Europe under extreme duress

[nittany03]

Looks like the "gap" in this case is a geopolitical feature, rather than a terrain feature a la Fulda. So it's as much a function of what Belarus does/doesn't do if the balloon goes up. Though I don't have any illusions that they'd sit there and go "hey, NATO! Come on in!"

Also, a prepositioned battalion is a far cry from the Blackhorse backed up by the rest of V Corps. As a political statement, fine. As for its utility, I'm no expert on land warfare, but it seems to me calling that a "speed bump" would be generous. Seems about all you'd get out of that are enough people to die in place that you can play it up a la the Alamo.

Edit: reading comprehension FAIL. One American battalion and three others, so basically an Army Brigade Combat Team equivalent. Still wouldn't want to get anywhere near what I'm sure is a Kaliningrad SA-20/21 super-MEZ.

 

[Flash]

The 21st Century Fulda Gap? The Suwalki Gap where Poland is the 64 mile wide NATO bridge to the Baltics - with Russian Kalingrad on one side and Belarus on the other has been in the news lately.

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/cl...t-russia-1466205268-lMyQjAxMTI2NDE0ODcxMzgwWj

Russia today ≠ the USSR. They have increased their military capabilities considerably in the last 10 years but that was from the post-USSR doldrums where they weren't flying, folks weren't getting paid and ships were sinking at pierside. As a middle-level military they are becoming formidable but as a world power (except nuclear weapons), not so much. So they can try and take over the Baltics, Poland or whatever other area they might be salivating over but it would likely be more than they can chew.

If I was Putin and his cronies I would be more worried about the Russian economy than anything else, since that is cratering.

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

Russia today ≠ the USSR. They have increased their military capabilities considerably in the last 10 years but that was from the post-USSR doldrums where they weren't flying, folks weren't getting paid and ships were sinking at pierside. As a middle-level military they are becoming formidable but as a world power (except nuclear weapons), not so much. So they can try and take over the Baltics, Poland or whatever other area they might be salivating over but it would likely be more than they can chew.

If I was Putin and his cronies I would be more worried about the Russian economy than anything else, since that is cratering.

Considering all the support they've been throwing behind "separatists" in eastern Ukraine for the last two plus years that has yet to inflict significant defeats on another gutted ex-Soviet military, the current Russian military seems like more like a paper tiger than a credible invasion threat. Could they make life difficult for NATO in eastern Europe? Definitely, but short of a Trump-esque "We need to get out of Europe" from the US, NATO would definitely have the upper hand.

 

[wink]

NATO would definitely have the upper hand.

If Russia made a move on a Lithuania or Estonia, in the Georgia or Ukraine model, would NATO really fight? That is the $94,000 question for Putin. With every month that passes, I am sure he is closer to his answer.

 

[Flash]

If Russia made a move on a Lithuania or Estonia, in the Georgia or Ukraine model, would NATO really fight? That is the $94,000 question for Putin. With every month that passes, I am sure he is closer to his answer.

Good question, but I am not sure Russia would have $94,000 to spare after doing something as stupid as that.

Collective security is Europe's only hope, even France and the UK need our help nowadays to conduct most expeditionary operations. So even if NATO went by the wayside and Putin cracked open a celebratory bottle of vodka before he would be able to polish it off a new security arrangement would likely arise out of the ashes.

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

...a new security arrangement would likely arise out of the ashes.

I guess a better question is would such an arrangement be credible without US and/or British involvement? Europe isn't doing itself any favors with continued expressions of disillusionment/disinterest in the collective security of the continent, and if half of the EU had to be dragged kicking and screaming last summer to bail out Greece do we really think it would be any different if Russia invaded a Baltic country?

 

[Flash]

I guess a better question is would such an arrangement be credible without US and/or British involvement? Europe isn't doing itself any favors with continued expressions of disillusionment/disinterest in the collective security of the continent, and if half of the EU had to be dragged kicking and screaming last summer to bail out Greece do we really think it would be any different if Russia invaded a Baltic country?

What makes you think it wouldn't include those two countries? I think most of our leaders recognize that a secure and prosperous Europe is in our best interest as do the leaders of the UK (both Labor and Conservative leadership advocate staying in the EU), less folks than just a few years ago but that outlook still remains the prevailing one.

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

What makes you think it wouldn't include those two countries? I think most of our leaders recognize that a secure and prosperous Europe is in our best interest as do the leaders of the UK (both Labor and Conservative leadership advocate staying in the EU), less folks than just a few years ago but that outlook still remains the prevailing one.

I worded that poorly, I meant more in the sense that many countries in continental (especially west and central) Europe seem to be reluctant participants in the collective defense agreements, at best, with many of them falling below the NATO-suggested defense spending level of 2% of GDP. So if Russia did invade a smaller country in the EU and/or NATO would 1) continental Europe respond aggressively and militarily, and 2) if they did not, would the US/UK shoulder effectively the entire responsibility for collective defense? Right now with the high levels of euro-skepticism in both countries, I do not believe they would.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Russia today ≠ the USSR. They have increased their military capabilities considerably in the last 10 years but that was from the post-USSR doldrums where they weren't flying, folks weren't getting paid and ships were sinking at pierside. As a middle-level military they are becoming formidable but as a world power (except nuclear weapons), not so much. So they can try and take over the Baltics, Poland or whatever other area they might be salivating over but it would likely be more than they can chew.

If I was Putin and his cronies I would be more worried about the Russian economy than anything else, since that is cratering.

According to former SACEUR Philip Breedlove in this month's Foreign Affairs, "Despite Russia's growing belligerence, neither the United States' military nor those of its allies are adequately prepared to rapidly respond to overt military aggression."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2016-06-13/natos-next-act

 

[Flash]

According to former SACEUR Philip Breedlove in this month's Foreign Affairs, "Despite Russia's growing belligerence, neither the United States' military nor those of its allies are adequately prepared to rapidly respond to overt military aggression."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2016-06-13/natos-next-act

He is right, but it is more about preparedness in Europe than overall. Our stance in Europe went from one of heightened preparation in the 80's to merely bases to bed down when home on deployment today. Only recently have we and NATO started to ramp up our training to counter conventional threats in Europe again, it'll take a long time to get there.

 

[Recovering LSO]

According to former SACEUR Philip Breedlove in this month's Foreign Affairs, "Despite Russia's growing belligerence, neither the United States' government nor those of its allies are willing to rapidly respond to overt military aggression."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2016-06-13/natos-next-act

Fixed that quote for you/him.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Tomorrow is the big day in Europe: the Brexit vote.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36594834

 

[jmcquate]

The French are showing signs of getting squirrely about the EU. A Brit exit may start an exodus.

 

[villanelle]

Am I correct that even if the vote is to leave, it still has to pass parliament? I thought the vote was non-binding.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Am I correct that even if the vote is to leave, it still has to pass parliament? I thought the vote was non-binding.

From the BBC...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

Could MPs block an EU exit if Britain votes for it?
Michael, from East Sussex asks an intriguing question - could the necessary legislation pass the Commons if all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservative MPs were in favour of staying?

The answer is that technically MPs could block an EU exit - but it would be seen as political suicide to go against the will of the people as expressed in a referendum. The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

The withdrawal agreement would also have to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.

It adds: "If the Commons resolves against ratification, the treaty can still be ratified if the Government lays a statement explaining why the treaty should nonetheless be ratified and the House of Commons does not resolve against ratification a second time within 21 days (this process can be repeated ad infinitum)."

In practice, Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.

One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one. Two thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020.