NATO's Multiple Frontiers?
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Of course "Martyrs have an exit strategy!" Thanks for the gold nugget of today.
Cryptic again. Russia put a base where? And how will a Russian base anywhere protect thousands of kilometres of interconnected pipelines in the EU?
Stryker001
Banned Member
Why are forces in Afghanistan, why did Brown want to send forces to Nigeria, why do countries have boarder security.
I see you haven't answered the questions. I repeat: a Russian base where? You originally said that "they" should put a base "there", both being undefined. You have since said that "they" are the Russians, & the base would be to ensure the security of pipelines in the EU, but have still not said where you think this base should be. In which country? Which continent, even? Without more clarity, I'm afraid your posts are essentially meaningless.
Stryker001
Banned Member
If the Governments agree to host a Russia air or naval base in the future there is no reason as to why that can't put them where they want to.
Well obviously I wasn't talking about one behind Guam, or Cuba and Venezuela, Iran in the Gulf or Oman.
Now you've highlighted that you mean Algeria, can you please
1) say what pipelines this might protect, & what the hell they have to do with Russia - which buys no oil or gas whatsoever from Algeria, & has a purely commercial interest there (Russian companies getting some revenue from Algeria);
2) enlighten us as to how a Russian base in Algeria will do this -
Grand Danois
Russa may not be a superpower anymore , but it still has the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world , its military is modernizing and meanwhile the USA is stuck in Iraq and Afganistan and the high oil price is nothing but a advantage to Russia , thats why they are starting to stand up for their interests lately more than before, they are trying to say that they will not accept everything the US comes up with that suits their own interests and ignores that of Russia, USA policy was very rotten under the bush administration and getting worse and it didn't only piss of Russia but the whole world community especialy in europe ,just look at the polls what people think of bush lately.
Russa may not be a superpower anymore , but it still has the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world , its military is modernizing and meanwhile the USA is stuck in Iraq and Afganistan and the high oil price is nothing but a advantage to Russia , thats why they are starting to stand up for their interests lately more than before, they are trying to say that they will not accept everything the US comes up with that suits their own interests and ignores that of Russia, USA policy was very rotten under the bush administration and getting worse and it didn't only piss of Russia but the whole world community especialy in europe ,just look at the polls what people think of bush lately.
Stryker001
Banned Member
I remember Putin for the phone call on Sept 11 standing down his forces as the US went on alert, for the access to supply lines if the Pakistan ones became unusable. Killing the Chechen commander prior to the G8 and a lot of other things.
Regardless of how this ends Russia is still going to have at least 3 to 4 naval battle groups, in the future if they choose to. Even if they had the ability to have 5 or 6 they are much smaller carriers than the US navy, so the US has air superiority.
Interesting you mention the oil close to war with Iran a few months ago and now close to war with both Russia and Iran perhaps a world war if the PRC don't stay quite and take Taiwan.
Yet the oil price is stable $115US per barrel Geopolitical conflict can push crude and gas higher or bottom the market. Stability is the key I think every one from the Kingdom of Saud, Iran, Russia, the US etc, would agree that an elevated but stable price that can withstand geopolitical threats is best for the economies.
The market has being inoculated or a psychological subjugate has been installed to geopolitical threats and hence the markets stay stable, the spike was pushed until it burst, a bit like the market has been brainwashed and can't see the real and true threat level.
A few months ago people would have believed the oil price would be $180US per barrel.
Regardless of how this ends Russia is still going to have at least 3 to 4 naval battle groups, in the future if they choose to. Even if they had the ability to have 5 or 6 they are much smaller carriers than the US navy, so the US has air superiority.
Interesting you mention the oil close to war with Iran a few months ago and now close to war with both Russia and Iran perhaps a world war if the PRC don't stay quite and take Taiwan.
Yet the oil price is stable $115US per barrel Geopolitical conflict can push crude and gas higher or bottom the market. Stability is the key I think every one from the Kingdom of Saud, Iran, Russia, the US etc, would agree that an elevated but stable price that can withstand geopolitical threats is best for the economies.
The market has being inoculated or a psychological subjugate has been installed to geopolitical threats and hence the markets stay stable, the spike was pushed until it burst, a bit like the market has been brainwashed and can't see the real and true threat level.
A few months ago people would have believed the oil price would be $180US per barrel.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It is Kremlin who defines what has been and what is slight to Russian status.
russia can have naval base in syria and not all nato members share same interest about the central asia, forexample turkey and usa are not on the same line iraq war changed lots of things you can also see pakistan isn't happy with US moves in afghanistan so in coming years much active politics we will see from russia in central asia
[Mod edit]
For the third time - look at the rules. In particular, Rule 18 - punctuation. & spelling. http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
Continuing to ignore these requests will eventually result in suspension from the forum.
[/Mod edit]
[Mod edit]
For the third time - look at the rules. In particular, Rule 18 - punctuation. & spelling. http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
Continuing to ignore these requests will eventually result in suspension from the forum.
[/Mod edit]
Agreed.Russia is gaining strength slowly but still need time to get momentum,US policies is facing tough time in both iraq and Afghanistan fronts.
Now US generals are thinking to increase the forces in afghanistan but in gurilla war numbers does not count much ,Russia was defeated by Afghan Pakistan Alliance through these Gurilla tactics.
ISI have trained talaban and their victory is in favour of pakistan also ,otherwise there is chance india will establish permanent basis in Afghanistan .It will not be in favour of pakistan and will also lose strategic depth in Afghanistan.
China is also not infavour of US-Allied forces victory in Afghanistan .It will weaken the influence of china in southeast asia .
Indian and US nuk deal is also not favour in pakistan.Pakistan actually never feel confort able with any india US deal which make india more economically stronge because they have many conflicts under solution like kashmir,water distribution of chenab river is most recent one.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #74
This is no longer Pakistan's policy. Talibans have been more harm to Pakistan recently then to Afghanistan itself. Nevertheless; Pakistan would prefer a party in Afghanistan that would be anti-Taliban as well as anti-India/US & pro-Pakistan. However, Pakistan is strongly trying not to intervene in Afghanistan's internal matters.
The concept of Strategic Depth is also no longer valid.
China may not be in favor of US presence but they also find it in their interest that US continues to fight against Taliban which would then divert militants' attention from it's Xinjiang province. On the other hand US would also remain tied up in an un-ending war.
I don't think Afghanistan has any connection to South-East Asia. Afghanistan is in complete different region far away from East Asia. Afghanistan's importance is that it sits between Iran, Pakistan, China & Central Asian Republics - a heavily resource rich region.
Coming back to the topic ... what does NATO has to do with it?
Pakistan has always very important role in Afghanistan and will remain because trible pustoon are living on both side of Pak-Afghan boarder.Their livihood is interdependent.
Strategic depth still have importance for pakistan even after nuke capabilities , pakistan dont want indian strong basis in their back yard.
Talaban had never dispute with china in past,if there is any please tell us?
South east asian countries get benefit of energy resourses of central asian states if there peace restored in Afghanistan through pakistan and india.
NATO has long term term plan to stay in Afghanistan to get benifits of strategic location of Afghanistan ,they also need alternative energy resources .
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #76
All discussion on War on Terror (WoT) will be discussed here from now on: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8380
No new threads allowed without the permission of mods or admin.
As for this thread; it was purely designed to discuss how now can coup up with challenges on Multiple Frontiers e.g. Example in former Easter Europe, Russia etc ... & not just Afghanistan. So I suggest everyone to expand & broaden the scope of discussion here on that level.
No new threads allowed without the permission of mods or admin.
As for this thread; it was purely designed to discuss how now can coup up with challenges on Multiple Frontiers e.g. Example in former Easter Europe, Russia etc ... & not just Afghanistan. So I suggest everyone to expand & broaden the scope of discussion here on that level.
marcellogo
New Member
Ok,back to topic...
That is...
The outcomes of Georgia's defeat worries me a lot.:shudder
They have spent a much higher share from their budget than all NATO's nation (except the USA, obvious), they buyed some of the more sofisticated and trendy western-stile weaponry and one of the worst equipped ( but with more combat experience) division of russian army:nutkick...in just five days
My opinion is that someting went wrong in the western (united states) way of fighting and, above all, organizing an army...
All-volunteer forces, extremely light and mobile, shaped for unconventional warfare and relyng on very high tecnological assets to gain battlefield superiority.
Ok, wake up! Sure, you have very sofisticated network enabled radio equipment, lovely NVG and digitalized camo, so you can fight at night with the same easy that on midday,your new light trucks can resist to the most destructive Ied and the new javelin missiles are the BEST in the world, five time better than old dragoons (Only pity that they cost fifteen times more), but it is not night now, it's 10 o'clock time, you are in Georgia and that noise that you and your platoon hear now it' s an armored russian regiment coming right up to you, so shoot your six missiles fast and run faster... because they can have only T-62m and bmp-1, but they are still an armored regiment and you are still a light infantry platoon.
That is...
The outcomes of Georgia's defeat worries me a lot.:shudder
They have spent a much higher share from their budget than all NATO's nation (except the USA, obvious), they buyed some of the more sofisticated and trendy western-stile weaponry and one of the worst equipped ( but with more combat experience) division of russian army:nutkick...in just five days
My opinion is that someting went wrong in the western (united states) way of fighting and, above all, organizing an army...
All-volunteer forces, extremely light and mobile, shaped for unconventional warfare and relyng on very high tecnological assets to gain battlefield superiority.
Ok, wake up! Sure, you have very sofisticated network enabled radio equipment, lovely NVG and digitalized camo, so you can fight at night with the same easy that on midday,your new light trucks can resist to the most destructive Ied and the new javelin missiles are the BEST in the world, five time better than old dragoons (Only pity that they cost fifteen times more), but it is not night now, it's 10 o'clock time, you are in Georgia and that noise that you and your platoon hear now it' s an armored russian regiment coming right up to you, so shoot your six missiles fast and run faster... because they can have only T-62m and bmp-1, but they are still an armored regiment and you are still a light infantry platoon.
Really? That's a remarkably broad conclusion to draw from one very small war.
Seriously, the minimum with which the Georgian Army - in a western layout - would have been anything remotely like a threat to Russia would have been if they had matched the "standard" HRF outfit that the Dutch Military or German Intervention Forces are built to. Minimum.
Actually, i think i'll go and design a thread around said concept sometime, contrasting the two (seemingly) very close military layouts designed for both regional warfare and initial-entry within allied operations. Conceptually particularly interesting as both layouts are supposed to integrate within a single Corps in NATO operations.
To bring this into focus: NATO does have standardized (or rather: co-designed) army layouts conceptually capable of fighting such wars. Georgia didn't use 'em, and wasn't even remotely equipped to the same levels.
Actually, i think i'll go and design a thread around said concept sometime, contrasting the two (seemingly) very close military layouts designed for both regional warfare and initial-entry within allied operations. Conceptually particularly interesting as both layouts are supposed to integrate within a single Corps in NATO operations.
To bring this into focus: NATO does have standardized (or rather: co-designed) army layouts conceptually capable of fighting such wars. Georgia didn't use 'em, and wasn't even remotely equipped to the same levels.
marcellogo
New Member
Thank you Kato, you exactly get the point
Only one precisation to be more clear, it's not about equipment it is about structure of army, also if the two tank companies that every georgian brigate got, would have been equipped with leopard 2a6, the result wouldn't be changed.
we can, using the same scale, consider actual Afgani and Iraqi missions to be no more than intervention to sedate gangs riots.
Obviously I don't drew that conclusion only considering that not at all small war alone, let's better say that it was a remarkably exact confirmation of all the doubs and criticism that I had about the actual trends in western defence in the last two decades (Oooh yes, two decades, before the Bush/Ramsey "War on terror" there was Clinton's "Peace dividends", remember?, presidents change, but :bullçhit remain the same)
More to come:O2...stay me well
Thank you,Kato, you put it in the correct terms, what I'was trying, maybe in a too sarcastical way, to tell.
Only one precisation to be more clear, it's not about equipment it is about structure of army, also if the two tank companies that every georgian brigate got, would have been equipped with leopard 2a6, the result wouldn't be changed.
Swerve: if you call a very small war, one in which the weaker part employed five professional infantry brigades plus called the full mobilitation of the national guard,
we can, using the same scale, consider actual Afgani and Iraqi missions to be no more than intervention to sedate gangs riots.
Obviously I don't drew that conclusion only considering that not at all small war alone, let's better say that it was a remarkably exact confirmation of all the doubs and criticism that I had about the actual trends in western defence in the last two decades (Oooh yes, two decades, before the Bush/Ramsey "War on terror" there was Clinton's "Peace dividends", remember?, presidents change, but :bullçhit remain the same)
More to come:O2...stay me well