NATO's Multiple Frontiers?

[ASFC]

Do you not get it? Leasing a Russian Sub to Argentina isn't go to change the situation Argentinas Armed Forces find themselves in, a single battery of S-400 is not going to deny Air Superiority to the RAF who are based on the Falklands at RAF Mount Pleasant and what Russia/ex-Soviet Union did in the FSU has nothing to do with the Falklands.

Argentinas Armed Forces would have to be completely rebuilt before any of this is going to happen-and given the Argentinian President has just annoucened in the past week a bail out package for their economy I seriously doubt they can afford to rebuild their Armed Forces any time soon.

And given that the Falklands fall outside of NATOs responsibilities this is going wildly off-topic.

 

[swerve]

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.

How is a battery of surface to air missiles over 500 km away (& nearer 700 km from the airport & town) going to give air superiority over the Falklands?

 

[marcellogo]

Russia as an insecurity exporter...

And given that the Falklands fall outside of NATOs responsibilities this is going wildly off-topic.

Also during the Cold war former Soviet Union spend a lot of effort into expanding her influence in Third world countries, also these without a communist government, it was a sort ot encircling strategy being impossible a direct confrontation between Nato/Warsaw pact.
The more it seems me they are doing now, before it was fear of nuclear war, now it's simply their weakness to make a such confrontation impossible, but still they persist in fomenting insecurity.
Or better they are much more "insecurity exporter" than before, as a consequences of their actual loss of status.

Let's try to make the concept more clear...
The former Soviet Union was one of the two superpowers in a half splitted world, so it was interested in mantaining a certain status quo, almost until she don't see the concrete possibilities to obtain easy power gains.
she was s very interested to don't allow new other powers to come into surface expecially when these new ones would somewhat challenge its ideological predominance (Tito's Jugoslavia, Mao's China or also Ceausescu's Romania).
In the same manner, she was very reluctant to export its best armaments also to her most trusted allies, no t-64 or T-80 for them and also t-72 only in downgraded version.
Nowadays Russia act in opposite manner, she had becomed quite reckless in supporting anyone new power that opposes to the Usa/ western/ Nato predominance, also if they will effectly became more powerful than herself.

And wat to say about the armaments exportation?

 

[ASFC]

My point being about the Falklands being outside NATOs responsibility is the fact that if Argentina invaded again, the UK's NATO allies would not be required to come ot our aid-and therefore there is no chance of NATO ever being involved and so outside the scope of this thread!

 

[roberto]

How is a battery of surface to air missiles over 500 km away (& nearer 700 km from the airport & town) going to give air superiority over the Falklands?

S-400 battery creates no fly zone upto 400Km. It will provide protection to Argentinian airforce to launch stand off weopons without any opposition as S-400 cleanup anything in the air. pretty same strategy is applied by S-300 batteries by China against Taiwan. Expanding into Latin America/North Africa/Middleast is very important strategy by Russia to contain West.

 

[Preceptor]

My point being about the Falklands being outside NATOs responsibility is the fact that if Argentina invaded again, the UK's NATO allies would not be required to come ot our aid-and therefore there is no chance of NATO ever being involved and so outside the scope of this thread!

Agreed. Keep discussion on Argentinian-UK issues with the Falklands out of the thread, which is about NATO issues. There is already an existing thread located here where that can be discussed. As mentioned before, the Falklands area outside of an area of NATO interest, further discussion here will be considered fftopic.
-Preceptor

 

[Feanor]

S-400 battery creates no fly zone upto 400Km. It will provide protection to Argentinian airforce to launch stand off weopons without any opposition as S-400 cleanup anything in the air. pretty same strategy is applied by S-300 batteries by China against Taiwan. Expanding into Latin America/North Africa/Middleast is very important strategy by Russia to contain West.

Do you ever get tired of posting things that are so ridiculous?

 

[marcellogo]

Infact I was try to focalize about Russian Global strategy...

My point being about the Falklands being outside NATOs responsibility is the fact that if Argentina invaded again, the UK's NATO allies would not be required to come ot our aid-and therefore there is no chance of NATO ever being involved and so outside the scope of this thread!

More than agreed, my intervention was infct intended to divert from regional/tactical level, into a more global one, namely the russian Grand strategy.
They really have one? I think they have it, but someone can think in a different way.
In what their actual strategy, doctrine, modus operandi differs from that of former Soviet Union? I think to have given some examples in both senses

I'll join another question, it seems to me that in this forum there is a wide consensus about Russia still being the principal Nato opponent.
This seems to deny not only Usa pretences to wiew the future Nato role as a worlwide partner (or better auxiliary) in their effort of global stabilization/dominance, but also the fact that russians itself are trying to restabilish again some tipe of global influence.
That will lead to the final question.
Have Nato or better its european/old world member a Grand strategy of their own, or they still left this incumbence to Usa alone?

 

[Feanor]

I'll join another question, it seems to me that in this forum there is a wide consensus about Russia still being the principal Nato opponent.

I would disagree. Russia is in no position to be a principal NATO opponent. In fact at this point NATO doesn't have a principal opponent, and from that stem all of it's problems, including it's indecisiveness. NATO was an alliance to defend against the USSR. Now it's lost it's purpose, and is trying to find new meaning. Hence the expansion into E. Europe, the political problems plaguing the Afghan deployments, reluctance to commit troops, etc. etc. etc. At this point NATO has essentially become a westernizing tool/babysitter for the ex-WarPac states, which view NATO membership as their golden ticket. It allows them to cut down their militaries, and essentially place much of both the political and military burden of their own defense on the Cold War era alliance.

I think this is where the real problem is. NATO needs to redefine it's purpose and goal, create a new mission statement. Based on that mission statement it needs to redefine criteria for membership, and essentially cut down it's recruiting spree which is leaving it not only overstretched, but too large for any decisive action, as it's various members will simply not be able to agree on anything.

 

[marcellogo]

Ok, now we are moving in the right directions...

Oh, finally we are approching to the focal point of the discussion.
What have to be the role of Nato in the XXI century?

Feanor has done a good intervention, but I disagree from him in some conclusion...
First and fondamental, for almost half of european Nato members (all of ex-Warsaw pact, Finland, Norway, Germany and Austria),Russia is not simply the principal adversary but is THE ENEMY for definition.
They can be wrong, they can be right (I incline for the latter) but recent Russia moves are certainly going in the direction they feared about.
Certainly NATO and EU expansions are being arranged too in a hurry, but what have been the viable alternative? Ten other Georgia/Ucraina lookalikes?
Without Nato these countries would have spent much more of their GDP on defence, impairing their development and they would have been a destabilizing factors instead to a stabilizing one.
For tomorrow on, Nato could certainly be more selective with new accessions, asking more contributions to common defence and an active partecipation in world stabilization efforts, but still she cannot ABSOLUTELY preemptively deny to any DEMOCRATIC european country the access to adhesion programmes without betraying its own fundament.

 

[Feanor]

Oh, finally we are approching to the focal point of the discussion.
What have to be the role of Nato in the XXI century?

Feanor has done a good intervention, but I disagree from him in some conclusion...
First and fondamental, for almost half of european Nato members (all of ex-Warsaw pact, Finland, Norway, Germany and Austria),Russia is not simply the principal adversary but is THE ENEMY for definition.

What (other then history) are you basing this assertion on? Czech Republic was actually not inclined to support Georgia, and Ukraine itself is divided down the middle. Polish and Ukranian presidents both ran their own little anti-Russian stunts, while their own ministries of foreign affairs disowned their statements. The Baltics I'll grant you, as well as to some extent Poland. However for the rest of Eastern Europe right now the situation is far more complex, and few of them are really worried about a Russian attack. In fact even Poland I would say, does it more out of historical enmity then out of a real security threat.

They can be wrong, they can be right (I incline for the latter) but recent Russia moves are certainly going in the direction they feared about.
Certainly NATO and EU expansions are being arranged too in a hurry, but what have been the viable alternative? Ten other Georgia/Ucraina lookalikes?

By Georgia/Ukraine look alikes what exactly do you mean? Politically corrupt regimes, that do little for the people? Are you promoting NATO expansion as a tool for democracy? Or are you claiming that Georgia and Ukraine are somehow victimized by Russia? Because if it's the latter, the claim hardly holds any ground.

Without Nato these countries would have spent much more of their GDP on defence, impairing their development and they would have been a destabilizing factors instead to a stabilizing one.

Which countries are you talking about?

For tomorrow on, Nato could certainly be more selective with new accessions, asking more contributions to common defence and an active partecipation in world stabilization efforts, but still she cannot ABSOLUTELY preemptively deny to any DEMOCRATIC european country the access to adhesion programmes without betraying its own fundament.

I disagree. I think it not only can, but must deny membership. Otherwise you're creating something that has far too many players in it to ever act in a decisive and unified manner, not to mention the difficulty of achieving inter-operability and stablizing a single chain of command across so many antions. Now the EU is something entirely different, and EU expansion makes far more sense. But NATO as a principally military-political alliance needs to remain fairly compact in order to have certain freedom of action.

 

[marcellogo]

Yes, it's just history...

What (other then history) are you basing this assertion on? Czech Republic was actually not inclined to support Georgia, and Ukraine itself is divided down the middle. Polish and Ukranian presidents both ran their own little anti-Russian stunts, while their own ministries of foreign affairs disowned their statements. The Baltics I'll grant you, as well as to some extent Poland.

History, exactly that is, Feanor, i'm talking about the nineties and why the recently freed european countries was so vocal and unanimous in their request of joining Nato a.s.a.p., they feared a lot about a possible Soviet Union /Russian backlash and sought protection in the Nato.
The Nato for his part is not a mere military organization aimed to enhance his member self defence, it is, it was and hope it (or she?) will always be an alliance aimed to uphold certain values, the democracy, the international security , the human rights and so on...So it (or she) obviusly agreed to that desire... Surely it underestimated the cost of that politic, surely it would have asked more contributions from these nations, but it CAN NOT (is a factual impossibility, not a political choice) say no to a motivated adhesion request without putting its own fundaments under discussion...

By Georgia/Ukraine look alikes what exactly do you mean? Politically corrupt regimes, that do little for the people? Are you promoting NATO expansion as a tool for democracy? Or are you claiming that Georgia and Ukraine are somehow victimized by Russia? Because if it's the latter, the claim hardly holds any ground.

For Georgia/Ucraine lookalike i'll intend nations with no consolidated internal political sistem , with not a stable sistem of alliances, compelled to spend a great part of their GDP to trying to assure themselve a minimum of self determinations and for the rest forced to ask protection from some big bossy superpower, with the results of not real delopment, because they have to spend their money in weapons and not real indipendence, because they have to give to the superpower much more than the contribution they would give to Nato, see the georgian brigate in Afganistan, neither Germany send so many soldier there.
Look, the only viable alterntive it would be that all the countries emerged from the fall of Soviet empire joined themselfes in a new Warsaw pact with Usa instead of Russia.
Oh well, fact is that this would have been something really towed against Russia, not these somehow paranoid ranting about Ukraina and Georgia being somehow a menace to Putin's Russia...nfloorl:nfloorl:

 

[kato]

see the georgian brigate in Afganistan, neither Germany send so many soldier there.

What? If i understand that choppy English right, you're suggesting that Georgia has more soldiers in AFG than Germany? Or that there is a Georgian brigade in AFG at all? [NATO doesn't agree]. Though one has to have some chuckle at the 3220:1 ratio

Hint: The Georgian brigade you're talking about is in Iraq. Where Germany obviously doesn't send any (non-covert) troops for various political reasons. And which isn't a NATO operation of course.

First and fondamental, for [...] Germany [...],Russia is not simply the principal adversary but is THE ENEMY for definition.

That's one interesting definition of "strategic partners"...

 

[marcellogo]

Oh yes, its true...

Why so surprised? It a well know fact, Georgia got an entire brigate (the 1°, its best unit) in Afg when the war started and it have to bring it back in an hurry, obviously with Usaf help, very good example of "the strategical partnership with Russia .
And yes ther was more georgian soldier in AFG than the most of biggest Nato members...that is one of the reasons for what I criticized so much the georgia/usadefence deals...
For a more complete response, see you tomorrow...:sleepy2

 

[kato]

*cough* http://georgia.usembassy.gov/pr-08112008-troops.html *cough*

There were some 50 Georgian soldiers in ISAF in 2004.

A platoon-sized unit served alongside a British battalion in ISAF, helping to secure the environment to allow the conduct of the presidential elections in Afghanistan in 2004. Georgia continues to provide important support in allowing supplies needed for the ISAF troops in Afghanistan to transit though its territory, under an agreement signed with NATO in March 2005. Georgia currently provides medical personnel to assist ISAF within the Lithuanian Provincial Reconstruction Team, and discussions are ongoing about further contributions Georgia may make to the ISAF mission.

http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-georgia/practice.html

So, can we move past that... "misinformation" of yours?

 

[marcellogo]

Infact...

Look, in the documents you have sent to me it is clearly written: current at september 2008, after august war in Georgia...

http://www.newsmax.com/borchgrave/russia_invades_georgia/2008/08/12/121206.html

 

[kato]

"The U.S. flew back the 2,000 Georgian troops assigned to Iraq."

That's what it says in your link. It doesn't say anything about Georgian troops in Afghanistan.

 

[marcellogo]

Ooopppssss!

My error,sorry, you are right, they flew them back from Iraq, where no western allied accepted to send anymore troops...
:nono:whip:smashDon't punish me too hard for this... The basic concept is still valid anyway.

 

[kato]

Ok, to move on... Iraq is not a NATO operation. Iraq is not accepted among NATO allies, and the only "notable" NATO-Europe members to ever send troops there were the UK, Spain and Italy. The rest, by a handful minor European nations and a plethora of - within NATO - irrelevant Eastern European nations, were purely political deployments really (oooh - i probably insulted some people here?).
In fact, Iraq is of course a typical example of the intentional deconstruction of NATO as a security instrument in favour of bilateral relationships by certain nations. And no, not only the USA.

 

[marcellogo]

Not at all...

(oooh - i probably insulted some people here?)

Are you referring to me? Of course absolutely not, remember i'm an italian living in Croatia, the first it's not a est-european country, the second is not (still for a few months) a Nato member.
And Kato, I'm SURELY the first one here that don't want any free world nation , eastern or western, big or small, nato member or not, to overstrech their cointingency forces at point to compromise their's own country self-defence potential, and most at all if they do it not for a real strategic evaluation but for what you appropriately call

purely political deployments

, aimed to please You-know-who, and I still keep thinking that Georgia case was one of the more blatant examples of that disgraceful trend.
At the contrary, if you ask me about a good example of what i think it would be a correct approach to these problems i would surely put YOUR own country (germany) defence model at the top.
See you