|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 29, 2014 19:16:57 GMT -5
Clearly, Russia has determined their defense strategy relies upon building a buffer between them and NATO/Europe/West (and yes, I am conflating the group for this discussion.). Russia's willingness to launch a war, albeit a very limited war against Ukraine and thier insistence on reminding the world that Russia is a nuclear power www.cnn.com/2014/08/29/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 poses a real and present danger to the US and her interests. Proposition: The US should immediately end the cutbacks in defense, reinstate/modernize the A-10, rebuild our armor forces in Europe and start a near crash program in reconstituting the US military. Additionally, the US should place the Selective Service System in operational readiness, including re-opening military training facilities. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 29, 2014 19:21:34 GMT -5
That won't be easy to do. Those bases that were closed due to BRAC under Clinton and Bush can't be 'reopened', the land would have to be bought from a state, and a facility built. That takes time. And as much as I love the Hog, we would be better served building a new platform for CAS, and just using her til the new one is ready.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 29, 2014 19:35:36 GMT -5
Nothing in this is easy. Should we assume you support the proposition with a few tactical changes?
If the assumption is correct, what would be your first political objective?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 29, 2014 19:49:56 GMT -5
Clearly, Russia has determined their defense strategy relies upon building a buffer between them and NATO/Europe/West (and yes, I am conflating the group for this discussion.). Russia's willingness to launch a war, albeit a very limited war against Ukraine and thier insistence on reminding the world that Russia is a nuclear power www.cnn.com/2014/08/29/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 poses a real and present danger to the US and her interests. Proposition: The US should immediately end the cutbacks in defense, reinstate/modernize the A-10, rebuild our armor forces in Europe and start a near crash program in reconstituting the US military. Additionally, the US should place the Selective Service System in operational readiness, including re-opening military training facilities. Russia poses an interesting challenge. I do not believe they are a nuclear threat to the US, (unlike ISIS, Putin is in this for the power and glory, not to martyr himself for Allah) nor that they pose a direct real and present danger to the US. It does, however, pose a very real and present threat to our friends and allies in Europe - which is a wealthy block of nation states that ought to be able to fend for themselves. I am yet to be convinced, however, that they pose an existential threat to Europe. As of right now, they still appear to have bitten of more than they can chew with Ukraine, though I would not be opposed to helping arm Ukraine. I think if we had done that earlier, when Putin invaded Crimea, and proven that we would not be simply abandoning Ukraine to Putin's tender mercies, it probably would have prevented the current action in eastern Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 29, 2014 20:38:44 GMT -5
Nothing in this is easy. Should we assume you support the proposition with a few tactical changes? If the assumption is correct, what would be your first political objective? My first move would be to put MLRS and Patriot batteries in Poland and Turkey. Start moving an armored division back to Germany. Maybe move the 6th Fleet to the Black Sea. The only way Putin might slow down is if he thinks it might be costly for him to continue. Remember that Germany has now decided to rearm. This might become 1940 all over again. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 29, 2014 21:18:57 GMT -5
Should the US consider a US or NATO treaty with Ukraine?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 30, 2014 6:20:29 GMT -5
Should the US consider a US or NATO treaty with Ukraine? We should absolutely consider it - and very publicly too. Whether or not we actually enter into such a treaty... that I'm not so sure about. Putin's latest bluster about being a nuclear power - I think - is evidence of his feeling vulnerable. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 7:20:48 GMT -5
Should the US consider a US or NATO treaty with Ukraine? We should absolutely consider it - and very publicly too. Whether or not we actually enter into such a treaty... that I'm not so sure about. Putin's latest bluster about being a nuclear power - I think - is evidence of his feeling vulnerable. According to the Washington Post, Kiev has proposed legislation ending their prohibition against foreign alliances. Let us suppose that sets the table for following the course you propose. If NATO were to publicly announce such a possibility, wouldn't they more or less have to enter into such an agreement, at least on a provisional basis? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 30, 2014 8:48:08 GMT -5
We should absolutely consider it - and very publicly too. Whether or not we actually enter into such a treaty... that I'm not so sure about. Putin's latest bluster about being a nuclear power - I think - is evidence of his feeling vulnerable. According to the Washington Post, Kiev has proposed legislation ending their prohibition against foreign alliances. Let us suppose that sets the table for following the course you propose. If NATO were to publicly announce such a possibility, wouldn't they more or less have to enter into such an agreement, at least on a provisional basis? No. I don't think so. Especially if it has the desired effect and causes Putin to back off. In fact, that could be a potential bargaining chip. Have Ukraine tell Putin they'll stay out of NATO if he gets out of Ukraine. As for whether or not Ukraine actually becomes part of NATO, I'm not sure whether I support that or not. I don't have any serious objections, other than NATO runs the risk of being spread too thin because the European side hasn't met its obligations in producing credible military forces. Europe really needs to step things up, because, sooner or later, they're going to get hit hard by Islam. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 9:16:15 GMT -5
I don't think Putin can be bluffed RJ. I expect he has his eyes set on Eastern Ukraine, all the way to the Dneiper. He has an ally in Belarus and Kaliningrad is already Russian. I expect that his ultimate goal is unfettered surface access to Kaliningrad and the South Baltic Sea. I also expect that Georgia should anticipate "unrest" in their western area, as Putin tries to build a buffer between Russia and NATO.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 9:31:31 GMT -5
Should the US consider a US or NATO treaty with Ukraine? NATO was already in consideration for including Ukraine. At least one report I heard said that that was one of the reasons Putin decided to act when he did. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 9:33:44 GMT -5
I don't think Putin can be bluffed RJ. I expect he has his eyes set on Eastern Ukraine, all the way to the Dneiper. He has an ally in Belarus and Kaliningrad is already Russian. I expect that his ultimate goal is unfettered surface access to Kaliningrad and the South Baltic Sea. I also expect that Georgia should anticipate "unrest" in their western area, as Putin tries to build a buffer between Russia and NATO. He's already eyeing Kazahkstan, as a corridor. He's already said they were never a state, and by implication, that they now have no right to exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 30, 2014 10:44:05 GMT -5
I don't think Putin can be bluffed RJ. I expect he has his eyes set on Eastern Ukraine, all the way to the Dneiper. He has an ally in Belarus and Kaliningrad is already Russian. I expect that his ultimate goal is unfettered surface access to Kaliningrad and the South Baltic Sea. I also expect that Georgia should anticipate "unrest" in their western area, as Putin tries to build a buffer between Russia and NATO. I don't think Obama cares enough to matter, and that none of this will happen anyway. I'm not sure Obama could bluff him. If we had a Reagan in the White Housr though, it might work. What I'm hoping will happen in all of this is that the Europeans will realize we don't have their backs anymore, and they can't rely on the US to provide for their defense, and that they'll re-arm accordingly. It's sort of odd when the French display more backbone than the US - as they've done in Mali. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 10:58:09 GMT -5
I don't think Putin can be bluffed RJ. I expect he has his eyes set on Eastern Ukraine, all the way to the Dneiper. He has an ally in Belarus and Kaliningrad is already Russian. I expect that his ultimate goal is unfettered surface access to Kaliningrad and the South Baltic Sea. I also expect that Georgia should anticipate "unrest" in their western area, as Putin tries to build a buffer between Russia and NATO. I don't think Obama cares enough to matter, and that none of this will happen anyway. I'm not sure Obama could bluff him. If we had a Reagan in the White Housr though, it might work. What I'm hoping will happen in all of this is that the Europeans will realize we don't have their backs anymore, and they can't rely on the US to provide for their defense, and that they'll re-arm accordingly. It's sort of odd when the French display more backbone than the US - as they've done in Mali. Germany has already started rearming. And the French have already registered concern over it, with reason, but the French are in league with Putin. Selling him naval vessels. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 30, 2014 11:20:56 GMT -5
I don't think Obama cares enough to matter, and that none of this will happen anyway. I'm not sure Obama could bluff him. If we had a Reagan in the White Housr though, it might work. What I'm hoping will happen in all of this is that the Europeans will realize we don't have their backs anymore, and they can't rely on the US to provide for their defense, and that they'll re-arm accordingly. It's sort of odd when the French display more backbone than the US - as they've done in Mali. Germany has already started rearming. And the French have already registered concern over it, with reason, but the French are in league with Putin. Selling him naval vessels. I don't think they're so much "in league" as they are trying to make a ruble. And I don't much care that they're concerned that Germany is re-arming. What ever you think of it, the Europeans have the know-how and wealth to defend themselves, and it's time they did it. 1) to keep Putin from getting greedier, and 2) so that they'll be able to help us, when the rest of the world wakes up and decides something needs to be done about the Islamist tumor. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 11:56:38 GMT -5
I don't think Putin can be bluffed RJ. I expect he has his eyes set on Eastern Ukraine, all the way to the Dneiper. He has an ally in Belarus and Kaliningrad is already Russian. I expect that his ultimate goal is unfettered surface access to Kaliningrad and the South Baltic Sea. I also expect that Georgia should anticipate "unrest" in their western area, as Putin tries to build a buffer between Russia and NATO. He's already eyeing Kazahkstan, as a corridor. He's already said they were never a state, and by implication, that they now have no right to exist. Kazahkstan doesn't get him anything redleg, that he can't pretty much anytime he wants. Indeed, all Kazahkstan gets him is a longer border with China. If he can create a channel to Kaliningrad however, he can split the Baltics apart from the west, pick them off at his leisure and better secure his western border against what he perceives to be a threat. He can also isolate Gdansk and expose the northern flank of Poland. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 11:59:07 GMT -5
Germany has already started rearming. And the French have already registered concern over it, with reason, but the French are in league with Putin. Selling him naval vessels. I don't think they're so much "in league" as they are trying to make a ruble. And I don't much care that they're concerned that Germany is re-arming. What ever you think of it, the Europeans have the know-how and wealth to defend themselves, and it's time they did it. 1) to keep Putin from getting greedier, and 2) so that they'll be able to help us, when the rest of the world wakes up and decides something needs to be done about the Islamist tumor. I tend to agree with encouraging Europe to rearm and become more forward leaning in their own defense. We shouldn't leave Europe however as a long history of starting world wars should make the world a little nervous. I think we need to extend an agreement to Ukraine however, with a NATO based force on the west side of the Dneiper. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 12:02:15 GMT -5
Germany has already started rearming. And the French have already registered concern over it, with reason, but the French are in league with Putin. Selling him naval vessels. I have never questioned their ability, but they've had us protecting them for so long, I don't know if they have the will. And 'making a ruble' by selling Putin warships strikes me as a deal with the devil. I'm all for 'the rest of the world' stepping up, but unless we lead, nothing useful will get done. Europe has has at least 3 generations of us doing the heavy lifting for them, I'm not sure there's many there that are willing, or even capable of, leading. Especially with conditions as they are, with the huge Muslim populations so many European nations have. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 12:03:34 GMT -5
He's already eyeing Kazahkstan, as a corridor. He's already said they were never a state, and by implication, that they now have no right to exist. Kazahkstan doesn't get him anything redleg, that he can't pretty much anytime he wants. Indeed, all Kazahkstan gets him is a longer border with China. If he can create a channel to Kaliningrad however, he can split the Baltics apart from the west, pick them off at his leisure and better secure his western border against what he perceives to be a threat. He can also isolate Gdansk and expose the northern flank of Poland. Which is why I would start rearming Poland immediately. Put an armored division in there, as a trip wire if nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 12:10:43 GMT -5
He's already eyeing Kazahkstan, as a corridor. He's already said they were never a state, and by implication, that they now have no right to exist. Kazahkstan doesn't get him anything redleg, that he can't pretty much anytime he wants. Indeed, all Kazahkstan gets him is a longer border with China. If he can create a channel to Kaliningrad however, he can split the Baltics apart from the west, pick them off at his leisure and better secure his western border against what he perceives to be a threat. He can also isolate Gdansk and expose the northern flank of Poland. It might. That would depend on what his endgame is. If he takes southern Ukraine, he has land all the way to Moldova's Transnitria region. If he goes into Kazahkstan, he tests the resolve of NATO, and puts Poland in an almost untenable situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 30, 2014 12:16:17 GMT -5
I don't think they're so much "in league" as they are trying to make a ruble. And I don't much care that they're concerned that Germany is re-arming. What ever you think of it, the Europeans have the know-how and wealth to defend themselves, and it's time they did it. 1) to keep Putin from getting greedier, and 2) so that they'll be able to help us, when the rest of the world wakes up and decides something needs to be done about the Islamist tumor. I tend to agree with encouraging Europe to rearm and become more forward leaning in their own defense. We shouldn't leave Europe however as a long history of starting world wars should make the world a little nervous. I think we need to extend an agreement to Ukraine however, with a NATO based force on the west side of the Dneiper. My only real objection to bringing Ukraine into NATO, is that NATO has increasingly become a group of countries that leave their defense to the US. Adding another country because it can't defend itself, to a list of countries that we are essentially responsible for stretches us thinner, and weakens what is left of the alliance. If the rest of NATO were capable of handling themselves without us, I'd be more bullish on signing them up. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 12:17:32 GMT -5
Kazahkstan doesn't get him anything redleg, that he can't pretty much anytime he wants. Indeed, all Kazahkstan gets him is a longer border with China. If he can create a channel to Kaliningrad however, he can split the Baltics apart from the west, pick them off at his leisure and better secure his western border against what he perceives to be a threat. He can also isolate Gdansk and expose the northern flank of Poland. It might. That would depend on what his endgame is. If he takes southern Ukraine, he has land all the way to Moldova's Transnitria region. If he goes into Kazahkstan, he tests the resolve of NATO, and puts Poland in an almost untenable situation. ?? Kazahkstan is in southern Russia and no where near Poland, though I agree with the rest of your post. And Moldova tends to favor a Russian connection as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 30, 2014 12:21:29 GMT -5
I have never questioned their ability, but they've had us protecting them for so long, I don't know if they have the will. And 'making a ruble' by selling Putin warships strikes me as a deal with the devil. I'm all for 'the rest of the world' stepping up, but unless we lead, nothing useful will get done. Europe has has at least 3 generations of us doing the heavy lifting for them, I'm not sure there's many there that are willing, or even capable of, leading. Especially with conditions as they are, with the huge Muslim populations so many European nations have. I can't really argue with any of that. Except Putin is more of an over-extended petty tyrant than Devil. I suspect he has found himself in over his head in Ukraine. I don't think it is going anything like he planned it. I mean, let's face it, if it were the US invading (at least under almost any previous President) we'd be in Kiev by now. The Russian army, and it's co-conspirators in Ukraine, look weak in contrast to our invasion of Iraq. |
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Aug 30, 2014 13:28:13 GMT -5
Taking into consideration the subject of this thread and your "Consider The Threat" thread I think the U.S. has some tough choices to make.
1. Which is the greater threat to the U.S., ISIS in America or Russia in Ukraine? The U.S. needs to make this choice because as others have pointed out we no longer have to capacity to fight a 2 front war. My choice: ISIS is the bigger threat at this time. Let Putin have his way for the time being, we can deal with him after ISIS is eliminated
2. Which is the greater threat to the U.S., ISIS in Syria/Iraq or Assad in Syria? The U.S. needs to make this choice because ISIS and Assad are fighting each other. To me ignoring that situation is a mistake. The old saying is "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Proof that this statement is true can be found in the U.S.'s relationship with the USSR before, during and after WWII. My choice: ISIS is the bigger threat at this time. We should strike a deal with Assad that says we'll help him eliminate ISIS if he will mend his ways once the job is completed. If, down the road, Assad does not hold up his end of the agreement we can deal with him then.
3.Which is the greater threat to the U.S., ISIS in America or our relationship with Mexico? The U.S. needs to make this choice because as others have pointed out ISIS may very well be infiltrating the U.S. through our southern border. My choice: ISIS is the bigger threat at this time. I really can not think of anything that we get from Mexico that makes their failure to control their northern border and their drug gangs acceptable. We need to impose tough economic sanctions on Mexico until the get their border/drug gang problems under control. We need to do our part in tightly securing our southern border. Will this hurt the American economy? Probably. Which leads us to the next choice.
3. Which do we value more, economic growth or the lives of our citizens. My choice: The lives of our citizens come first. In his inaugural address JFK said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." I suggest that when it comes the the threat from ISIS we must "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure..." our own survival and liberty.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 14:36:50 GMT -5
It might. That would depend on what his endgame is. If he takes southern Ukraine, he has land all the way to Moldova's Transnitria region. If he goes into Kazahkstan, he tests the resolve of NATO, and puts Poland in an almost untenable situation. ?? Kazahkstan is in southern Russia and no where near Poland, though I agree with the rest of your post. And Moldova tends to favor a Russian connection as well. No, it's not that close, but it's close enough that Poland, and all of NATO, would have to take notice, and decide what they want to do. Besides, it gives them another direct access to the Caspian Sea, and if they are trading with Tehran, a short route to them. It also rebuilds more of the old Soviet Union. With Belarus on the Polish border, along with Ukraine, the mere fact of them invading another country would put NATO on notice. |
|
