic error. The General is right what else then personal grievances does it serve?
It is really absurd that the troops shall move to states investing even less. Makes the whole venture pointless.
And while I am positive about strengthening the Baltic NATO allies it would even make less sense to permanently base lots of troops there especially logistics hubs and reinforcement bases.
You simply do not have such facilities in the vicinity of potential hot zones.
All in all this is the real gift to Vlad who in contrast to Trump has strategic plans rather then resorting to personal issues.
Now concerning the threat coming from Russia it is real, but one has to take into account the big picture here. Putin exploits weak spots.
Creating weak spots helps him. He still does not have the capacity, and many analysts doubt he will ever have, to wage big war.
There are lots of new toys in his arsenal but the economy of Russia is in no shape to support a war of attrition against NATO. It simply doesn`t have the size nor the efficiency. Nobody knows, well some may
, how long it takes to build all those weapon systems and what numbers can be built in what time and at what cost. This is one reason why Russia was so keen on cooperating with western countries to implement modern technologies and learn how to efficiently build them.
Putin knows this and what he will do is gradually start to put his foot in the door whenever possible. Now you have the US which says it wants to defend the Baltics but decided to engage in a weird relocating and disruptment of proven structures adventure.
Been caught with pants down comes to mind and never change a running system too.
It is really absurd that the troops shall move to states investing even less. Makes the whole venture pointless.
And while I am positive about strengthening the Baltic NATO allies it would even make less sense to permanently base lots of troops there especially logistics hubs and reinforcement bases.
You simply do not have such facilities in the vicinity of potential hot zones.
All in all this is the real gift to Vlad who in contrast to Trump has strategic plans rather then resorting to personal issues.
Now concerning the threat coming from Russia it is real, but one has to take into account the big picture here. Putin exploits weak spots.
Creating weak spots helps him. He still does not have the capacity, and many analysts doubt he will ever have, to wage big war.
There are lots of new toys in his arsenal but the economy of Russia is in no shape to support a war of attrition against NATO. It simply doesn`t have the size nor the efficiency. Nobody knows, well some may
, how long it takes to build all those weapon systems and what numbers can be built in what time and at what cost. This is one reason why Russia was so keen on cooperating with western countries to implement modern technologies and learn how to efficiently build them.Putin knows this and what he will do is gradually start to put his foot in the door whenever possible. Now you have the US which says it wants to defend the Baltics but decided to engage in a weird relocating and disruptment of proven structures adventure.
Been caught with pants down comes to mind and never change a running system too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 3,950
- Points
- 234
That is so true.
Of course we all know "the Ivan" isn't coming to charge in any moment, and NATO gave up the ability to conventionally defend Europe in 1999. The point being, these are but propagandistic defeats. But defeats they are.
Similar threads
