NATO's Multiple Frontiers?

[roberto]

any one had read this story. Entering financially weak nations to NATO can create disasters.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/datelinedc/s_600623.html
Inside the NATO breach
Much of what NATO does is secret; it must be since it holds all of the military strategy and tactics of the Pentagon and our 25 allies. But this belief fell apart this month when Estonia, the tiny country on the Baltic Sea with just more than a million people, announced that two top government officials, a husband and wife team, had betrayed NATO's most intimate secrets to Russia.

And this major espionage scandal is top secret in Europe.

If NATO were considered successful under President Bush, the other shoe has since dropped and its darkest side is now visible in Estonia. Within NATO, when it comes to accessing secrets, small countries are treated exactly the same as the great powers

 

[swerve]

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.

It was a very small war in geographical scope & duration. The total manpower mobilised, & theoretically available, isn't necessarily significant, & in any case, is much less than you think, & far less than in Afghanistan or Iraq. 5 professional brigades? How many professional soldiers do you think they had? And how many were officers & NCOs in units with conscript privates? The Georgian army had 5 infantry brigades in total, of which one (the 5th) was not fully formed, & most of one (the 1st) was in Iraq. even of those present, many, including most of those National Guard units, do not seem to have had an opportunity to fight.

The Georgians were - pretty obviously - unprepared, however much they may have thought otherwise. Their command & control seems to have fallen apart fairly quickly once targeted. Although their air defences managed to inflict losses on the Russian air force, they could not prevent, or even inhibit significantly, its operations, & the almost immediate destruction of their own very small air force rendered the Georgians unable to interfere with Russian reinforcement or resupply.

The war rather resembles the Iraq war of 1991, on a much smaller scale. It demonstrates that a geographically constrained force subject to unrestrained air attack on its entire territory has lost the war before it starts.

It is hard to see how this can be considered a failure of the western model. In this case, the Russians were employing a model somewhat resembling that of the USA, for which command of the air is central.

 

[marcellogo]

Thank you for the reply , swerve...

Thank you for the well argumented response, still i'm still stuck to my tesis.
Probably more explanation are here necessary: first Georgia, before that war was referred as a role model of the armed forces that the United States wants his own allies to have, all its army organization, and ORBAT was a DIRECT result of Us training programmes and in a more broader wiews to their political desiserata, the same fact that there was more georgian soldiers in Afganistan than italians and germans are a consistent prove of it.

The Georgian Orbat (and what that make me really shatter, living in Croatia, the most part of "new Europe" states) is shaped on a light infantry only, intervention force (that's the point, a dedicated and well determined light infantry can stop tanks/mechanized forces, Vukovar and Lebanon are very striking examples of that, but the georgian professionals failed in that).

A thing in which I totally disagree with you is your description of this conflict and above all the stated similarities with the Kosovo peace enforcing mission ( excuse me, I still stick to consider it and the actual afgan and Iraqi mission, something different from a classic war, also a little one), are you sure are not mismatching one with the other? The Georgia war was one of land battles, in which the aviations of both played a role, but the georgian defeat was on battlefield, not a months long air strike onlymission like in the former case.
And another things, I had read that when the georgian professionals used their high tecnology equipment, just in the way they are intended for ( by night, in ambush or hit-and run tactics and so on) the get very good results, critic is not about their own performances or personal valour, its about the defence model we are in .

 

[swerve]

A thing in which I totally disagree with you is your description of this conflict and above all the stated similarities with the Kosovo peace enforcing mission

I didn't have that in mind, but the Iraqi wars of 1991 & 2003, & the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. The last is a god example, where an army which was losing was suddenly enabled to win a rapid victory, with the aid of well-directed air power.

BTW, why did the USA train the Georgians in light infantry tactics? Not because it is the Western model of warfare, nor to fight the Russian army, but for two reasons.

1. For deployment in Iraq.
2. For counter-insurgency operations in Georgia. e.g., along the line of control in Abkhazia.

The Georgian army was not light infantry only. It had plentiful armour & artillery, which fought & lost to the Russians. They had no western training that I know of for the heavy forces, but still followed a Soviet model of use.

I still don't understand why you see this war as having any relevance to the validity of different models. I see it as a poorly-led army getting into an ill-planned war for which it was not prepared & had not trained, & suffering accordingly. Also, I do not understand why you insist on calling an army with a substantial conscript component "professional".

 

[kato]

A thing in which I totally disagree with you is your description of this conflict and above all the stated similarities with the Kosovo peace enforcing mission

Kosovo was not a peace-enforcing mission, the conflict in the country was not remotely at a level signifying a multi-fronted assault against multiple combateers. Kosovo was a pre-planned invasion utilizing the equivalent of two groups that would run as NATO NRF Corps nowadays; the immense air power volume utilized reduced the land components of this Double-Corps to a "hold"-strategy invasion only though.

 

[Waylander]

@Marcello
I still don't get why you think that the Armed Forces of Georgia are similar in terms of equipment, training, command & control capabilities, etc. to western forces?

Do you really think that the russian forces used in this conflict (numbers, quality, equipment, air and sea support) would have been able to ruin the day of let's say the equivalent of 4 mechanized brigades from Germany, GB or France?

Swerve already hit the main point.
The US trained their light forces for operations in Iraq or against rebells and not to fight a conventional war against Russia.

And while lighter forces are more liked these days it is not like the west disbanded it's heavy forces.
A light force like some Striker Brigades or some even lighter paratroops from first rate NATO countries would have inflicted much more damage onto the advancing Russian forces if they would have been in the need to fight them over Abkhazia and it's capital.

 

[kato]

And while lighter forces are more liked these days it is not like the west disbanded it's heavy forces.

True. See the thread i posted yesterday portraying two battleforces with a NATO NRF-style layout.

 

[marcellogo]

It seems to me that we are saying the same exact thing...

Only we have to reach a consensus in term we use...

When you said for an istance:

why did the USA train the Georgians in light infantry tactics? Not because it is the Western model of warfare, nor to fight the Russian army, but for two reasons.
1. For deployment in Iraq.
2. For counter-insurgency operations in Georgia. e.g., along the line of control in Abkhazia.

It sound to my ears in that way: The United States organized and shaped All the georgian army not for defend its own homeland from a possible (or better absolutely evident) external menace but 1.for deployment in Iraq
2.for counter-insurgency operations...
Sorry, I thinked Georgia was an indipendent country, not a colony.
So, I'm asking you gentlemen:will any an you accept that some other will shape in the same way your own country's armed forces?

At the same way, when Waylander ask me:

Do you really think that the russian forces used in this conflict (numbers, quality, equipment, air and sea support) would have been able to ruin the day of let's say the equivalent of 4 mechanized brigades from Germany, GB or France?

I can sincerely respond: I think that also four georgian mechanized brigades or also two mech and two lgt inf would have saved the day, if their masta allowed them to keep them...
Instead, if I can trust my sources, the Georgian army had only an indipendent tank battalion and one mixed heavy (Two tank companies and two bmp companies) for every brigade.
and I can also add that I don't only think i'm absolutely sure, that also a light infantry only force would have achieved it.
They have just did it.
Lebanon 2006
Vukovar 1991
Obviously they was been fighting their OWN war (for right or for wrong), they was not trained by americans: 1. For deployment in Iraq.
2. For counter-insurgency operations...

And you have to pardon me but... i am an italian living in Croatia (yes the one of Vukovar 91), and both these country are not keeping them as you say, they was instead developing toward that expeditionary only defence model,so after your replies i :shudder:shudder:shudder more than before...

 

[roberto]

As predicted. EU economic weakness/dependency led to denial of NATO expansion.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/in...ect=143&sid=10041740&cKey=1228235873000&ty=ti
Europeans urge NATO to step up Russia ties
Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said contacts were needed with Moscow at all levels. "I fail to see that we gain anything by limiting channels of communication," he said.
"Saying that the EU will relaunch relations with Russian and in the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) we meet Russia, and bilaterally we meet with Russia, but only NATO should be outside that, seems to be a strange weakening of our hand," he told reporters

The effect is felt practically rightway. No Alliances or Nations are willing to subsidize bankrupt nations.

http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/31505
Ukraine forms group to improve ties with Russia

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/setback-for-georgia-after-nato-rejection-1049064.html
Half a dozen European countries led by Germany and Italy pushed to resume "informal" ties with Russia, despite concerns that Moscow is still flouting a ceasefire deal that ended its war with Georgia. Washington had insisted that it was no longer possible to have "business as usual" between Moscow and Nato after the August conflict. "We must now look for ways of returning to dialogue with Russia because it is during especially difficult phases... that we need to hold discussions," said the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

The measures are a major disappointment for Tbilisi. "It will be hard to explain this to our people back home," Georgia's Foreign Minister, Ekaterine Tkeshelashvili, said. The Prime Minister, Grigol Mgaloblishvili, added: "MAP has taken on such huge symbolism in Georgia that I have even met people who have named their children Map. But of course, we do realise that what matters most is that we are on a steady road to membership."

 

[Feanor]

Of course NATO will resume ties with Russia. That has nothing to do with the economy, and everything to do with the fact that there are simply far too many things that require such cooperation, for example programs related to Afghan, or control on weapons and drug trafficking.

 

[swerve]

Only we have to reach a consensus in term we use...

When you said for an istance:
It sound to my ears in that way: The United States organized and shaped All the georgian army not for defend its own homeland from a possible (or better absolutely evident) external menace but 1.for deployment in Iraq
2.for counter-insurgency operations...
Sorry, I thinked Georgia was an indipendent country, not a colony.
So, I'm asking you gentlemen:will any an you accept that some other will shape in the same way your own country's armed forces?...

What does this have to do with the original question? You are turning this into a political discussion.

As I've already said, this was only part of the Georgian army. It also had a tank battalion in each brigade, as you know. One tank battalion to two infantry battalions is a fairly normal ratio for a mechanised infantry brigade. Also, the USA had not (again, as I've already said) trained the tank battalions or the artillery, nor had it re-organised or re-shaped the Georgian army. It had trained parts of that army, to enable them to perform specific roles better. It left the other parts of the army, their organisation & equipment, untouched. The overall organisation & shape was chosen by the Georgians.

They had an armoured force which was proportionally large compared to western countries, not small, & the same for their artillery.

I ask you again: what does any of this have to do with the Western, or even the US, models of military organisation & warfighting, & their effectiveness?

 

[Awang se]

NATO commitment are so global, so much that this thread have a tendency to drift away.

And while lighter forces are more liked these days it is not like the west disbanded it's heavy forces.
A light force like some Striker Brigades or some even lighter paratroops from first rate NATO countries would have inflicted much more damage onto the advancing Russian forces if they would have been in the need to fight them over Abkhazia and it's capital.

Highly unlikely. Russia will simply laid siege to the city and bomb it to ruins just like what they did at Grozny. After the 1996 disaster in Grozny i doubt that russia had that much appetite for street to street fighting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/setback-for-georgia-after-nato-rejection-1049064.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-1049064.html
Half a dozen European countries led by Germany and Italy pushed to resume "informal" ties with Russia, despite concerns that Moscow is still flouting a ceasefire deal that ended its war with Georgia. Washington had insisted that it was no longer possible to have "business as usual" between Moscow and Nato after the August conflict. "We must now look for ways of returning to dialogue with Russia because it is during especially difficult phases... that we need to hold discussions," said the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

The measures are a major disappointment for Tbilisi. "It will be hard to explain this to our people back home," Georgia's Foreign Minister, Ekaterine Tkeshelashvili, said. The Prime Minister, Grigol Mgaloblishvili, added: "MAP has taken on such huge symbolism in Georgia that I have even met people who have named their children Map. But of course, we do realise that what matters most is that we are on a steady road to membership."

Georgia are important to United States, but i doubt if it is as important to Europe.

Not that i agreed with Russia, but the US increasing involvement in the countries bordering Russia tend to invite skeptism.

Russia will have to come to terms with that it is not a superpower anymore.

Now, someone please tell me, what's the logic behind the sending of the British Fleet to the Falkland during the Falkland war? what's the point of wasting millions of Pounds for the territory as far away as Falkland? why don't just give it to Argentina and save both side a trouble of fighting a war? The answer, it was mostly pride. British once ruled half a world and the legacy carries on even when the days that the British ruled the high seas are long pass. Similarly, Russia was once a superpower. To be seen as being "defeated" by the west are a huge blow to the national pride. So it's natural that Russia will try their best with what they have to be seen as a superpower even though it was just for parade.

 

[Feanor]

I ask you again: what does any of this have to do with the Western, or even the US, models of military organisation & warfighting, & their effectiveness?

In Russian press in particular all discussion of the war in Georgian seems to focus on the idea that the Georgian army was a western-style army, and that the Russian victory was a victory of the Russian-style army over the western one. (the other side of the story is those who spend their time slamming Russian army performance and completely ignore the Georgian side of the equation)

I suspect this is where he is coming from. Now I have to say this rather mistaken idea is a press only thing. In reality if you look, it's Russia that's transitioning to a western-style army. During the conflict Russia used reinforced regiments (~brigades) and an operational command, rather then their divisional commands, to perform the operations. I think it was already mentioned that this was in large part an example of an Air Battle Doctrine being put to use (however poorly). The Russian military, judging by the reforms that emerged from the war, understands this very well, but for the sake of patriotism in the general public that's what's been fed to us.

Highly unlikely. Russia will simply laid siege to the city and bomb it to ruins just like what they did at Grozny. After the 1996 disaster in Grozny i doubt that russia had that much appetite for street to street fighting.

Except that Russia can't afford to do that when interfering on humanitarian grounds in the context of a Georgian aggression. I suspect we will see attempts to re-establish urban combat along the western model in the Russian Army. In fact I strongly suspect the Russian Army will be closer to NATO in structure of it's forces, long before the Ukranian or Georgian one.

Now, someone please tell me, what's the logic behind the sending of the British Fleet to the Falkland during the Falkland war? what's the point of wasting millions of Pounds for the territory as far away as Falkland? why don't just give it to Argentina and save both side a trouble of fighting a war? The answer, it was mostly pride. British once ruled half a world and the legacy carries on even when the days that the British ruled the high seas are long pass. Similarly, Russia was once a superpower. To be seen as being "defeated" by the west are a huge blow to the national pride. So it's natural that Russia will try their best with what they have to be seen as a superpower even though it was just for parade.

Huge difference. Ossetia is next to Russia, and instability there easily spreads across the border into the Russian N. Caucus, which is unstable already as is. The security concern there is very real, and Russia will need to have at least tentative dominance over the region in order to make sure that nothing like the Chechen insurgency rises again. This has rather gotten off topic so if you want to talk about that feel free to respond to me in the Flare Ups in the Conflict Zone thread, and we can try to examine further how much of Russia's actions were directed by need for self-assertion, and how much by legitimate security concerns. (or more interestingly is self-assertion itself is a legitimate security need)

 

[marcellogo]

Swerve, maybe is a problem of sources...

As I've already said, this was only part of the Georgian army. It also had a tank battalion in each brigade, as you know. One tank battalion to two infantry battalions is a fairly normal ratio for a mechanised infantry brigade. Also, the USA had not (again, as I've already said) trained the tank battalions or the artillery, nor had it re-organised or re-shaped the Georgian army. It had trained parts of that army, to enable them to perform specific roles better. It left the other parts of the army, their organisation & equipment, untouched. The overall organisation & shape was chosen by the Georgians

Sweve, I based my assertion on which i read in italian specialized defense press, that usually tend to be quite reliable in this matter (unlike general one).

These sources quite unanimously states that:
- the armored battalion in georgian brigades are in fact mixed one( repeat, two tank coy & two mech (bmp) coy, others btgs are light motorized infantry. These brigate summed up the greay part of georgia's military.

-the georgian brigates was all, except one in transition process, all composed by professionals. Russian units are in the opposite a mixed professional/coscript forces, with a stronger, but still not exclusive, percentage of volounteers personnel

- Georgia spent a way higher percentage of its GDP in defence than nearly all Nato countries, and got equal or better equipment than most of the Nato eastern european members.

- the american and other western countries military advisors shaped the whole orbat and military doctrine of georgian military, that are not more based on former soviet model.

So if you say me that you have better sources that quite all my country specialized press... please, give me some reference and I will be eager to convene with you.
Maybe is better if we shift in a Georgian conflict analisis tread, so to not divert too much attention on this case only?

 

[roberto]

Well Russia has opened another door in latin america. I can forsee Russian Naval visits and training argentinians. I doubt in future war US/France is going to help Britain as Latin america is too big economically/politically to antogonize.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13362523&PageNum=0
Russia, Argentina to develop atomic energy, space cooperation – Putin

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/09/europe/EU-Russia-Argentina.php
Russia also expressed support for Argentina's position on the British-controlled Falkland Islands, which Argentina claims as its own

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13362343&PageNum=0
Russia and Argentina sign statement on strategic partnership

 

[ASFC]

What drivel!! :roll

There is no way anytime soon that Argentine can invade the Falklands-either from a military, political or financial perspective.

Latin America was too big to antagonize last time for the US. But they helped the UK. The US-UK relationship is stronger than any relations between Latin AMerica and either Russia or China.

And I should also point out that what Russia 'thinks' on the Falklands is irrelevant. It will never help Argentina invade sovereign UK territory-it would be an act of war against the Uk on Russias part.

 

[Feanor]

The expression of support is a purely symbolic. It has nothing to do with a real attempt to reclaim the Falklands.

 

[roberto]

What drivel!! :roll

There is no way anytime soon that Argentine can invade the Falklands-either from a military, political or financial perspective.

Actually u dont need very large military force to retake Falklands. Couple of diesel electric submarines with supersonic crusie missiles/airborne troops with flanker support/Real time satellite imaginary courtesy of Russians is all needed as most of British forces have already left.

Latin America was too big to antagonize last time for the US. But they helped the UK. The US-UK relationship is stronger than any relations between Latin AMerica and either Russia or China.

30 years ago US-Latin trade was not big nor was Latin Vote Bank in US. US cannot afford any more Chavez inside latin america.

And I should also point out that what Russia 'thinks' on the Falklands is irrelevant. It will never help Argentina invade sovereign UK territory-it would be an act of war against the Uk on Russias part.

They already expressed support to Argentinaian position. so it means they dont consider it as UK soverign terrotory because it is open to negotiation.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20081209/118770220.html
She also thanked Russia for its support of Argentina's attempts to bring London to the negotiating table in connection with the disputed Falkland Islands. The islands were the subject of a brief war between Britain and Argentina in 1982, and are currently controlled by Britain

What i can forsee is Russia interested in selling weopons and training Argentinaians as Russia will want to expand it arm export portfolio otherwise they will have problem with credit crunch in defence industry. Russian dont consider UK as independent power just like Poland so it doesnot want to negotiate. It will directly negotiate with Obama for direct bargaining on missile defence/Easter Europe/Middleast etc.
Argentinains will want to built its military to bring UK to negotiating table. Otherwise UK will have constantly put Naval flottilla there which is not cost effective.

 

[ASFC]

Actually u dont need very large military force to retake Falklands. Couple of diesel electric submarines with supersonic crusie missiles/airborne troops with flanker support/Real time satellite imaginary courtesy of Russians is all needed as most of British forces have already left.

They already expressed support to Argentinaian position. so it means they dont consider it as UK soverign terrotory because it is open to negotiation.

Are you serious?

Look at Argentinas forces. They barely have any operational Diesel Electric Submarines and none of them have supersonic anti ship missiles.

What the Russians think is irrelevent-if the UK considers the Falklands as UK territory then it will be viewed as an act of war for the Russians to get involved. Wake up. Do you want two nuclear powers to go to war??? Thought not.

Feanor summed up the situation nicely.

 

[roberto]

Are you serious?

Look at Argentinas forces. They barely have any operational Diesel Electric Submarines and none of them have supersonic anti ship missiles.

They can be quickly upgraded and Russia can lease submarines jut like it leased a submarine to India.

What the Russians think is irrelevent-if the UK considers the Falklands as UK territory then it will be viewed as an act of war for the Russians to get involved. Wake up. Do you want two nuclear powers to go to war??? Thought not.

Feanor summed up the situation nicely.

Russia consider entire Soviet Union its own zone of influence. They are creating interesting scenario for bargaining.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0xBv8YQwWSZqAQgjd42RCvU1uEAD94VR5U01
Russia warns West not to meddle in ex-Soviet Union

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...s: Iran Buying Russian SA-20s&channel=defense
U.S. Sources: Iran Buying Russian SA-20s
Dec 10, 2008
Senior U.S. government officials independently confirm that Iran is now "on contract" for the Russian SA-20 strategic SAM system, irrespective of Kremlin protestations to the contrary

A single battery of S-400 will deny EF/Tornado air superoirity over Fakland. If they are going to sell to Iran. I dont see any reason why Argentina cannot get it.