Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Putin admits that he planned Crimea annexatio


questionmark

Recommended Posts

That British General was NATO's Deputy Supreme Commander Europe. If he's stating NATO could not defend the Baltics or retake them, then it highlights what i've said all along. - the credibility of NATO could be questioned and if Putin decided to test it. We could be left with egg on our Face. and it further highlights the stupidity of allowing the Baltic states join NATO in the first place. For NATO to hold any credibility it would have to invoke article 5 and the Alliance would be at War with Russia. - Which raises the questions, Where would such a conflict be fought. - I'll tell you, not in the land of the Giants but the land of the Pygmies. the Baltics would be sacrificed and torn apart as they become the no-mans land between the West and Russia. and seeing how Russian Air Defences already cover the Baltic states good luck trying to gain air supremacy which then makes any ground campaign impossible.

Question, Should NATO Defend the Baltic states if Russia Attacks? Public opinion in favour of Rushing to the Defence of the Baltic states. Its rather telling not one of the leading seven European NATO members have public support for the Defence of the Baltic states.

Public opinion figures in favour of defending the Baltics.

France 40%

Germany 27%

Italy 37%

Spain 37%

UK 35%

USA 36%

It does not depend on what you sway, it depends on what contracts you have signed. And instead of announcing the unwillingness to fulfill those contracts the proper way is to get out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That British General was NATO's Deputy Supreme Commander Europe. If he's stating NATO could not defend the Baltics or retake them, then it highlights what i've said all along. - the credibility of NATO could be questioned and if Putin decided to test it. We could be left with egg on our Face. and it further highlights the stupidity of allowing the Baltic states join NATO in the first place.

If such a conflict began, and did not go nuclear, then it is very likely Russia would suffer far more greatly than NATO and would be forced into a humiliating surrender, possibly losing more than they ever stood to gain.

Russia is nowhere near the military force it used to be, and it's influence lately has been largely due to it's economic power due to having large energy reserves. I seriously doubt Putin would be able to convince Russia to go to war with NATO and he is relying on economic brinkmanship to bully other nations into a climb-down over what is happening in the Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt Putin would be able to convince Russia to go to war with NATO and he is relying on economic brinkmanship to bully other nations into a climb-down over what is happening in the Ukraine.

it depends, if your defenition of "russia" are its ordinary people, they will die for putin, at least 80% would, and would love the idea to nuke usa.

if by "russia" you mean oligarchs, that is a good question, may be when they feel nuclear war is close, they will remove putin themselves

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If such a conflict began, and did not go nuclear, then it is very likely Russia would suffer far more greatly than NATO and would be forced into a humiliating surrender, possibly losing more than they ever stood to gain.

Russia is nowhere near the military force it used to be, and it's influence lately has been largely due to it's economic power due to having large energy reserves. I seriously doubt Putin would be able to convince Russia to go to war with NATO and he is relying on economic brinkmanship to bully other nations into a climb-down over what is happening in the Ukraine.

I think you underestimate the willingness of Russia to endure. History proves they can endure greater hardships than us in the West. People need to realise a War Between Russia and NATO. would be hard fought. If it was fought in Cuba Advantage NATO if its fought in Russia's back garden Advantage Russia. - The Swedish Island of Gotland. Strategically important Russia if was to capture this. it would possibly be game set and match. NATO would be unable to counter.

Give you an example of the figures, the Russian economy is 20% smaller than the UK, but spends twice as much on defence than the UK. Its army is ten times larger than ours.

NATO is not the force it once was, NATO exercise size 1990 - 240,000. land and airmen. 2014, 6,000 land and airmen. NATO as serious flaws in its ability, including control and command. while defence spending as been falling across all NATO members (except the USA who funds 75% of NATO) Its left Europe unable to defend itself against Russia. - Russia's military has been undergoing major reform programs to the tune of $720 Billion. Russia today has 120,000 highly trained, professional Soldiers with modern equipment. 50% - 60% of their equipment is now modern.

Russia has learnt the lessons from 2008. - UK Defence committee evidence 2014.

Russia is, however, in a significantly stronger position than it was in 2008. It has made considerable new investments and has dramatically improved its capabilities. Since 2012, expenditure on the military has increased and, during the period 2013-17, defence expenditure will amount to 4.8% of Russian GDP. Russia has embarked on a $720 billion weapons-modernisation programme which aimed to increase the 10% of equipment classed as "modern" in 2012 to 30% by 2013, 50% by 2015 and 70% by 2020.

Gone are the days when Russian troops were demoralised, disorganised and badly-supplied: the operation in Crimea was accomplished by elite Russian units which were well-trained, well-fed and very well equipped with the latest communication systems. And Russia's military modernisation is set to continue: by 2015, the country plans to spend US$100 billion on its armed forces yearly.

Keir Giles, associate fellow at Chatham House, told us that Russia had built upon the lessons of the Georgian war and is looking to develop capabilities which capitalise upon the West's weaknesses

The Russian military's increased effectiveness was demonstrated recently when Russia carried out the large-scale Zapad 2013 exercise in the Baltic region, which included:

· Large-scale deployment of conventional forces (believed to be c. 70,000 troops) including land, sea, air, air defence, airborne, special forces (Spetsnaz), the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Interior (VVMVD), medical units and army psychological personnel, logistical and engineering forces;

· search and rescue;

· amphibious landing and anti-landing operations;

· air and ground strikes on enemy targets;

· submarine and anti-submarine warfare;

· missile strikes with long-range precision strike assets; and

· airborne and air assault operations

This exercise was described publicly as an exercise in anti-terrorist activity but involved operations against a sophisticated opponent. Observers have suggested that it gave an indication of what a full scale attack on one of the Baltic States might look like. It was described by Major General (Ret) Neretnieks of the Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences as proof that Russia has regained its capability for large-scale conventional military operations, a capability which he thought was lacking amongst Western powers.

James Sherr, associate fellow at Chatham House, described the Zapad 13 exercise as designed to demonstrate to NATO what sort of operations Russia is now capable of mounting.

General Sir Richard Shirreff, former DSACEUR NATO agreed, describing the simulated 'anti-terrorist' actions being deployed as being akin to practising to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. He also told us that during Zapad The Latvians were extremely worried by the very high levels of Russian air activity that was taking place on the Russian-Latvian border, which was nothing short of intimidation. There were fleets of Ilyushin-76 troop-carrying planes approaching the border, veering off, coming back and veering off, just to rattle the Latvians. It highlighted the fact that this was Russia sending some pretty strong signals about its ability to deploy forces, should it want to.

The increase in Russian conventional capacity has been mirrored by an increase in Russian willingness to engage in a combative relationship with the West. Tomas Ries of the Swedish Defence College suggests that the potential for conflict between Russia and NATO has been evident for some time. He points to Russian publications on national security from the mid-2000s onwards, which named NATO as the enemy. Ries also highlights a number of recent events which reflect this more combative approach:

· Russian simulated strategic bomber strikes against much of north-western Europe and Alaska since 2005;

· Cyber-attack on Estonia in 2007;

· Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008; and,

· Russian military reforms, modernisation and exercises.

Russia is also a nuclear power and has exercised scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons. The 2009 Zapad exercise involved a simulated nuclear strike upon Warsaw and the Vostok 2010 exercise also involved simulations of a nuclear strike.

It has been argued that Russia sees its strategic nuclear forces as a key deterrent to potential Western intervention or belated response to Russian aggression. Russia dedicates a third of its Defence budget to them. Russia's substantial nuclear arsenal is also regarded as protection against any possible future threat from China. The potential for use of nuclear weapons is perceived to provide compensation for the inferiority of its conventional armed forces on the Chinese border.

Keir Giles has noted that in February 2011, the implementation of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) resulted in intensive Russian activity aimed at developing and introducing new strategic weapons systems, including at least three new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) programmes. Sir Andrew Wood, former Ambassador to Moscow and associate fellow of Chatham House, confirmed to us that the use of nuclear weapons in war is a publicly-stated component of Russian military doctrine.

NATO failings.

For more than a decade NATO has seen terrorism and "failed states" as the central security threat. That threat remains. But the Russian annexation of Crimea and the continuing violence in Ukraine have been a stark reminder of NATO's responsibilities in Europe. They pose fundamental questions about NATO's ability to respond to Russian aggression against its neighbours, and NATO's ability to uphold its obligations to defend NATO member states.

Our visit to Estonia and Latvia, as North Atlantic Treaty countries, highlighted how Russian actions have given NATO a new relevance. Whatever the probability of a further Russian threat to NATO countries—and our witnesses differ on that—there is no doubt that Eastern European nations feel that the threat is very real. It has encouraged them to make fresh commitments to reach 2 per cent of Defence Spending. This new focus provides a unique opportunity for NATO to re-establish its centrality and relevance. The NATO Summit in Newport in September must ensure that it addresses the threat from Russia, and take the opportunity provided to reshape NATO.

Whatever the likelihood of a Russian attack on the territory of NATO countries, NATO is obliged to have a detailed contingency plan for such a scenario. The territorial defence of NATO members in Europe was the founding rationale for NATO. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty requires that an armed attack on one NATO State is treated as an attack upon them all. This report, therefore, focuses on NATO preparedness for a Russian threat. Our conclusion is that NATO is currently not well-prepared for a Russian threat against a NATO Member State. A Russian unconventional attack, using asymmetric tactics (the latest term for this is "ambiguous warfare"), designed to slip below NATO's response threshold, would be particularly difficult to counter. And the challenges, which NATO faces in deterring, or mounting an adequate response to, such an attack poses a fundamental risk to NATO's credibility.

This Report focuses narrowly on NATO, Article 4 and 5 obligations, Ukraine, and the Baltic States, rather than the more general debate about Russia and global security threats. We have chosen this focus because the NATO conference will be hosted by the UK in September; because this is of central concern to Eastern European NATO members; because the attack on Ukraine has raised the possibility—however currently unlikely—of an attack, conventional or unconventional, on a NATO Member State in the Baltics, potentially requiring an Article 5 response; and because such a response would be challenging and requires significant adaption from the UK and NATO. The report begins with an analysis of Russia: its conventional forces, its new approach to asymmetric warfare, and its apparent intentions. It then considers NATO's preparedness to respond, first to the less likely scenario of a conventional Russian attack, then to the scenario of an asymmetric attack. It concludes that NATO is poorly prepared for either scenario, and suggests urgent steps that would need to be taken to meet these challenges.

Our specific concerns about NATO's deficiencies in its ability to respond to a conventional attack include:-

· Shortcomings in NATO's ability to foresee and to give adequate warning of such an attack;

· Shortcomings in NATO's command and control structures; and

· Questions about the public's readiness to honour the Article 5 commitment.

Russia's use of "next generation warfare" tactics also poses a range of questions for NATO, including

· Whether Article 5 is sufficient to ensure that the collective defence guarantee will come into effect in the face of asymmetric attacks;

· Whether NATO has the right tools to address the full breadth of threats, including information warfare, psychological operations and, in concert with the EU, exertion of influence through energy and trade policy; and,

· Whether NATO has the ability to effectively counter the threat of cyber attack from Russia and to mount its own offensive cyber operations.

We are also concerned that events in Ukraine seem to have taken the UK Government by surprise, that the capacity for analysis and assessment of developments in Russia and for understanding and responding to the current Russian way of warfare appears to have been seriously degraded in recent years.

The NATO alliance has not considered Russia as an adversary or a potential territorial threat to its Member States for twenty years. It is now forced to do so as a result of Russia's recent actions. Events in Ukraine this year, following on from the cyber attack on Estonia in 2007 and the invasion of Georgia by Russia in 2008, are a "wake-up call" for NATO. They have revealed alarming deficiencies in the state of NATO preparedness, which will be tough to fix. The UK Government should take the lead in ensuring that the NATO Summit addresses these threats in the most concrete and systematic fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^really, uk gvmnt should take the lead??/ lmao. address the threat?????, that is double lmao.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^really, uk gvmnt should take the lead??/ lmao. address the threat?????, that is double lmao.

Taking the lead is in reference to politically - It was because the UK at the time was hosting the NATO summit. So it's taking the lead in so much as getting all NATO members to step up to the plate and adhere to their obligations..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's taking the lead in so much as getting all NATO members to step up to the plate and adhere to their obligations..

you do realise it is uk this time that does not want to adhere to their obligations, all 3 baltic countries are nato members, if russia attacks any of them, uk will have to fight for them, as a nato member

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you do realise it is uk this time that does not want to adhere to their obligations, all 3 baltic countries are nato members, if russia attacks any of them, uk will have to fight for them, as a nato member

What are you talking about, the UK takes part in every single NATO commitment we've signed upto. We are one of only three NATO members which actually spends the NATO 2% of GDP on Defence. in November we sent 1,600 troops and 100 armoured vehicles including our main battle tank to take part in a NATO exercise in Poland. one of the first to commit to air policing over the Baltics back in 2005 let alone 2014 sending not only fighter jets but electronic warfare planes such as AWACS putting ourselves on the frontline of Russian aggression. No doubt if Ivan rolled into any NATO member article five would be activated but would their be a consensus on the action to take.

Just look at the Budapest agreement 1994.

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about, the UK takes part in every single NATO commitment we've signed upto. We are one of only three NATO members which actually spends the NATO 2% of GDP on Defence. in November we sent 1,600 troops and 100 armoured vehicles including our main battle tank to take part in a NATO exercise in Poland. one of the first to commit to air policing over the Baltics back in 2005 let alone 2014 sending not only fighter jets but electronic warfare planes such as AWACS putting ourselves on the frontline of Russian aggression. No doubt if Ivan rolled into any NATO member article five would be activated but would their be a consensus on the action to take.

Just look at the Budapest agreement 1994.

Obama secretly sending weapons to Ukraine, but anti-fascists Donbass can liberate Kharkiv.

Despite the break in the supply to Ukraine lethal weapons, which took the official White House, such weapons are already taking Ukrainian airports. This broadcast talk show "Evening" said the ex-member of Parliament Sergey Gorokhov.

According to him, in particular, in Dnepropetrovsk daily sits on four warplanes.

"In recent times every day in Dnepropetrovsk sits on four NATO aircraft. I don't know what's going on in Kharkov and Zaporozhye, but the supply of arms come. None of the APU was looking technique, on the contrary, pulled as much equipment as it was not there before," says Gorokhov.

His words were confirmed by the co-Chairman of the Popular front for the new Russia Vladimir Rogov: "Now there was delivery of armored humvees. They go fast enough, unlike the BMP and everything else. The goal is very simple - lightning to enter the city, of which the army of new Russia completely removed heavy weapons".

If the militia will be another defeat of the Ukrainian group, it will open the way to Kharkov. This was stated by the Director of the Center for the study of Middle East and Central Asia Semyon Bagdasarov.

According to him, to make up for these losses will not help even a massive aid from the West.

"Now is the best forces of the Ukrainian army concentrated on the line of contact with the DNR and LC. If to grind them in the next war, it is possible to counter-attack and release the city of Kharkov. After that, any way neither the US nor the West will not make up for this loss. It would mean the complete failure of the regime in Kiev", - said Bagdasarov.

http://pravdanews.info/obama-tayno-shlyot-oruzhie-na-ukrainu-no-antifashisty-donbassa-mogut-osvobodit-kharkov.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not depend on what you sway, it depends on what contracts you have signed. And instead of announcing the unwillingness to fulfill those contracts the proper way is to get out.

It was contracts that started World War One, and looking the other way that started World War Two. Both of which (NATO commitments and the capture of Crimea) could be involved here.

In some ways I think we should go isolationist and just cover our own swiss cheese borders. Yet, I recognize that the actions of Russia will have to affect the actions of the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.