Author Topic: US versus NATO  (Read 24155 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #50 on: July 03, 2018, 13:10:08 »
Lost in all this is we shouldn't even be talking about a NATO without the USA or Europe alone versus Russia.

But here we are.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #51 on: July 03, 2018, 13:50:25 »
Yes, I'm sure that would allow Russia, a country with the GDP of Italy, to outfight Europe, with a potential army twice its size.

If GDP was the only factor, sure.

But it's not.

Russia is buying its own kit, made in its own country, at prices relative to its own economy. And it's buying in bulk.

It's paying its troops relative to its own economy, and likely not spending anywhere nearly the same percentage on other personnel-related costs such as pensions and whole-family postings and generous allowances.

It's likely not going to *****-foot around worrying about civilian casualties, endangered species, carbon footprints, gender-based analysis, and world opinion if it did attack. It will just blast everything in its way.

It's going to choose the time and place of its attack.

Think 1939. I'm not going to compare populations of Germany to the combined UK and European populations in detail, but the Nazis did not have the advantage there. They capitalized upon aggressive and innovative tactics, all-arms co-operation, and shock.

Now, would Putin actually attempt this? Unlikely. Russia still remembers - much better than we do - what the last Great Unpleasantness cost its society, and a nuclear exchange remains a pretty good deterrent, and he's not that crazy.

Russia is not to be feared unreasonably, no, and neither was it during the Cold War, but that is no excuse for complacency and underfunding our own armed forces (in collective NATO terms). This was the focus of the first quarter-century of my career, including three years spent in West Germany. Was I worried then? No - but we (NATO) were a lot better prepared for such an eventuality then than we are today.

President Trump is not attacking or risking NATO, or helping Putin. You are spouting nonsense in that regard. He is attempting to get the slackers (which includes us) to pay their fair - and agreed-upon share.

"We" are not talking about "a NATO without the USA or Europe alone versus Russia."

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 190,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,540
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #52 on: July 03, 2018, 14:00:49 »
...It's likely not going to *****-foot around worrying about civilian casualties, endangered species, carbon footprints, gender-based analysis, and world opinion if it did attack. It will just blast everything in its way...

Yup...MH17...etc.


Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2018, 14:02:04 »
If GDP was the only factor, sure.

But it's not.

Russia is buying its own kit, made in its own country, at prices relative to its own economy. And it's buying in bulk.

It's paying its troops relative to its own economy, and likely not spending anywhere nearly the same percentage on other personnel-related costs such as pensions and whole-family postings and generous allowances.

It's likely not going to *****-foot around worrying about civilian casualties, endangered species, carbon footprints, gender-based analysis, and world opinion if it did attack. It will just blast everything in its way.

It's going to choose the time and place of its attack.

Think 1939. I'm not going to compare populations of Germany to the combined UK and European populations in detail, but the Nazis did not have the advantage there. They capitalized upon aggressive and innovative tactics, all-arms co-operation, and shock.

Now, would Putin actually attempt this? Unlikely. Russia still remembers - much better than we do - what the last Great Unpleasantness cost its society, and a nuclear exchange remains a pretty good deterrent, and he's not that crazy.

Russia is not to be feared unreasonably, no, and neither was it during the Cold War, but that is no excuse for complacency and underfunding our own armed forces (in collective NATO terms). This was the focus of the first quarter-century of my career, including three years spent in West Germany. Was I worried then? No - but we (NATO) were a lot better prepared for such an eventuality then than we are today.

President Trump is not attacking or risking NATO, or helping Putin. You are spouting nonsense in that regard. He is attempting to get the slackers (which includes us) to pay their fair - and agreed-upon share.

"We" are not talking about "a NATO without the USA or Europe alone versus Russia."
when you have the president of the united states musing about america leaving NATO, or pulling its troops out of Germany,  one should probably talk about it.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,323
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #54 on: July 03, 2018, 14:55:17 »
I just wanted to added a few things to this part of your earlier post...

When Russia is able to effectively project beyond their borders with more than little green men...

Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic has reportedly 'increased tenfold,'  May 2018

Royal Navy frigate shadows Russian warships in North Sea - June 2018 (A couple of Steregushchiy's out for a cruise...)

Russia fires first submarine missiles against Isis targets in Syria  Dec 2015

4 times in 4 days:  Russian military aircraft fly off US coast - April 2017

Russia's Massive Military Exercise in the Arctic Is Utterly Baffling - Mar 2015

Maybe I'm looking at things incorrectly, but I'm not seeing a lack of ability for the Russians to conduct operations outside of their borders, or with them being able to use more than their little green men.

I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #55 on: July 03, 2018, 15:05:57 »
I just wanted to added a few things to this part of your earlier post...

Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic has reportedly 'increased tenfold,'  May 2018

Royal Navy frigate shadows Russian warships in North Sea - June 2018 (A couple of Steregushchiy's out for a cruise...)

Russia fires first submarine missiles against Isis targets in Syria  Dec 2015

4 times in 4 days:  Russian military aircraft fly off US coast - April 2017

Russia's Massive Military Exercise in the Arctic Is Utterly Baffling - Mar 2015

Maybe I'm looking at things incorrectly, but I'm not seeing a lack of ability for the Russians to conduct operations outside of their borders, or with them being able to use more than their little green men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Don%27t_Impress_Me_Much
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 87,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,913
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #56 on: July 03, 2018, 15:25:36 »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Don%27t_Impress_Me_Much

Come on Altair.  I normally like what you post.

Russia has always tried to test NATO's mettle by doing exactly what you say it can't.  be it what EIS just posted or sending bombers over or near our border to remind us that they can project.
Optio

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2018, 15:47:19 »
Come on Altair.  I normally like what you post.

Russia has always tried to test NATO's mettle by doing exactly what you say it can't.  be it what EIS just posted or sending bombers over or near our border to remind us that they can project.
What? it's a good song by a good Canadian artist.

On a serious note, I would be interested to see how the Russian army can do when not operating in their own house, or their backyard. They did a decent job in Syria, although that force was on the small side, and didn't venture too far from base.

It's one thing to send in the army to destabilize Ukraine, it's another altogether to try to intimidate Europe.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 300
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2018, 16:10:47 »
Come on Altair.  I normally like what you post.


Shania Twain in her prime, I can't complain about that!

Russia vs the rest of Europe would be a hard slog in my opinion. The Russian's would have the advantage as the aggressor in my opinion. The rest of Europe would have a hard time fighting as a integrated whole and the logistics would be a nightmare. Is not the T-72 the most common NATO tank?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 16:27:01 by suffolkowner »

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 97,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,228
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #59 on: July 03, 2018, 16:21:15 »
Plus Russia has more tanks and planes , infantry NBC and nukes.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #60 on: July 03, 2018, 16:30:45 »
Plus Russia has more tanks and planes , infantry NBC and nukes.
France: 205,000 with 195,770 in reserves

Germany: 180,000 with 145,00 in reserves

Poland: 120,000 with 515,000 in reserves

Spain: 125,00 with 16,200 in reserves

Italy: 320,000 with 42,000 in reserves

Sweden: 14,000 with 26,000 in reserves

Netherlands: 50,000 with 32,200 in reserves

Romania: 75,000 with 80,000 in Reserves

Czech Republic: 21,100 with 11,000 in reserves

Ukraine: 160,000 with 1,000,000 in reserves (Already in a proxy war with Russia)

Denmark: 25,000 with 63,000 in reserves

Bulgaria: 35,000 with 302,500 in reserves

Belgium: 35,000 with 6,500 in reserves

Austria: 30,000 with 27,000 in reserves

Portugal: 40,000 with 211,000 in reserves

Finland: 36,500 with 357,000 in reserves

Croatia: 21,500 with 102,700 in reserves

Estonia: 3,500 with 60,000 in reserves

Greece: 180,000 with 280,000 in reserves

Hungary: 20,000 with 52,000 in reserves

Latvia: 13,000 with 11,000 in reserves

Lithuania: 15,000 with 4,260 in reserves

Slovenia: 7,500 with 8,300 in reserves

Slovakia: 13,500 with 0 in reserves

Including at least 1,600 Nuclear Weapons

Frontline: 1,745,600

Reserves: 3,548,430

Total: 5,294,030

Frontline Troops: 766,055

Reserves: 2,485,000

Total: 3,251,055

Including 8,000 Nuclear Weapons

EU combined military spending :226.73 billion

Russian Military Budget: 66.3 Billion

if you say so
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,323
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 264,316
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,254
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #62 on: July 03, 2018, 16:40:40 »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 87,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,913
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #63 on: July 03, 2018, 16:43:53 »
I think the bigger question isn’t so much taking on Russia straight up in an all out war, it is more about Europe being able and willing to take on Russia in its various proxy wars and influence activities. 

I’m not so sure they are.
Optio

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #64 on: July 03, 2018, 17:07:40 »
when you have the president of the united states musing about america leaving NATO, or pulling its troops out of Germany,  one should probably talk about it.

You still don't get it.

"Musing" is a pressure tactic, not a promise.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 300
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #65 on: July 03, 2018, 17:11:21 »
From the Atlantic council article above and some Wikipedia treat numbers with caution

                                       US                  NATO Europe           Russia
Active personnel                 1347300         1854900                395000
Reserve personnel                865050         1232290
MBT                                        2831              6983                  2562
other armoured vehicles         29576             34487                  6105
aircraft                                   3628               2612                  3547
attack helicopters                      760                382
major naval vessels                   186                252                      74
minor naval vessels                   222               1583


Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #66 on: July 03, 2018, 17:11:35 »
You still don't get it.

"Musing" is a pressure tactic, not a promise.
the last thing I remember the president musing about was tariffs.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #67 on: July 03, 2018, 17:19:29 »
That one, admittedly, has me stumped.

I see no good outcome for anybody over a trade war.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #68 on: July 03, 2018, 17:31:51 »
That one, admittedly, has me stumped.

I see no good outcome for anybody over a trade war.
yes,  and while that is a topic for another thread, my point is that the line between pressure tactic and really dumb policy is apperantly a thin one
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 103,509
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #69 on: July 03, 2018, 18:16:19 »
The thing about Russia is that its defence budget isn't a true reflection of its actual military spending. 

Firstly, the Defence Budget doesn't account for the FSB which is estimated to employ over 200,000 personnel and has a far larger scope of operations than any comparable Western agency.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/fsb-putins-modern-day-kgb

As well, Russia has other internal security units like the National Guard which is as large if not larger than the FSB and is responsible for Internal Security of the Russian Federation.

The budget of the FSB and National Guard are classified but estimates put it somewhere in the realm of $45-50 billion US.

http://intersectionproject.eu/article/security/russias-defense-capabilities-2018

Russian Military Doctrine considers Internal and External Defence as one and the same.

Taking this in to consideration, actual Russian Defence spending is probably closer to $110-120 billion per year.  As well, they spend upwards of 50-60% of their Defence budget on equipment and far less on pay, pensions, etc.  They also have their own large defence industry and build all their own equipment.

They are far larger than any of the European Powers and I sincerely doubt Europe could face them alone without US help.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 159,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,257
  • It's all good
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #70 on: July 03, 2018, 19:14:08 »
if you say so

Altair,

There is a big difference between tactical arithmetic and strategic calculus.  You have clearly mastered the former....

<<edited for unbelievably bad spelling error...>>
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 20:40:02 by PPCLI Guy »
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 213,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,351
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #71 on: July 03, 2018, 19:18:10 »
The thing about Russia is that its defence budget isn't a true reflection of its actual military spending. 

Firstly, the Defence Budget doesn't account for the FSB which is estimated to employ over 200,000 personnel and has a far larger scope of operations than any comparable Western agency.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/fsb-putins-modern-day-kgb

As well, Russia has other internal security units like the National Guard which is as large if not larger than the FSB and is responsible for Internal Security of the Russian Federation.

The budget of the FSB and National Guard are classified but estimates put it somewhere in the realm of $45-50 billion US.

http://intersectionproject.eu/article/security/russias-defense-capabilities-2018

Russian Military Doctrine considers Internal and External Defence as one and the same.

Taking this in to consideration, actual Russian Defence spending is probably closer to $110-120 billion per year.  As well, they spend upwards of 50-60% of their Defence budget on equipment and far less on pay, pensions, etc.  They also have their own large defence industry and build all their own equipment.

They are far larger than any of the European Powers and I sincerely doubt Europe could face them alone without US help.

And they may be repeating the mistakes of the past where they had an epic fail on the 'guns vs. butter balance' thing:

https://online.norwich.edu/academic-programs/masters/military-history/resources/articles/exploring-5-reasons-for-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #72 on: July 03, 2018, 19:36:39 »
my point is that the line between pressure tactic and really dumb policy is apperantly a thin one

Too many countries have been too complacent for too long.

Shaking them up a little is a good thing, in my mind.

I would not be surprised if the tariff issue turns out to be related, in part, to this matter - ie, an offer to drop tariffs in return for increased military spending results - but will not make any firm predictions at this point.

Regardless, I am not in the camp that presumes President Trump to be an idiot.

He did not exactly stumble into wealth or the US presidency.

Many have underestimated him, and some continue to underestimate him, but they have not, so far, done too well against him.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,759
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #73 on: July 03, 2018, 20:37:58 »
Putin modus operandi is to grab bits and pieces and do set piece moves that won't get out of hand. He did that in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and attempted to do it in Donbass. Russia still has Kaliningrad and he is fully capable of moving in an armoured division to "protect" Russian interests there, pushing through Lithuania and avoiding Poland who will fight back. He will do what he thinks is possible. Obama dithering was an open door for him, Trump is to unpredictable, so it's likely Putin will fish for small wins, but avoid small moves. Putin has more time than DT has and can out wait him.   

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,645
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #74 on: July 03, 2018, 21:09:09 »
Here is a paper about Russian military transformation drafted 5 years ago, edited and published 4 years ago. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1196.pdf

The author's hypothesis that the poor performance in Georgia 2008 would be rectified sometime in the near future after 2014. In fact, given what they pulled off in Syria, the Russians were and are further ahead than the authors gave them credit for in 2014. The main thesis, probably correct, is that Russia has no desire or strategic need to attack NATO or defend against NATO in its entirety. They do not expect, again probably quite correctly, that NATO cannot operationally function efficiently enough to be a deterence or an aggressor. As a result, they have focused on precision weapons, lethality and improving the training of soldiers as a "valuable commodity."   They intend to win wars not by "head on" confrontations, but instead they will come in from behind and slit throats before anyone can stop them.  They "appeared" in Crimea and they aren't ever leaving. They "showed up" in Syria (probably permanently) and then they launched fairly ruthless airstrikes from air bases and their one aircraft carrier, employed raids and special forces attacks. They attacked ISIS from the Black Sea by strategic air bombers firing ALCM, by submarine launched cruise missiles and from ships at sea using missiles and naval gunfire in one instance. They fight in the Ukraine but seldom come in direct contact with opposition forces. And they have been fairly successful.