How Long Before the Russians Actually Attack a NATO Member?

mrblack said:

Response to: Israel is a special case.

And only the United States has the projectable military force to invade another nation that is located overseas from it so the remainder of you point is moot.


The projectable military force of the US is only usable against a weaker opponent and is not effective enough to win a war. I mean can you name a war (with the exception of the War of Independence) in which the US has out rite won? Additionally the UK also has the capability of invasion of an over seas nation it has demonstrated this in the past and its legacy remains throughout the world despite the death of its empire. Will the same be said of the US when it falls? or will it go "MAD" as it looses power? a deterrent is only effective in a rational world and every move the US makes is looking more and more like the actions of a paranoid, delusional dictator clinging to the sands of power as it falls threw his fingers.

Click to expand...

What? What are you talking about? Many countries have fought wars in remote areas from their homelands. Just a couple of decades ago the UK sent several warships half across the world to the Falkland Islands to fight a war against Argentina. Hitler fought wars in Africa. Brazil sent troops to Italy in WWII. And so on, and so forth. So, no, the point is not moot.

Now, the remainder of your anti-American tirade doesn't need to be dignified with a response. The topic here is whether or not Russia will attack NATO members in Europe. We are not talking about the military history and/or the future of the US military. Stay on topic, please. If you hate the United States, take it elsewhere.

No nation but the United States has the capability of putting hundreds of thousands of troops ashore thousands of miles from their own territory against serious opposition.

The Falklands Islands? A joke. Argentina didn't even prepare to fight (they didn't think the British would bother).

GreatNews2night said:

What? What are you talking about? Many countries have fought wars in remote areas from their homelands. Just a couple of decades ago the UK sent several warships half across the world to the Falkland Islands to fight a war against Argentina. Hitler fought wars in Africa. Brazil sent troops to Italy in WWII. And so on, and so forth. So, no, the point is not moot.

Now, the remainder of your anti-American tirade doesn't need to be dignified with a response. The topic here is whether or not Russia will attack NATO members in Europe. We are not talking about the military history and/or the future of the US military. Stay on topic, please. If you hate the United States, take it elsewhere.

Click to expand...

And calling what I've said "anti American" is utterly insane and puts the lie to everything else you've posted.

The Russians might haven't no current plans to outright attack a NATO member but that doesn't mean they might not decide it represents no risks if the U.S. continues to do very little or nothing in response to Russian aggression.

Hitler didn't figure on fighting a major war until the mid 1940s either. He didn't think France and Britain would be any more concerned about Poland than they were for Czechoslovakia.

Dayton3 said:

And calling what I've said "anti American" is utterly insane and puts the lie to everything else you've posted.

Click to expand...

OK, so maybe I misinterpreted you; my apologies if I did. But where exactly are you seeing lies in what I'm saying? I have no interest whatsoever in telling lies here. I just want to debate politics.

The Russians might haven't no current plans to outright attack a NATO member but that doesn't mean they might not decide it represents no risks if the U.S. continues to do very little or nothing in response to Russian aggression.

Click to expand...

But Ukraine is not a NATO member. What did you want the United States to do, send troops? That is not going to happen. But if Russia attacks a NATO member, yes, we'll send troops. As a matter of fact we have already started sending them (600 soldiers to Poland, air fighters to the Baltic, a destroyer to the Black Sea to a port in Romania, and so forth). Yes, it's not much but it's a beginning; things won't happen in a matter of days but rather in a matter of years, since there is no urgency right now given that Russia has not threatened a NATO member yet. But yes, the alliance will start beefing up its defense and attack capabilities, given that the Bear seems to be rising.

Hitler didn't figure on fighting a major war until the mid 1940s either. He didn't think France and Britain would be any more concerned about Poland than they were for Czechoslovakia.

Click to expand...

Well, this all serves as lessons. I don't think NATO will remain inactive and allow History to repeat itself.

Dayton3 said:

No nation but the United States has the capability of putting hundreds of thousands of troops ashore thousands of miles from their own territory against serious opposition.

Click to expand...

Maybe true, but I'm willing to bet that other nations in NATO are now seriously considering upgrades so that they also get this capability.

The Falklands Islands? A joke. Argentina didn't even prepare to fight (they didn't think the British would bother).

Click to expand...

We are debating the idea of a nation projecting its might far away from its borders. The fact that Argentina was unprepared doesn't cancel the fact that the British *were* willing and able to project their might half a planet away.

Dayton3 said:

No nation but the United States has the capability of putting hundreds of thousands of troops ashore thousands of miles from their own territory against serious opposition.

Click to expand...

What kind of crap is this? US Military doesn't have the capability, either. US Military charters flights from Airlines and public airports to fly troops and cargo overseas. In fact it took over 6 months for the US military to deploy 112,000 troops for the invasion in 2003. It was the biggest open secret starting in middle of 2002. If US had to defend a NATO country today.. the country would be lost before the US had a force big enough to actually defend it.

austrianecon said:

What kind of crap is this? US Military doesn't have the capability, either. US Military charters flights from Airlines and public airports to fly troops and cargo overseas. In fact it took over 6 months for the US military to deploy 112,000 troops for the invasion in 2003. It was the biggest open secret starting in middle of 2002. If US had to defend a NATO country today.. the country would be lost before the US had a force big enough to actually defend it.

Click to expand...

Well that's why I said it won't happen in days but in years. I'm quite sure that after the latest Russian moves, NATO will be establishing powerful and well-armed bases in some key points of the NATO members' territories (expect one in the Baltics, and one in Poland), and you'll see more American troops there. By the way, there are many American troops already there, in Germany and Turkey, for example. The Kuwait issue was different; they had to build from scratch, but the defense of NATO nations I'm sure won't be taken as lightly. Besides, modern warfare is moving more and more in the direction of highly technological assets like drones and stealth planes and stuff that can be carried by aircraft carriers and submarines, rather than on foot soldiers. Don't forget that the United States still dwarfs everybody else in terms of aircraft carriers. Station some in the Baltic sea and in the Turkish waters of the Black Sea or the Sea of Marmara, and there you go, you've significantly increased NATO's defense capability.

The irony is that NATO would have grown weaker and weaker and would probably end up dismantled or would just become a completely powerless token organization, had Russia not rekindled its own expansionist ambitions. Now NATO is likely to get organized and to actually increase capabilities. The European Union is again talking about an European Rapid Response Force. All these ideas were losing steam with countries burdened with recession, not willing to honor the 2% of GDP rule to fund NATO which is in the treaty. Now, I'm willing to bet that these nations will start to gladly contribute to NATO's funding.

austrianecon said:

What kind of crap is this? US Military doesn't have the capability, either. US Military charters flights from Airlines and public airports to fly troops and cargo overseas. In fact it took over 6 months for the US military to deploy 112,000 troops for the invasion in 2003. It was the biggest open secret starting in middle of 2002. If US had to defend a NATO country today.. the country would be lost before the US had a force big enough to actually defend it.

Click to expand...

How we get thousands of troops overseas for combat and how long it takes is irrelevant to the point. The Chinese and Russians can't do that (overseas anyway) and the British do not have that many troops available.

GreatNews2Night, we agree on a lot more than we disagree. Sorry for the sharpness of my reply.

Russia wouldnt be stupid enough to attack NATO but they have always been looking to have buffer states around their borders due to a long standing (and sometimes accurate) paranoia of an attack from the West.

Dayton3 said:

How we get thousands of troops overseas for combat and how long it takes is irrelevant to the point. The Chinese and Russians can't do that (overseas anyway) and the British do not have that many troops available.

GreatNews2Night, we agree on a lot more than we disagree. Sorry for the sharpness of my reply.

Click to expand...

Cool, we're good, no worries.

Today Kerry addressed NATO saying exactly what I was saying - that nations should get serious within the next five years to meet the 2% of GDP funding article in the treaty, and in Lithuania there is talk of putting a NATO base there. So, yes, over the next few years NATO will dramatically increase its capability. Kerry said Russia needs to understand that NATO territory is inviolable, and I'd say it is. Russia will want to get back some of the former Soviet republics and it's largely their problem, but shouldn't mess with NATO.

Dayton3 said:

How we get thousands of troops overseas for combat and how long it takes is irrelevant to the point. The Chinese and Russians can't do that (overseas anyway) and the British do not have that many troops available.

Click to expand...

It's relevant because the Chinese and Russians can do that as well. Russia and China can take over Europe and Asia before the US even has a chance to blink if they wanted to. On top of that Russia can deploy forces into Western US in a matter of hours if they needed to (think Alaska down California as that use to be Russia's backyard). What you fail to understand is Russia and China's land mass allows them to deploy more quickly to places where it would take the US 6 months to deploy and then do military action or require a D-Day type event. So while you think the US can do this or that, it's only because US can't physically reach these areas without massive transport movement.

donsutherland1 said:

For at least the foreseeable future, Russia will not attack any NATO members. Russia fully understands that unlike with Ukraine, a non-NATO member, NATO could not avoid undertaking military action were a NATO member attacked. Failure to do so would mean the end of NATO, as the alliance's credibility would be irretrievably shattered. The NATO guarantee would be rendered meaningless. The alliance would cease to exist. A NATO military response would dramatically raise the costs relative to any benefits Russia might hope to obtain and those costs would be prohibitive.

Click to expand...

I wish I shared your belief in the intestinal fortitude of NATO members. I think we'd get a lot of bluster and hand-wringing from our European friends, and that would be it.

austrianecon said:

It's relevant because the Chinese and Russians can do that as well. Russia and China can take over Europe and Asia before the US even has a chance to blink if they wanted to. On top of that Russia can deploy forces into Western US in a matter of hours if they needed to (think Alaska down California as that use to be Russia's backyard). What you fail to understand is Russia and China's land mass allows them to deploy more quickly to places where it would take the US 6 months to deploy and then do military action or require a D-Day type event. So while you think the US can do this or that, it's only because US can't physically reach these areas without massive transport movement.

Click to expand...

Neither Russia nor China have America's air carrier capabilities and don't even come close of America's navy. Russia does, but China does not, have America's submarine capabilities. If you think Russia might invade the United States through Alaska, then you'd have to think that the United States would also be able to invade Russia through Alaska.

The other thing to consider is that the US has bases all over the world (and is likely to get more, in places like Lithuania and Poland). With today's satellite capabilities, Russia can't build up forces in any border without the United States (and NATO) learning about it, and taking countermeasures. From US bases, carriers, and submarines, the US can rain long range missiles on any advancing ground force, and can bomb them from the air as well.

So, no, it's not so simple for Russia to start invading NATO territory without any credible reaction from the USA and NATO.

I think some posters here are grossly underestimating the US military. It still is the most powerful one in the world. The impression of weakness is because of scattered resources, focus on a fight against a multi-headed, non-convention, non-State adversary (stateless Islamist extremists), and both (paradoxically) involvement in too many places and a lack of political will to get involved in more skirmishes.

But whoa, a Russian invasion of a NATO ally or of the US homeland wouldn't be met with political unwillingness to act. It would be a whole different matter, no doubt about it. Besides, NATO and the US would be facing a State, not a multi-headed serpent. There still is no state in the world that can match the United States army in a direct confrontation.

If Russia invades a NATO member or attacks the US territory, you can be assured that suddenly everything will regain focus and the response will be overwhelming.

Also, do realize that in the next few years NATO is likely to upgrade and the European Union is likely to establish a Rapid Response Force.

NATO has twice as many foot soldiers as Russia, so not even that advantage (ground invasion using its extensive borders) would be so simple for Russia. Besides, foot soldiers are no longer the decisive asset in modern war.

Some misguided poster in another thread called me a warmonger and said I want to see NATO wage war against Russia.

Not at all. I'm no warmonger, but rather a pacifist. There is a big difference between debating something and thinking something is likely to happen, versus wishing that something to happen. I have no desire to see any of this happening. I hope deterrence will be sufficient.

I do believe in the idea of strong deterrence, because as a pacifist, I think it enhances the chances of maintaining peace.

If people start to perceive the US Military and NATO as weak, they might be tempted to put them to test.

That's why I'd rather see upgrades in capability, because if it becomes clear again that these forces are not weak, not paralyzed, and not negligible, then the opponents will be less likely to attack and peace will prevail.

I want our military, spies and gov't in general reduced by at LEAST 90%. I want our remaining military (other than the missile subs) mostly manning a double fence and rifle towers on our Southern border, and hunting down (and crippling the legs of) any illegals that are still here. that is, 30 days after all the TV stations are full, 24-7, of us horsewhipping anyone caught hiring illegals.

those who directly benefit from a govt service can pay for it, or a lottery can pay the rest. Instead of paying one guy 200 million (and taking half of it in a tax). pay 2000 people 100k each ( no tax) and you'll have MANY x as many people playing your lottery, guaranteed. 100k will retire you, if you know jack squat. if it wont, you aint worth having around anyway.

Exactly what I was saying:

U.S. Signals Putin Not to Move Against New NATO Members - Bloomberg

Unsure of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions, the Obama administration is attempting to warn the Kremlin not to test the U.S. commitment to defend its allies in eastern and central Europe.

Jet fighters from the U.K., Denmark, France and Poland will begin flying air patrols over the Baltic states tomorrow “as part of collective defense measures,” the North Atlantic Treaty Organization said in a statement today. Canadian jets are deploying to Romania “as part of NATO efforts to reassure allies” in Central and Eastern Europe, the alliance said.

Those measures and others, including deployments of U.S. troops for military exercises, are part of an effort to discourage any thoughts Putin may have about extending Russia’s reach beyond Ukraine.

The U.S. will defend its NATO allies “no ifs, ands or buts,” U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said today at an Atlantic Council conference in Washington.

Secretary of State John Kerry said at the conference yesterday that unlike Ukraine, which isn’t a NATO member and where alliance nations have ruled out war, a move against a treaty ally would have grave consequences.

“We have to make it absolutely clear to the Kremlin that NATO territory is inviolable,” Kerry said. “We will defend every single piece of it.”

The comments by Biden and Kerry are intended to reassure nations such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all former Soviet republics, and draw a red line for Russia.

Click to expand...

To the poster ginwood above:

I'm also against illegal immigration, but some poor Mexicans crossing the Southern border are much less of a threat to our sovereignty than an aggressive Russia. NATO defense is non-negotiable (and part of our treaty obligations) and if any NATO member is attacked, we absolutely must react militarily. If we don't, we might as well close shop and open all our borders to whoever wants to come and make themselves at home. The isolationist attitude when facing an imperialistic power has been tested in WWII and hasn't worked.

Putin does make a good point:

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared at his annual direct call with the Russian people that part of his reasoning for annexing Crimea was to protect Sevastopol, home of Russia's Black Sea fleet, from ever falling into NATO's hands. "If we don't do anything, Ukraine will be drawn into NATO sometime in the future. We'll be told: "This doesn't concern you," and NATO ships will dock in Sevastopol, the city of Russia's naval glory," he said.

Click to expand...

In 2008 there were indeed negotiations to admit Ukraine to NATO. They stalled and were put on hold, but Putin won't forget.

While I strongly support the idea that NATO should upgrade and beef up its power, I do not support NATO's expansion at all and think the more it expands, the more it destabilizes the region. NATO should focus on the defense of the existing members, period.

NATO doing the right move: turning to defense of its member states:

NATO, facing assertive Russia, ponders what to do

Dayton3 said:

I firmly believe that the Russians will seize portions of Eastern Ukraine soon as it is obvious they are preparing to do.

I equally believe that assuming no real actions from the west, the Russians will seize the remainder of the Ukraine before President Obama leaves office.

Assuming they do both, how long before they try actually seizing an actual member of NATO such as one of the Baltic Republics?

IIRC, the three Baltic republics are considered undefendable by NATO and at least one has substantial numbers of ethnic Russians which is the cause for the soon to come annexing of Eastern Ukraine. Not to mention they were part of the U.S.S.R. just as Ukraine was.

Click to expand...

i found this REALLY old thread (from 2014) where the OP predicted Russia invading and taking parts of the Ukraine. pretty prophetic. all he missed was the actual year.

Beaudreaux said:

Estonia may be the first to be invaded, since Russia is already making moves to legitimize "taking it back into Russia."

The Balkans are also a good choice, since there are Pro-Russian gangs fighting for reintegration into Russia as I type this.

Below is a map showing NATO countries in Europe as they stand now:

Map of NATO in Europe
Dark Blue - Members of NATO
Light Blue - Membership Action Plan
Green - Intensified Dialogue
Yellow - Individual Partnership Action Plan
Orange - Partnership for Peace
Red - Aspiring Partnership for Peace members

Click to expand...

After observing Putins army in Ukraine, it's not a good idea for Putin to go any further.

The hammer of God would visit on Putin and the unfortunate Russian people.