Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[davidbfpo]

Stan yesterday asked why had the USA moved lightly armed US Army paratroopers into three eastern NATO members territory.

Not unexpectedly the NATO AWACS fleet has been deployed, it works under the control of SACEUR. With at least one plane based in Rumania. As reported by NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/wo...b-russia.html?

I note this article refers to last week's "buzzing" of a US destroyer in the Black Sea, by a Russian aircraft:

...a squadron of NATO fighter jets that chased it away.

Really? I don't recall any mention of that at the time. One trusts that the military-to-military 'hotline' was used to prevent misunderstanding.

Part of the headline comes from Mr. Pabriks, the former Latvian defense minister, when he refers to five minesweepers coming to the Baltic ( two from Norway and one each from the Netherlands, Belgium and Estonia) as:

They’re not battleships, of course. It’s clearly a signal, but obviously not enough

[Fuchs]

Stan, the German party landscape is fragmented and there's no party for Turks.

The greens are very Turks-friendly, but ideology-wise just not appealing to Turkish-born people.
The conservatives are ideologically more appealing to them, but at times annoyingly pro-Christian.
The social democrats may suit them, but then again they're now very similar to conservatives.
The pirates are only relevant among well-educated young people.
The socialists may attract votes, but they're pariahs on the national level and don't get into a ruling coalition.

The 'Turks' with German passport have no German party to represent them as a group, so their influence is close to zero. Besides, the "Turks" are actually split in "Turks", "Kurds", "Tatars" and others. And about a million voters among 50+ million voters are no heavyweight anyway in a proportional voting system.

[OUTLAW 09]

Stan yesterday asked why had the USA moved lightly armed US Army paratroopers into three eastern NATO members territory.

Not unexpectedly the NATO AWACS fleet has been deployed, it works under the control of SACEUR. With at least one plane based in Rumania. As reported by NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/wo...b-russia.html?

I note this article refers to last week's "buzzing" of a US destroyer in the Black Sea, by a Russian aircraft:

Really? I don't recall any mention of that at the time. One trusts that the military-to-military 'hotline' was used to prevent misunderstanding.

Part of the headline comes from Mr. Pabriks, the former Latvian defense minister, when he refers to five minesweepers coming to the Baltic ( two from Norway and one each from the Netherlands, Belgium and Estonia) as:

David---have not seen an open EU/NATO discussion on just why did NATO/US disarm via the requirements of the 1999 and 2000 OCSE agreements placed on each country and yet Russia was allowed to maintain their full armored strength and not disarm much as the Russians while signing the EUMM agreements over Georgia in 2008 "agreed" to troop strengths that have been violated since 2011 and Russia now has over 17 bases in both enclaves which has to be overkill or they are there for so other reason.

NATO/US has as well not called Russia out for their violation of the INF---if one takes everything that the Russians have not done as agreed to since 2008 one might say either we the West simply did not care as we had moved on or we totally misread Putin much as the quote attributed to F. Hill in one of your links and are now paying for it.

What a misread---but as she stated it was all there to be seen.

Russia has been planning these moves for a very long time if we go back and analyze it---definitely since 2008.

[Fuchs]

David---have not seen an open EU/NATO discussion on just why did NATO/US disarm via the requirements of the 1999 and 2000 OCSE agreements placed on each country and yet Russia was allowed to maintain their full armored strength and not disarm much as the Russians while signing the EUMM agreements over Georgia in 2008 "agreed" to troop strengths that have been violated since 2011 and Russia now has over 17 bases in both enclaves which has to be overkill or they are there for so other reason.

The CFE treaty involved cuts for Soviet Union/Russia as well, but made allowances because Russia has Asian defence needs.
http://www.osce.org/library/14087
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...rces_in_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted..._Europe_Treaty
(Look at the ratifications list!)

In the end, the CFE treaties were quite unimportant because the treaty parties have voluntarily cut deeper than required.

I remember that 98 mm mortars were developed in Poland and other countries to circumvent the limitation on ordnance of 100 mm calibre and greater - they were never produced in quantity because the ordnance limits proved to be irrelevant.

The Russians have furthermore begun to scrap their hordes of obsolete MBTs long ago. Their inventory of T-55s and T-62s is melting - literally.

[OUTLAW 09]

The CFE treaty involved cuts for Soviet Union/Russia as well, but made allowances because Russia has Asian defence needs.
http://www.osce.org/library/14087
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...rces_in_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted..._Europe_Treaty
(Look at the ratifications list!)

In the end, the CFE treaties were quite unimportant because the treaty parties have voluntarily cut deeper than required.

I remember that 98 mm mortars were developed in Poland and other countries to circumvent the limitation on ordnance of 100 mm calibre and greater - they were never produced in quantity because the ordnance limits proved to be irrelevant.

The Russians have furthermore begun to scrap their hordes of obsolete MBTs long ago. Their inventory of T-55s and T-62s is melting - literally.

Fuchs---the key is they are still not in compliance on the numbers and yes they are melting but it is the old 55/62 and to some degree the 72s which really were for export anyway.

It is the numbers and their argument was they were at war with the jihadi's and could not come into compliance---and what has been the argument for their non compliance with the numbers in Georgia under the EUMM---they did not even mention it nor has the West.

The West took the numbers and reduced what they had in their then current inventories under the thought that hey the Cold War is over and Russia seems to be getting to a more peaceful point so hey let's save defense money and go down on our overall defense budgets using OCSE as the excuse. Besides who needs tanks and APCs in AFG or anywhere else for that matter.

That was in the end a massive mistake and now they are only able to muster what planes, mine clearing ships and AWCS. Even the German tank brigades say in Amberg and other locations have been decommissioned in the current German downsizing that is still going on.

[OUTLAW 09]

Here comes the not so subtle threat to both the Ukraine and NATO/US taken from Interfax today---interesting to see where Obama takes this while he is in Japan.

Thought Russia said those troops were not near the border?

16:48 RUSSIAN BATTALION TACTICAL COMBINED-ARMS GROUPS FROM SOUTHERN, WESTERN MILITARY DISTRICTS START DRILLS IN RESPONSE TO SITUATION IN SOUTHEAST UKRAINE - SHOIGU



16:48 SHOIGU: IN FRAMEWORK OF DRILLS AVIATION TO CARRY OUT FLIGHTS TO EXERCISE ACTIONS NEAR STATE BORDER

[kaur]

Beard thing is solved here

http://time.com/74405/exclusive-pro-...stern-ukraine/

Stan, it seems that it is easier to say than to be done in situation, where Kiev has lost monopoly of violence.

[davidbfpo]

Written by three former US Ambassadors to the Ukraine:

First, the United States and European Union should greatly expand the list of individual Russians—inside and outside of government—targeted for visa and financial sanctions. Sanctions should apply to family members as well.


Second, the West should sanction key parts of the Russian economy, beginning with its financial sector. It should target at least several Russian financial institutions. The European Union, particularly Britain, must join in, with the aim of halting international credit to Russian entities. That would further stress the slowing Russian economy.


Third, the United States and European Union should block their energy companies from new investments to develop oil and gas fields in Russia. With Moscow dependent on oil and gas sales for seventy percent of its export earnings, such a measure would send shudders through the Russian energy sector.

Link:http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...want-war-10327

[Stan]

Beard thing is solved here

http://time.com/74405/exclusive-pro-...stern-ukraine/

Stan, it seems that it is easier to say than to be done in situation, where Kiev has lost monopoly of violence.

Kaur,
He looks like he means business even if he has an inferior weapon.

We made our EOD techs grow facial hair in the CAR to blend in.

Got to get with the local lingo if one wants to survive.

[Stan]

Here comes the not so subtle threat to both the Ukraine and NATO/US taken from Interfax today---interesting to see where Obama takes this while he is in Japan.

Thought Russia said those troops were not near the border?

16:48 RUSSIAN BATTALION TACTICAL COMBINED-ARMS GROUPS FROM SOUTHERN, WESTERN MILITARY DISTRICTS START DRILLS IN RESPONSE TO SITUATION IN SOUTHEAST UKRAINE - SHOIGU



16:48 SHOIGU: IN FRAMEWORK OF DRILLS AVIATION TO CARRY OUT FLIGHTS TO EXERCISE ACTIONS NEAR STATE BORDER

You know this already, but they overfly our borders every day with some vintage pile of sierra that barely breaks 350 kph.

Seems a mild response to a bunch of F-16s and friends flying in from all over creation

[OUTLAW 09]

You know this already, but they overfly our borders every day with some vintage pile of sierra that barely breaks 350 kph.

Seems a mild response to a bunch of F-16s and friends flying in from all over creation

Stan---it is all about the messaging just as is the BN from the 173rd.

[OUTLAW 09]

You know this already, but they overfly our borders every day with some vintage pile of sierra that barely breaks 350 kph.

Seems a mild response to a bunch of F-16s and friends flying in from all over creation

Stan---what initially puzzled me was the term Combined Arms Group which in the scenarios we ran with them ---Russian BNs are tied into a Bde strength unit or Groups in Russian speak.

The initial release had the flavor of only BNs maneuvering.

This Interfax release confirms the missing piece the movements are at least Bde levels which takes on a different flavor.

20:15 Russian Army to set up aviation brigades - Shoigu

Go back and check the open source photos of their positions and you will see at least 2-3 aviation brigades ie attack, support and transport.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs---the key is they are still not in compliance on the numbers and yes they are melting but it is the old 55/62 and to some degree the 72s which really were for export anyway.

It is the numbers and their argument was they were at war with the jihadi's and could not come into compliance---and what has been the argument for their non compliance with the numbers in Georgia under the EUMM---they did not even mention it nor has the West.

The West took the numbers and reduced what they had in their then current inventories under the thought that hey the Cold War is over and Russia seems to be getting to a more peaceful point so hey let's save defense money and go down on our overall defense budgets using OCSE as the excuse. Besides who needs tanks and APCs in AFG or anywhere else for that matter.

That was in the end a massive mistake and now they are only able to muster what planes, mine clearing ships and AWCS. Even the German tank brigades say in Amberg and other locations have been decommissioned in the current German downsizing that is still going on.

The Warsaw pact doesn't exist any more, so it's difficult to tell how Russia could violate the '90 treaty. It's not a member of the '99 treaty and the West never was. There's no real case for complaining about Russian non-compliance here.

And yes, the Cold War is over.


The problem here (and all over the world, all the time) is that humans get used to almost everything, real quick. They got used so much to the post-Cold War world that they can freak out about 'threats' that would have been barely recognisable during the Cold War when the noise level of threats was much higher.

So yes, the Cold War is over and yes, Russia is a marginal threat to us now. The fact that Ukraine is not "us" is at the core of the current crisis. They did NOT join "us", and thus Russia is still a very valid defence concern to them to say the least.

Their security problem isn't that Russia still has stockpiles of 25-50 year old military hardware. Their security problem is that they had a government which wasn't interested in preparing defences and their security forces are now ineffective even against the very small 'troops concentration' nearby.
A few hundred spec ops guys and a few ten thousand regulars are a seemingly insurmountable problem to the Ukraine because it has no loyal, competent, equipped security forces - their security forces are now less effective than Portugal's and that's no good in their neighbourhood.

[OUTLAW 09]

The Warsaw pact doesn't exist any more, so it's difficult to tell how Russia could violate the '90 treaty. It's not a member of the '99 treaty and the West never was. There's no real case for complaining about Russian non-compliance here.

And yes, the Cold War is over.


The problem here (and all over the world, all the time) is that humans get used to almost everything, real quick. They got used so much to the post-Cold War world that they can freak out about 'threats' that would have been barely recognisable during the Cold War when the noise level of threats was much higher.

So yes, the Cold War is over and yes, Russia is a marginal threat to us now. The fact that Ukraine is not "us" is at the core of the current crisis. They did NOT join "us", and thus Russia is still a very valid defence concern to them to say the least.

Their security problem isn't that Russia still has stockpiles of 25-50 year old military hardware. Their security problem is that they had a government which wasn't interested in preparing defences and their security forces are now ineffective even against the very small 'troops concentration' nearby.
A few hundred spec ops guys and a few ten thousand regulars are a seemingly insurmountable problem to the Ukraine because it has no loyal, competent, equipped security forces - their security forces are now less effective than Portugal's and that's no good in their neighbourhood.

Fuchs---check your OCSE dates and Yes Russia is a signatory of the various OCSE treaties and thus required to meet disarmament compliance numbers as was the rest of NATO.

Check this link---you do not have to believe it or not but it is the current Russian Army Order of Battle of the forces arrayed on the Ukrainian and Crimea border regions and it is a tad larger than the current number of Russian special operations/GRU types already inside eastern Ukraine.

http://inforesist.org/numbers-rf-arm...iness/?lang=en

Fuchs---check the Russian OB again and tell me you statement below is correct.

A few hundred spec ops guys and a few ten thousand regulars are a seemingly insurmountable problem to the Ukraine because it has no loyal, competent, equipped security forces - their security forces are now less effective than Portugal's and that's no good in their neighbourhood

If the Russian OB is correct and the forces arrayed are accurately portrayed THEN all current NATO countries would have problems countering the current Russian force composition-this includes the US--this is the new professional Russian Army in a very functional and efficient battle formation array designed for speed, shock and awe coupled with close air support and fighter air cover coupled with AWCS.

By the way this does not include the latest Russian Air Defense Bdes sent to Kaliningrad which can effectively limit NATO aircraft movements in the Baltics and the S300s based in the Crimea which will limit any aircraft movement in the south.

Remember the latest Russian Army troop movements came to a stop within 1km from the Ukrainian border and it was more than just a BN and it was accompanied by fighter aircraft providing air/ground attack support.

[davidbfpo]

Professor John Schindler has a new commentary, a large part comes from a Belarus journalist's ten hour visit and detention in:

Slovyansk, which is the epicenter of Russia’s stage-managed “rebellion” in Eastern Ukraine.

It has a key passage on the local population's attitude to their new rulers:

You know, their attitude to the occupiers is as if to some kind of bad weather. Look – a thunderstorm, a tempest, or a gale has hit: What can you do about it?! They do not support this, they simply have to resign themselves to it. I heard various people utter the phrase: “Everything was okay before their arrival.” In a certain sense, this can be assessed as support for Ukraine. Naturally, it is weak. A person will probably not fight for this, and will even submit if the territory is occupied.
But nevertheless, I did not meet a single person who said: “Yes, they are my protectors, they are standing up for us here. And just you get out of here, European villains!” Not one person said this.

Then his summary:

There you have it: provocations, intimidation, ethnic cleansing among a freak-show of alcoholics, gangsters, Orthodox “warriors,” and GRU operatives, amidst lots of innocent people trapped with nowhere to escape … some great insights there into what de facto Russian rule in Eastern Ukraine actually looks like. As I write, Slovyansk “militants” have stated they will only free their OSCE captives in exchange for prisoners held by Kyiv. It’s going to be a bumpy ride, watch this space …

Link:http://20committee.com/2014/04/26/sl...muda-triangle/

[Fuchs]

Fuchs---check your OCSE dates and Yes Russia is a signatory of the various OCSE treaties and thus required to meet disarmament compliance numbers as was the rest of NATO.

Check this link---you do not have to believe it or not but it is the current Russian Army Order of Battle of the forces arrayed on the Ukrainian and Crimea border regions
(...)
If the Russian OB is correct and the forces arrayed are accurately portrayed THEN all current NATO countries would have problems countering the current Russian force composition (...)

I doubt it makes sense to discuss whether "all current NATO countries" actually "would have problems countering" a few ten thousand troops. There are always problems in warfare, but the meaning of "problems" in the strategic context is absurd here.


About the OSCE dates:

CFE treaty signed November 19, 1990

Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty signed November 19, 1999. Ratified by Russia (suspended 2007), Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine. Too few ratifications, thus not in force and not requiring Russia to do anything.

I wrote "1990" and "1999", so I see no problem with the dates.
I do see a problem with your counterfactual assertion that Russia violates a treaty which is actually not in force for lack of Western ratifications.

My "not a member" choice of words was maybe inaccurate, as they merely suspended their membership, but I was broadly correct even therewith.


BTW, AWACS is a specific system. The category of these systems is AEW&C (airborne early warning and control), a confusion similar to the widespread MLRS/MRL confusion.

[Stan]

Not unexpectedly the NATO AWACS fleet has been deployed, it works under the control of SACEUR. With at least one plane based in Rumania. As reported by NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/wo...b-russia.html?

A fleet ? I read that "From a fleet" of 17 aircraft, NATO operates two flights per day, one over Romania and the other over Poland.

I note this article refers to last week's "buzzing" of a US destroyer in the Black Sea, by a Russian aircraft:

Really? I don't recall any mention of that at the time. One trusts that the military-to-military 'hotline' was used to prevent misunderstanding.

David,
it happens here and in Scandinavia with such frequency that it has become boring even for the newspapers. C'mon, these stone age flying bathtubs such as seen in Georgia with fuses missing from the bombs WTF ? Maybe Putin should invest in training ground crews

Part of the headline comes from Mr. Pabriks, the former Latvian defense minister, when he refers to five minesweepers coming to the Baltic ( two from Norway and one each from the Netherlands, Belgium and Estonia) as:

We do this every year and that's a good thing when one considers how much sierra the Germans and Russians left behind, anchored to the Baltic Sea.

Ironically years ago the presence of five of six minesweepers barely drew the attention of the press... until now. What was once a port visit (excuse for port call) has now become such a (ahem) statement. How's that ?

Do the Russians plan on putting more of their sierra into the Baltic Sea than is already stagnant and very much still there?

Why would I want minesweepers here and not in the Black Sea ?