NATO: debating and defending Europe

[novelist]

The Russians don't have 90 active full strength divisions to drive for the Atlantic coast. They don't even have 90 active full strength divisions. What they have are a lot of paper divisions to be filled up with reservists. Remember that the Russians have one heck of a long border. They may be friendly with the PRC, but that border isn't like the US-Canada border.

On top of that, just how up to date is the Russian equipment? Not very.

----------------------------------------------------------

By Article 5, all NATO members are required to respond to any armed attack to any member state. If the European members do not feel obliged to uphold the treaty, then there is a need to reassess the rationale of having NATO in the first place (or for the matter, any international treaty). It is one thing for members to strive to prevent any direct confrontation with Russia, it is another to not to live up to your treaty obligations.

Paper divisions make me feel a little more at ease. And Russian reservists aren't as well trained as U.S. troops going through the NTC. I think the last Russian tank manufactured was the T-90. The problem I see is that they have more than we do, reservists or not.

I'm somewhat familiar with Article 5, and I don't discount what you've said about it. My worry is that the NATO allies might not uphold their obligation if Putin turns their gas off.

I put the following under a thread entitled "The Russian Military: Declining or Better...

I think you have to look at the former Red Army in the context of its organization prior to 1989. A Motor Rifle Regiment carried 5 battalions: There were two BTR equipped light motor rifle battalions, a BMP equipped heavy motor rifle battalion, a T-54/55 equipped tank battalion, and a Sp. 122mm howitzer battalion. In all, the regiment carried 27 companies/batteries, 70% of which were fire capable. The Motor Rifle Division carried 5 regiments: two light motor rifle regiments, (assault forces) a heavy motor rifle regiment, (exploitation force), a T-62/64 equipped tank regiment, (exploitation force) and an Sp. 152mm howitzer regiment. The division carried 58 battalions to include a T-72 equipped independent tank battalion. The motor rifle battalion of the exploitation forces carried a Battalion HQ, three motor rifle squads for HQ security, three (3) motor rifle companies, an 82mm mortar battery, and a technical services company comprised of a repair platoon, a medical platoon, a transportation platoon, and a communications platoon. The assault force had the immediate task of breaching the enemy line. The battalion making the most progress received regimental arty support. A battalion not making good progress was left to its own devices. NCO' s were not allowed to carry maps, and could not call for arty or air support. If the platoon leader was killed in action, the senior NCO could not take command of the platoon. Having said all of this, I think you have to look at the current organizational structure of a motor rifle regiment and its current doctrinal TTP. You'd also have to look at leadership and whether or not platoon leaders, company commanders, etc. are now permitted to exercise initiative. This seems the only logical way to determine whether or not the Russian army of today is Declining or Better. The Russian army now has about 90 active divisions.

This is how I recall the former Red Army and, this is why I have cause for concern about the shape that U.S. 7th Army is in right now...

Thank you for your comments.