If they needed to fend off war with RF, US military leaders worry they might not get there in time

Full Title: If they needed to fend off war with Russia, U.S. military leaders worry they might not get there in time

6/24/18
SUWALKI, Poland — U.S. commanders are worried that if they had to head off a conflict with Russia, the most powerful military in the world could get stuck in a traffic jam. Humvees could snarl behind plodding semis on narrow roads as they made their way east across Europe. U.S. tanks could crush rusting bridges too weak to hold their weight. Troops could be held up by officious passport-checkers and stubborn railway companies. Although many barriers would drop away if there were a declaration of war, the hazy period before a military engagement would present a major problem. NATO has just a skeleton force deployed to its member countries that share a border with Russia. Backup forces would need to traverse hundreds of miles. And the delays — a mixture of bureaucracy, bad planning and decaying infrastructure — could enable Russia to seize NATO territory in the Baltics while U.S. Army planners were still filling out the 17 forms needed to cross Germany and into Poland. During at least one White House exercise that gamed out a European war with Russia, the logistical stumbles contributed to a NATO loss. “We have to be able to move as fast or faster than Russia in order to be an effective deterrent,” said Ben Hodges, the U.S. Army’s former top general in Europe.

For years after NATO’s 2004 expansion into territory that had once been the Soviet Union’s, the alliance had no plans for how to defend its new members. “We didn’t think about enlargement in those military terms,” said Douglas Lute, a retired three-star U.S. Army general and former U.S. ambassador to NATO, who as a young officer patrolled the internal German border a short trip away from where he was stationed. Russia’s 2014 seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula provided a jolt. “Transportation is a problem in a very practical way. But it’s a symptom of a bigger problem,” Lute said. “We’re now confronting the image that we had for the last 25 years, of Europe whole, free and at peace. It’s not whole, it’s not free, and it’s not at peace.” In some cases, military planners in Moscow had a better picture of bridges, roads and the weak points of the new NATO territories — because they used to be the Soviet Union’s. NATO leaders are just beginning to address the underlying issues. They have worked with the European Union in the past year to boost funding for infrastructure and reduce bureaucratic roadblocks. Inside Lithuania’s military headquarters, the need for speed is on stark display. Packed rucksacks stand on top of the closets in every office so that workers can mobilize immediately if war breaks out. Computer keyboards have Cyrillic-alphabet overlays, the better to communicate with Russian and Belarusan counterparts. “The Baltics could be the place where Russia tests all of NATO,” said the officer who runs logistics for the Lithuanian Defense Ministry, Lt. Col. Valdas Dambrauskas. “If it fails, all of NATO fails.”

Click to expand...

I've spent considerable time in the article area. Great transportation resources until they aren't. Many bridges are suspect. The Suwalki gap remains vulnerable.

Won't Russia have the same problem?

Mycroft said:

Won't Russia have the same problem?

Click to expand...

Doesn't anyone think we will see them coming?

And once they get there, won't they hit traffic?

It sounds like part of the Russian media campaign.

The EU still needs the US?

Rogue Valley said:

Full Title: If they needed to fend off war with Russia, U.S. military leaders worry they might not get there in time

I've spent considerable time in the article area. Great transportation resources until they aren't. Many bridges are suspect. The Suwalki gap remains vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Maybe the Air force and stealth fighters and a few curse missiles? Drones? We can send in lots of ordnance till the cavalry arrives.

Common Sense 1 said:

Maybe the Air force and stealth fighters and a few curse missiles? Drones? We can send in lots of ordnance till the cavalry arrives.

Click to expand...

Trump's got it covered. He's training Space Cadets as we speak.

Grand Mal said:

Trump's got it covered. He's training Space Cadets as we speak.

Click to expand...

Truly a wasted post to bash President Trump. Sad!

Common Sense 1 said:

Truly a wasted post to bash President Trump. Sad!

Click to expand...

Sad? And here I was trying to be funny.
Oh well...

Grand Mal said:

Trump's got it covered. He's training Space Cadets as we speak.

Click to expand...

OH look your TDS is acting up again. You should get that checked.

Barnacle said:

After the US of A, Turkey is the 2nd largest military force in NATO ... and they're only a stone's throw away from Russia.

Click to expand...

And we can count on Turkey because?


Edit: Turkey is 3500km+ from Estonia

Suwalki Gap isn't the historic Fulda Gap but it does have its own unique military significance. US Forces in WW II led by Gen. Patton drove through the Fulda Gap across the Rhine and into central Germany. It was the same route Napoleon had taken to his own great success. During the Cold War Fulda Gap was the most heavily armed area in the contest between Nato and Soviet Russia due to the Nato certainty Soviet tanks would roll through it in force in any invasion of Europe. Suwalki is not any of this.



A Snap Action by Russia Could Seize the Suwalki Gap in Northeast Poland Expeditiously




Russia would move overtly against the Suwalki Gap only if it were prepared for a general war. Russia would then need to defend against the resulting Nato response throughout eastern Europe and along the Russian borders and frontier. Nato would lose the Baltic states but the Russian gain would be devalued by the larger Nato response, i.e., from north to south at the Russian border with Europe, across it and over it. Nato for instance would focus instead on Kalengrad port where the formidable 50 ship Russian Baltic Fleet is based along with three brigades of infantry. Nato forces would drive into Belarus from Poland. And so on.



So the bottom line on the Suwalki Gap looks somewhat like this....

Russia and NATO, already in a standoff in the former Soviet Union because of events in Ukraine, are in the process of developing their military strategies in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. The [former] commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, recently highlighted a small area in northeastern Poland, increasingly referred to as the Suwalki Gap, as one of the most vital locations in the buildup of military forces on the European continent. Besides connecting Eastern European NATO members with the Baltic states, the gap also sits between the small Russian exclave of Kaliningrad and Russia’s ally Belarus. According to these military leaders, the area would be a ripe target for Russian forces to capture in the event of war to connect Kaliningrad to Belarus. Similarly, it would be a critical area for NATO forces to defend to maintain the connection between Eastern Europe and the Baltic states.

But although the Suwalki Gap is an important location for any responsible war planner to consider, comparing it to one of the most important locations on the Iron Curtain during the Cold War — the Fulda Gap — is ill advised. Ultimately, a military buildup in the region and the greater likelihood of conflict that would come with it would be too costly for either Russia or NATO to execute, making it unlikely to occur.

Analysis : NATO-Russia confrontation : The Suwalki Gap – Young Diplomats




Of the far greater concern are the personal one on one conversations that will occur when Trump meets with Putin in less than two weeks. If Putin gets the green light from Trump to send 'little green men' into Latvia where half the population speaks Russian, then the free ride for Putin would have profound implications for Nato. Latvia is a Nato country so if Trump gave Putin the green light, a Nato country would be allowed to fall to Russian force in the name and the historically disastrous rational of irredentism and revanchism. Colluded against in fact. Trump hasn't any problem with either as he has already stated people in Crimea speak Russian so it therefore belongs to Russia, i.e., Putin and his czar predecessors. Trump allowing a Nato country to fall to Russian subterfuge and military force would almost surely terminate Nato as it has existed since 1949.

Rogue Valley said:

Full Title: If they needed to fend off war with Russia, U.S. military leaders worry they might not get there in time

I've spent considerable time in the article area. Great transportation resources until they aren't. Many bridges are suspect. The Suwalki gap remains vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Neither side would rely on civilian infrastucture in an invasion scenario, it is great when it is there, but odds are one side or the other would destroy it. The land between germany and russia has for long been buffer states for greater powers. Nato could not really stop russian advancement through that area, they could slow them down though and likely russians would hit western europe before their advance stopped and nato began pushing them back and reclaiming those area.

The only way the inbetween countries in eastern europe and the baltics could stop such an advance would be if they became powerful enough in their own right to do so, rather than relying on a foreign force. Finland would be an example, even though they lost the winter wars against the soviet union, they had their defense strong enough where russia could not overthrow the country, and lost only a section of land russia was planning to buy and trade for before the war, rather than losing the whole country.

Barnacle said:

After the US of A, Turkey is the 2nd largest military force in NATO ... and they're only a stone's throw away from Russia.

Click to expand...

The population of turkey though supports leaving nato and joining an alliance with russia, and their now more powerfull leader has been becoming very friendly with putin, other countries like bulgaria and hungary have majority populations wanting to leave nato and join the russian alliance, even if their govt is pro nato, there is one other nation on that list forget it's name, but point being when shtf I am not sure those countries would be very reliable even if still in nato, and one would wonder if any significant military buildup in those nations would defect.

beerftw said:

The population of turkey though supports leaving nato and joining an alliance with russia, and their now more powerfull leader has been becoming very friendly with putin, other countries like bulgaria and hungary have majority populations wanting to leave nato and join the russian alliance, even if their govt is pro nato, there is one other nation on that list forget it's name, but point being when shtf I am not sure those countries would be very reliable even if still in nato, and one would wonder if any significant military buildup in those nations would defect.

Click to expand...

Turkey's cozing up to Russia is merely hatred of Kurds. A Warsaw Pact would give Turkey the green light to slaughter Kurds. But Turkey knows what's best for them and it's not Russia.

ecofarm said:

Turkey's cozing up to Russia is merely hatred of Kurds. A Warsaw Pact would give Turkey the green light to slaughter Kurds. But Turkey knows what's best for them and it's not Russia.

Click to expand...

Currently looking at erdogan, It seems russia is more aligned in their interests than nato is, and erdogan is doing nothing more than being cozy with whoever helps him further his interests.

A large part of it too is turkey had talked about invading the greek islands if erdogan won re election, greece is part of nato, and turkey already invaded greece once before while they were part of nato, one has to wonder would nato stand by again and let it happen twice, also with him hinting at reclaiming former ottomen empire glory, one has to wonder if he will leave anyways or be booted out before hand.

beerftw said:

The population of turkey though supports leaving nato and joining an alliance with russia, and their now more powerfull leader has been becoming very friendly with putin, other countries like bulgaria and hungary have majority populations wanting to leave nato and join the russian alliance, even if their govt is pro nato, there is one other nation on that list forget it's name, but point being when shtf I am not sure those countries would be very reliable even if still in nato, and one would wonder if any significant military buildup in those nations would defect.

Click to expand...

In a conflict involving Russia and Nato Turkey remains with Nato because Ankara knows only Nato is in position to control the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Russia is unable to control the straits period. The two straits provide Russian access to the Med from the Black Sea. With the straits closed to Russia in a conflict the Russian fleet on the Black Sea are ducks on a pond. Russian ground forces on Crimea become vulnerable. Bulgaria and Romania on the Sea are solid Nato allies and the two countries are providing bases and making stockpiles.

Turkey is in a geostrategically vital position between the Bosporus and the Suez along the eastern Med thus impacting Israel and Egypt. US has bases in Turkey while Russia does not have any. Russian bases in Syria are isolated and well within range of the 6th Fleet in the Med, the 5th Fleet in the Gulf and US-Nato air forces in Italy. Nato is solid at the Strait of Gibraltar. Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz for 24 hours or so before being dispatched from it. Turkey isn't leaving Nato anytime soon for numerous reasons to include not wanting to have to defend the Russian Fleet trapped in the Black Sea. Turkey under Erdogan is an embarrassment to Nato but to Putin and Russia Turkey remains unavailable as always.

Tangmo said:

In a conflict involving Russia and Nato Turkey remains with Nato because Ankara knows only Nato is in position to control the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Russia is unable to control the straits period. The two straits provide Russian access to the Med from the Black Sea. With the straits closed to Russia in a conflict the Russian fleet on the Black Sea are ducks on a pond. Russian ground forces on Crimea become vulnerable. Bulgaria and Romania on the Sea are solid Nato allies and the two countries are providing bases and making stockpiles.

Turkey is in a geostrategically vital position between the Bosporus and the Suez along the eastern Med thus impacting Israel and Egypt. US has bases in Turkey while Russia does not have any. Russian bases in Syria are isolated and well within range of the 6th Fleet in the Med, the 5th Fleet in the Gulf and US-Nato air forces in Italy. Nato is solid at the Strait of Gibraltar. Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz for 24 hours or so before being dispatched from it. Turkey isn't leaving Nato anytime soon for numerous reasons to include not wanting to have to defend the Russian Fleet trapped in the Black Sea. Turkey under Erdogan is an embarrassment to Nato but to Putin and Russia Turkey remains unavailable as always.

Click to expand...

The problem with that theory is besides turkey probably being unable to hold it without massive nato reinforcements, is that if russia invaded europe, they would either not bother or put only enough effort into it to divert western forces away from land and air battles, whereas aircraft carriers can provide air support for land forces.

The russian navy does not do force projection, they have a defensive navy, which has it's main goal of sinking enemy vessals or supporting ships that destroy other ships. The black sea is their playground, and thy love bottle necks, basically bulgaria romania nato etc would be slaughtered in the black sea, while if russia entered the mediterrainian with force they would only make it a limited distance before their navy got overpowered. To put it simply russias navy is defensive and damn good at what it does, while americas navy is offensive and force projection.

In a russia invades europe scenario, russia will invade by land, and concentrate the bulk of their logistics and force on land. Also to note the us alone not including nato has more aircraft than russia, but when it comes to russia they have far more air superiority fighters, meaning they did not put much into air logistics, but rather a fighter jet force to prevent the enemy from using air logistics by keeping enemy forces out of airspace they control.

beerftw said:

The problem with that theory is besides turkey probably being unable to hold it without massive nato reinforcements, is that if russia invaded europe, they would either not bother or put only enough effort into it to divert western forces away from land and air battles, whereas aircraft carriers can provide air support for land forces.

The russian navy does not do force projection, they have a defensive navy, which has it's main goal of sinking enemy vessals or supporting ships that destroy other ships. The black sea is their playground, and thy love bottle necks, basically bulgaria romania nato etc would be slaughtered in the black sea, while if russia entered the mediterrainian with force they would only make it a limited distance before their navy got overpowered. To put it simply russias navy is defensive and damn good at what it does, while americas navy is offensive and force projection.

In a russia invades europe scenario, russia will invade by land, and concentrate the bulk of their logistics and force on land. Also to note the us alone not including nato has more aircraft than russia, but when it comes to russia they have far more air superiority fighters, meaning they did not put much into air logistics, but rather a fighter jet force to prevent the enemy from using air logistics by keeping enemy forces out of airspace they control.

Click to expand...

My post is the Nato strategy not some theory. The difference is of course that a strategy is a plan rather than simply an idea. An idea floats and it can be snagged to be brought down, tested, adjusted. In contrast and while a strategy is indeed tested in its execution, a strategy is a concrete plan of action.

My post discussed Turkey as a combatant member of Nato and the strategic importance to Turkey remaining in Nato. Your post to which I replied had been attempting to soft sell readers on Turkey aligning with Russia rather than remain with Nato. I shot that down completely. So you have attempted to move on to other aspects. The bottom line is that the reader has seen what history has recorded in respect of Russia, the Black Sea, Crimea and all of the backwaters of the Med via the Bosporus and Dardanelles. That is, the Black Sea and Crimea in particular have never been a major theater of war. Nor will they be. The Crimea War for instance had its local importance and its role in 18th century empire, but it was not in itself significant to empire. The Crimea War was a 20th century Korea war rather than a WW II affair.

I reiterate that in a Russia-Nato conflict the Russian Black Sea Fleet is enclosed within the geographic area. The fleet has no exit route or hiding place. The reason is that Nato to include Turkey control the only point of Black Sea transit, i.e., the Bosporus Strait and the Dardanelles. The strait is controlled by Turkey and Nato. It is not a big challenge to Nato to hold the Bosporus. Which brings us full circle to the point that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is a sitting duck on that big pond. The bottom line being yet again that Turkey has no militarily strategic advantage to aligning with Russia against Nato.

Your creeping attempt to build a case for Turkey aligning with Russia against Nato got quashed. Yes Turkey under the fascist Erdogan continues to move closer politically to the fascist Putin and His Czarist Russia. The right in Europe and the USA love it. Militarily however, Erdogan aligning with Russia against the Nato democracies is a turkey.

Tangmo said:

My post is the Nato strategy not some theory. The difference is of course that a strategy is a plan rather than simply an idea. An idea floats and it can be snagged to be brought down, tested, adjusted. In contrast and while a strategy is indeed tested in its execution, a strategy is a concrete plan of action.

My post discussed Turkey as a combatant member of Nato and the strategic importance to Turkey remaining in Nato. Your post to which I replied had been attempting to soft sell readers on Turkey aligning with Russia rather than remain with Nato. I shot that down completely. So you have attempted to move on to other aspects. The bottom line is that the reader has seen what history has recorded in respect of Russia, the Black Sea, Crimea and all of the backwaters of the Med via the Bosporus and Dardanelles. That is, the Black Sea and Crimea in particular have never been a major theater of war. Nor will they be. The Crimea War for instance had its local importance and its role in 18th century empire, but it was not in itself significant to empire. The Crimea War was a 20th century Korea war rather than a WW II affair.

I reiterate that in a Russia-Nato conflict the Russian Black Sea Fleet is enclosed within the geographic area. The fleet has no exit route or hiding place. The reason is that Nato to include Turkey control the only point of Black Sea transit, i.e., the Bosporus Strait and the Dardanelles. The strait is controlled by Turkey and Nato. It is not a big challenge to Nato to hold the Bosporus. Which brings us full circle to the point that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is a sitting duck on that big pond. The bottom line being yet again that Turkey has no militarily strategic advantage to aligning with Russia against Nato.

Your creeping attempt to build a case for Turkey aligning with Russia against Nato got quashed. Yes Turkey under the fascist Erdogan continues to move closer politically to the fascist Putin and His Czarist Russia. The right in Europe and the USA love it. Militarily however, Erdogan aligning with Russia against the Nato democracies is a turkey.

Click to expand...

You still trust Turkey?

:lamo

Hawkeye10 said:

You still trust Turkey?

:lamo

Click to expand...

You attempt to introduce a new factor that is not in play and that is both irrelevant and immaterial. No one trusts either Turkey or Russia. Neither trusts the other.

Neither does Nato trust the Potus any more. Nato in fact distrusts the Potus Trump and it no doubt sees Trump as a Putin Operative. So the question is naive, silly, supercilious. The question is delivered from a place that is very strange indeed. It comes from Trump World. Some people used to be better even if it wasn't ever by much.

My post dealt with realities, i.e., the realities of strategic geography and the geostrategics of Turkey in Nato and Turkey in relation to Russia. In these matters trust come out of the barrel of a gun.

Tangmo said:

My post is the Nato strategy not some theory. The difference is of course that a strategy is a plan rather than simply an idea. An idea floats and it can be snagged to be brought down, tested, adjusted. In contrast and while a strategy is indeed tested in its execution, a strategy is a concrete plan of action.

My post discussed Turkey as a combatant member of Nato and the strategic importance to Turkey remaining in Nato. Your post to which I replied had been attempting to soft sell readers on Turkey aligning with Russia rather than remain with Nato. I shot that down completely. So you have attempted to move on to other aspects. The bottom line is that the reader has seen what history has recorded in respect of Russia, the Black Sea, Crimea and all of the backwaters of the Med via the Bosporus and Dardanelles. That is, the Black Sea and Crimea in particular have never been a major theater of war. Nor will they be. The Crimea War for instance had its local importance and its role in 18th century empire, but it was not in itself significant to empire. The Crimea War was a 20th century Korea war rather than a WW II affair.

I reiterate that in a Russia-Nato conflict the Russian Black Sea Fleet is enclosed within the geographic area. The fleet has no exit route or hiding place. The reason is that Nato to include Turkey control the only point of Black Sea transit, i.e., the Bosporus Strait and the Dardanelles. The strait is controlled by Turkey and Nato. It is not a big challenge to Nato to hold the Bosporus. Which brings us full circle to the point that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is a sitting duck on that big pond. The bottom line being yet again that Turkey has no militarily strategic advantage to aligning with Russia against Nato.

Your creeping attempt to build a case for Turkey aligning with Russia against Nato got quashed. Yes Turkey under the fascist Erdogan continues to move closer politically to the fascist Putin and His Czarist Russia. The right in Europe and the USA love it. Militarily however, Erdogan aligning with Russia against the Nato democracies is a turkey.

Click to expand...

Either I need to question nato strategy as being so incompetent as to put all their defense in the north while russia invades the south, or I need to heavily question your understanding of nato policy and military strategy.

Russia being sitting ducks means nothing, they are a defensive navy, and even the us navy being the most powerful in the world would get slaughtered entering the black sea, why would a defensive navy who's entire goal is to sink ships and halt naval advancement into the black and russias part of the baltic sea move beyon the straights, they have no force projection, all of their force projection is by land while using air superiority to deny opposing forces projection of power through air.

It is like you have literally no understanding of the russian military doctrine, or how they advance, or where their strengths and weaknesses are, maybe you should study russian/soviet military doctrine before you make such absurd claims. The russian military prefers force logistics and defense by land, with their navy denying any advancing force from hitting their mainland and their air power to deny any advancing force from gaining air superiority to deny them air logistics and assault.

Tangmo said:

You attempt to introduce a new factor that is not in play and that is both irrelevant and immaterial. No one trusts either Turkey or Russia. Neither trusts the other.

Neither does Nato trust the Potus any more. Nato in fact distrusts the Potus Trump and it no doubt sees Trump as a Putin Operative. So the question is naive, silly, supercilious. The question is delivered from a place that is very strange indeed. It comes from Trump World. Some people used to be better even if it wasn't ever by much.

My post dealt with realities, i.e., the realities of strategic geography and the geostrategics of Turkey in Nato and Turkey in relation to Russia. In these matters trust come out of the barrel of a gun.

Click to expand...

What realities does your post deal with?

beerftw said:

Either I need to question nato strategy as being so incompetent as to put all their defense in the north while russia invades the south, or I need to heavily question your understanding of nato policy and military strategy.

Russia being sitting ducks means nothing, they are a defensive navy, and even the us navy being the most powerful in the world would get slaughtered entering the black sea, why would a defensive navy who's entire goal is to sink ships and halt naval advancement into the black and russias part of the baltic sea move beyon the straights, they have no force projection, all of their force projection is by land while using air superiority to deny opposing forces projection of power through air.

It is like you have literally no understanding of the russian military doctrine, or how they advance, or where their strengths and weaknesses are, maybe you should study russian/soviet military doctrine before you make such absurd claims. The russian military prefers force logistics and defense by land, with their navy denying any advancing force from hitting their mainland and their air power to deny any advancing force from gaining air superiority to deny them air logistics and assault.

Click to expand...

beerftw said:

What realities does your post deal with?

Click to expand...

The 21st century term for your points in the last paragraph is Anti-Access / Area Denial aka A2/AD and it is nothing new concerning Russia. It is new to China which has adopted it and is developing its A2/AD systems to include applying them in the South China Sea. The Pentagon response is AirSea Battle which is aggressive offensive Naval and Air Force capabilities designed to penetrate Anti-Access Area Denial systems and to strike deep inland into the enemy's command centers and battle facilities to disable them. AirSea Battle was developed under SecDef Robert Gates when he commissioned Naval and Air Force commanders to counter the new A2/AD defensive standoff systems of China and the upgraded A2/AD systems of Russia. The name AirSea Battle was changed several years ago due to objections by the Army and Marine Corps which wrongly felt omitted from it. The new and current name is a whopper but it is the new name: Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons, or JAM-GC pronounced exactly as we see it.


It is vital to note that I approach the discussion of a US military conflict against Russia (or China; Iran) from the standpoint of supporting the United States. I present the realities of each side. My geostrategic analysis is predicated on actual strategies to include strategic geography. In other words I am not a Putin-Trump Fanboy nor do I get my strategic analysis from a cracker jacks box as many armchair strategists do. Moreover, while I render due respect to the military capabilities of each Russia and China, I do not try to tout them over the USA nor do I overstate the military capabilities of either Russia or China. Nor do I try to overstate those of the USA of course.

Your post goes OTT in these and several respects. I posted for instance that Nato would have no great challenge to hold the Bosphorus and Dardanelles against Russia. I did not say Nato should mass its forces in the Med or in southern Europe, nor did I say it should do so at the expense of its defense of northern Europe or the central zone. Your post goes there, i.e., southern Europe. It is a place I do not go nor would I go.

You also blunder into having Nato attack the Russian Fleet in the Black Sea which Nato would not do or consider doing. Certainly not ordinarily. In a war initiated by Russia against Nato and its member states the the geostrategic focus would be to repel Russia in northern and central Europe, and to disable all of Russia's capabilities. Neither would there be any Nato march or ride to Moscow or beyond. Stopping and disabling Russia is all that would be necessary or desired from a military and political standpoint. To borrow a descriptor, it would occur from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic which is to say along the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Russia and the Cold War. The locus of the action would be in northern and central Europe, not the south and certainly not the Black Sea. Nato does not strategize under the misconceptions of it that you assign to Nato. Neither does the Pentagon. Nor do I.

Nato was founded to preclude Soviet Russian tanks rolling across those plains of Europe that were so hospitable to the Nazi blitzkrieg led by Marshal Hans Guderian who conceived and executed the notorious lightning mechanized strike. Russia is neither innocent nor is it a defensive passive aggressive waif....



Army Chief of Staff General Mark A. Milley Reads Riot Act To Putin and Russia

beerftw said:

Neither side would rely on civilian infrastucture in an invasion scenario, it is great when it is there, but odds are one side or the other would destroy it. The land between germany and russia has for long been buffer states for greater powers. Nato could not really stop russian advancement through that area, they could slow them down though and likely russians would hit western europe before their advance stopped and nato began pushing them back and reclaiming those area.

Click to expand...

Even during the Cold War, most war planners did not expect the US to actually have significant troops on the ground until the Warsaw Pact was near the old Maginot Line (if not over it). The entire idea was that Germany would be a huge delaying action as the US rushed troops and supplies into France for the counter-offensive.

And what this completely ignores is the fact that large areas of the Warsaw Pact are no longer in the hands of Russia. Almost every nation West of them is either neutral, or linked to NATO. So it would not be an invasion of say the German-Polish border into Germany and West, but an invasion of first Poland, and then Germany.

The Cold War is long over, to bad some people still have not grasped that even 25+ years later.