In the comments to my post on Russia and Ukraine last night several people asked why I was very explicit about the force posture I would like to see happen to deter Russian aggression in Europe and against Ukraine. These were all excellent questions and they deserve a bit of attention and a response in something more than just a comment. Here’s what I wrote:
And this is why I think we are still moving far too slowly and are far too late in placing the necessary assets in place to back up our diplomacy and our use of economic power to try to deter Putin. Right now Putin is getting what he wants: bilateral recognition and negotiation with the US. Putin believes Russia is still a great power the way the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. Being able to negotiate with the US, publicly demand written answers – as if formal diplomatic communication would be done some other way – and then receive them because that’s simply how diplomacy is done allows Putin to claim that victory. In order to deter him, he has to be shown that we have the will and the capability to respond. Deploying some Operational Detachments Alpha and putting the equivalent of a brigade combat team and a half on standby is not going to cut it.
In order to actually demonstrate that we have the will and the capability to respond we would need to mobilize and deploy V Corps and all of 1st Armored Division (all combat brigades and the division artillery), plussed up with one brigade combat team each from 4th Infantry Division, 101st Airborne Division/Air Assault, the 82 Airborne Division, and the 1st Stryker Regiment. This should be accompanied by a country team from the 853rd Civil Affairs Brigade with a full complement of Civil Affairs Teams Alpha (CAT-As) and a country team from the 4th Psychological Operations Group’s 6th Psychological Operations Battalion to place Tactical PSYOP Teams (TPTs) into theater. I’d put the Corps headquarters in Poland, the Division headquarters in either Finland or Estonia, and distribute the conventional forces throughout Poland, Eastonia, Latvia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The Special Operations assets – Civil Affairs and PSYOP – go into Kyiv. Then I’d put the Wasp and Kearsarge Amphibious Warfare Groups (AWG) into theater. Wasp and her float off of Finland and Kearsarge and her float in the Black Sea. I’d keep the carrier group farther out for now. In fact I’d put it in the Irish Sea and even more specifically in the “Irish Box” between Ireland and England. I’d also want Air Force Special Operations – Air Commandos and Para-Rescue, as well as forward observer controllers who paint targets – moved into theater. I’d also want our NATO allies to keep doing what they’re doing, put moving three or four Dutch F-16s to Poland isn’t sufficient either.
Just so that everyone else knows, and courtesy of Leto, the forward observer controllers are formally referred to as Tactical Air Controllers (TACs) and a group of them are known as a Tactical Air Control Party (TACP).
There are three reasons for the suggestions I made last night and that I’ve copied and pasted above. The first is the strategist’s and policy maker’s dilemma: how much risk is one willing to assume. Right now every time something seems to bring some clarity to what Putin may be doing or might be planning to do something else then brings a new layer of obscurity to the situation. This means that President Biden and his team, as well as NATO’s leadership, the leadership of our EU partners and allies, and of our non-NATO European partners and allies have to determine how much risk they want to assume given that things are not particularly clear. Rotating an appropriate amount of military capability into the theater provides us with the ability to manage and mitigate the potential risk arising from Putin’s actions. They give us the ability to have a warm start should that unfortunately be necessary. I was assigned, under temporary assigned control (TACON), to the US Army Europe Commanding General in 2014. I was at his headquarters in January 2014 when the signals began to become clear that Putin was going to invade Ukraine. And, as a result, I know what it is like when the theater army commanding general does not have enough capability to be able to undertake his contingency plan to respond should it become necessary to do so.
Let me just take a moment and anticipate a rebuttal to this. Specifically that I’m letting my experience from 2014 color my judgement now. This is a legitimate question. I don’t think it is happening though. Our military footprint in the EU is not what it was even a decade ago despite some rotating, short term deployments to Poland. Given that we’ve steadily drawn down our military presence in the EU and relocated back to the US, temporarily relocating a force large enough to allow us to credibly respond if necessary would make sense in terms of mitigating and managing risk.
The second reason that I think we should do an increase way beyond just placing 8,500 personnel on standby is to reassure our allies. Sweden and Finland, which are not NATO allies, but do have security partnerships with the US, as well as Norway, which is a NATO member, are all exceedingly concerned regarding Putin’s actions. So are our NATO allies Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The Swedes have sent military personnel to reinforce Gotland because senior Russian military and civilian officials, as well as state controlled Russian media have been agitating to try to take it. Never mind that the last time non-Swedes tried this it got their stångas kicked. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania see themselves as the frontline of conflict if Putin decides to probe for mush and, along with Poland, have moved towards a war footing just to be ready.
The need to reassure our allies is just as important as the need to deter our potential adversaries. It is especially important in order to further rebuild the trust that was eroded during the Trump administration when Trump would never miss an opportunity to denigrate our alliances, crap all over our allies, and suck up to the leaders of hostile powers and potential peer competitors. Usually all at the same time. Remember, Trump, as he was scheming to bring his autogolpe to successful fruition also ordered Acting Secretary of Defense Miller to pull all of our military personnel out of Germany by the end of January 2021. It is understandable if you had forgotten this. I can assure you that our allies and partners certainly have not forgotten. Reassurance, like deterrence, also helps to manage and mitigate risk.
The third and final reason I made the suggestion is that a lot of people are throwing around that what President Biden and his team are proposing is to small a response, but they rarely put down specifics. Some of this is because the people making the criticisms are just criticizing in order to criticize. Some just don’t have the expertise and experience to name specific elements in specific amounts. I am not criticizing just to criticize. I have either worked on or closely followed this problem set since January 2014. I have spent a lot of time thinking about what might be necessary, in terms of troop deployments, to give us a successful warm start if Putin decided he really wanted to challenge the US and NATO. I’m not just making lists to make lists.
For instance, there’s a reason I’ve got Civil Affairs built into this. Specifically because they’ve been working, albeit slowly due to a variety of constraints, to reconstitute their historic mission from World War II: military support to government. And the reason I named this specific Civil Affairs brigade is that among its leadership is the colonel that did the vast, vast majority of the concept development to bring this important and historic capability back. No one knows it better. And I know this because I was the subject matter expert assigned to assist him by his commanding officer at the time. This wasn’t just: I’ll throw some CA bubbas in so they’re not left out. The same thing with the PSYOP teams. Yes, as I’ve indicated several times, I’ve done work with the Army PSYOP community over the years, but given that Russian military doctrine is to never begin kinetic operations until the theater has been prepared through psychological and information operations, it would make sense to put the tactical PSYOPers where they can do the most good. I will suggest, with a day’s worth of reflection, that they should go to Estonia, which has worked very hard to build an effective counter-PSYOP capability.
We can fairly quickly lay on an extended war game with our NATO and non-NATO allies, similar to what the Russians are doing with the Belarusians, and conduct the deployment within that dynamic. But, regardless, having the capabilities in place to respond if necessary is always better than not having them when you need them.
Just one final point, as Gin & Tonic pointed out in a comment to BettyC’s post on Ukraine earlier today, this thread is spot on! Specifically the author’s discussion of the reality that for Ukraine, they are and have been at war with Russia, what the author refers too as permanent war, since at least 2014.
7/ The real takeaway for those who would help Ukraine is to understand this reality and how to respond to it, which is to adopt a permanent opposition to Kremlin goals on every front, civilian and military, and every slice of "grey zone" in between.
— Edward Hunter Christie (@EHunterChristie) January 28, 2022
This is why I have been saying, over and over and over, and will continue to do so, since I began writing on the front page here that we are at war. It may not be a kinetic war. It may not be a lethal war. Or, at least not always, but we are and have been at war with Russia since at least 2014 and most likely since late 2011/early 2012. Putin and the Russians certainly think so and have acted accordingly for the past 8 to 11 years. It would behoove us to finally begin to take this to heart and act accordingly.
I’ll leave it there.
Open thread!
Adam L Silverman
I’m going to go watch a rugby match or a movie or something. I’ll check back in later.
Chetan Murthy
Thank you, Adam. I still remember and appreciate your observation after the 2016 Apocalypse, that Putin had managed a “decapitation strike” against our government, at minimal cost and with basically no blowback. Many of us laughed when Rmoney [sic] said Russia was our greatest adversary in 2012. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but still: he was right about that, as we all learned to our detriment.
Omnes Omnibus
FWIW I am most persuaded by your second argument. The damage done to long term relationships by Trump is huge. My original thoughts were that the 8500, which MilTwitter suggests in getting expanded to include armor, would be enough because, at this point it is largely a symbolic showing of support rather than a credible defensive force. We probably need more people and equipment being moved to be a credible symbol than we once did.
Benw
Thanks for the write up. I’m going to go finish watching Predator because I’m a huge sucker for 80’s action cheesefests.
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: The old term used to be “tripwire”. If that doctrine doesn’t work any more, then we’re in big trouble.
Cheers,
Scott.
StringOnAStick
@Omnes Omnibus: This was an “aha” for me too, we need to do this just because tRump did so much to fracture these alliances and make the US appear to be unreliable. Putin is having a hissy fit because he lost his golden boy who was doing such a good job of destroying the US, and now he’s pissed likely because the investigations are getting down to some real meat and bone now. He’s been in Ukraine for years, but now the US isn’t led by an idiot who would let him get away with even more.
I also have to wonder if another reason why what you propose needs to happen is to find out how many more Gen. Flynn’s do we have embedded in our military, and what they are thinking and planning at this moment as well. That loon was very high in our military and government, and the more we find out about him the scarier it is to think of how many more are in there who are just like him.
Omnes Omnibus
@Another Scott: Yes, I was in a tripwire unit back in the Cold War. Our job was to provide artillery support to 2ACR if the Soviets came through the IGB at Hof. Cole was with the 11ACR at Fulda doing the same job. We were essentially speedbumps. In exercises, we lasted less than a day and were considered to have done our job well.
planetjanet
@Adam L Silverman: I am getting together my Six Nations fantasy rugby league. Would you have any interest in joining?
Omnes Omnibus
@planetjanet: Shouldn’t it be a union? Just saying.
planetjanet
@Omnes Omnibus: LOL. Just quoting Guinness which calls it a private league. As always, my heart is with Scotland, but France is calling to me. I am excited that Romain Ntamack will be back in fine form.
Another Scott
Adam – Thanks for this.
I continue to think that “war” is the wrong term. Our total relations with Russia are better than during the “Cold War“, but not as good (in many ways) as they were during WWII. Much more trade, travel, free flow of information, and all the rest since the USSR imploded.
Yes, Putin is a monster. Yes, he is trying to break the international order. Yes, we need to find better ways to counter his malevolent actions. Many have argued the same about Xi, also too.
You might get me on board if you find the right flavoring word to go with it. Maybe there’s a good Ukrainian word that works (ala the old Glasnost and Perestroika). Dunno.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Gin & Tonic
I really appreciate the level of attention these issues have been getting on this blog.
Omnes Omnibus
@planetjanet: I will always take France in these. Ntamack and Dupont are probably the best pairing at halfback in the world.
Gin & Tonic
@Another Scott: Glasnost is a Russian word. There’s a good Ukrainian word: протистояння, which translates as standing in opposition.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: 54 years ago this week was the Blue House Raid and the Pueblo “Incident” and Tet 68 started January 31. We were totally under-strength and had a basic load for our small arms and 105’s. Like you we were nothing but a tripwire and the North Korean Army was right across the Imjin.
Eggbert
https://www.fgbradleys.com/rules/Stratego.pdf
Mike in NC
Best river cruise we ever did was the Blue Danube: Prague, Vienna, and Budapest plus several other places (2010). Best ocean cruise was the Baltic Sea in 2014 with visits to London, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, St Petersburg, Tallinn, and Visby (Sweden).
LongHairedWeirdo
Ooh, early open thread! Maybe people will read and have fun with this.
To the tune of a strangely, horrifyingly appropriate song The Ballad of Gilligan’s Island
Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale,
a tale of a hateful war,
that started in a magic boat,
that once was sailed by thor. (ed: Thanos really sucks.)
The mate was a mighty wimp blow hard,
The Tguy was a fool
They ran and seized the pre si den cy,
Since they were grifting tools. Since they were grifting tools.
(
(sound like TFG’s bowels getting in an uproar – or, “thunderFX” which is *far* quieter and much less disgusting.)
The hatred started getting rough,
America was tossed!
If not for the courage of the people who care,
the nation could be lost; the nation could be lost!
This nation ended up in a hate filled hell,
deception and some lies (ed: you *can* make it scan… sometimes.)
With Pencyl man,
The moron too;
the billionaires…no one else!
The reality star….
we’re gonna kick their naughty butts! here on…
Damn. Gilligan means well, but he’s a disaster magnet. New set Ideas?
Another Scott
@Gin & Tonic: I’m sorry I wasn’t clear, and I was afraid that it wasn’t clear when I wrote it.
I meant that there might be a Ukrainian modifier for “war” that could be used as shorthand the way “Glasnost and Perestroika” was used to talk about changes in Russia way back when.
Конфлікт без війни (Konflikt bez viyny)??
Dunno.
Thanks.
[eta:] протистояння (protystoyannya) is a good candidate!
Cheers,
Scott.
(“Who cannot speak or read Ukrainian.”)
Omnes Omnibus
@Eggbert: Come on, at least give us credit for Risk.
smedley the uncertain
@Another Scott: ?
Another Scott
@smedley the uncertain: translate.google.com is my friend.
;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
Yutsano
@Gin & Tonic: @Another Scott: It’s funny when I Google that word and the results that first come up are a Stephen King novel. Which fits the Ukrainian situation well. Or the world situation. I don’t know any more.
planetjanet
Curses on whomever told me about Word Master.
Aziz, light!
Adam, do you think the Pentagon is advising Biden to do what you are advocating, or might his current posture reflect their views instead? How might we determine which?
Denali
Adam,
What should be the role of Hungary in all this. They are a member of NATO. But Orban is close to Putin. Are they choosing the wrong side again?
Snarki, child of Loki
Russia invades Ukraine?
Take Kaliningrad.
Yutsano
@Snarki, child of Loki: RESTORE KÖNIGSBERG TO THE PRUSSIAN EMPIRE!!!
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: That should motivate all Germans over 95.
Another Scott
AtlanticCouncil.org:
Interesting.
(via a story at TheHill)
Cheers,
Scott.
debbie
I can’t imagine not being in permanent opposition to Putin. And his current demands are Kim Jong-un—level nuts. I don’t think he’s doing himself any favors if he’s looking to become a world leader.
Kent
This sounds like one of those things where the optimal solution isn’t the politically possible solution.
Exactly like Covid. We could have squelched Covid in February 2020 in about 2 weeks by a universal planetary lockdown. And here in the US there are far more scientifically optimal ways of combatting Covid than we have been doing. But they aren’t politically possible or viable.
I suspect as much as Biden might want to mobilize half of NATO (and I’m not convinced he does) that doesn’t seem a politically viable alternative given politics here in the US and across Europe. So they will take the suboptimal approach of trying to deal with Putin without massive mobilizations.
Kent
Adam:
I’m curious if there would be a very “real politik” train of thought in the the Pentagon or amongst some Russia hawk types that simply ignores the humanitarian disaster that would be a full blown invasion of Ukraine and says “just let the Russians invade and we will bleed them to death of their blood and treasure over the next 10 years by pouring arms into Ukraine and turning it into a meat grinder. Russia’s economy is smaller than Texas or Canada. How long could they sustain that sort of effort without collapsing their economy?
And would Russia have close to enough troops to defend 1000 miles of pipeline across Ukraine that is its biggest source of hard currency? I would think that would be target #1 for any sort of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalist insurgency. How hard would it be for small bands of insurgents to sabotage a pipeline?
Omnes Omnibus
@Kent: Even the most steely-eyed of Realists would have to know how badly that would play among the more recent members of NATO.
Another Scott
@Kent:
Gen. Eric Shenseki on 2/25/2003 answering Sen. Carl Levin’s question about how many troops would be needed to occupy Iraq (2:04)
Iraq’s population in 2003 was around 26M.
Ukraine’s population in 2022 is around 41M.
HTH!
Cheers,
Scott.
Yutsano
@Another Scott: His forced resignation for being a truth teller still rankles me to this day.
Mike in NC
@Another Scott: Iraq clearly needs a complex of Planned Parenthood. I recall reading that getting sent to the Green Zone depended on being an anti-abortion fanatic.
Kent
For who?
I would think watching Russia invade and demolish a non-NATO country on its border would tend to confirm the wisdom of having joined NATO and it would also consolidate European opinion against Russia.
Would endless Russian atrocities in Ukraine and millions of refugees streaming west strengthen or weaken the hand of Russian-friendly right wing parties in places like Poland and Hungary?
Adam L Silverman
@planetjanet: I do not know. I am not opposed, but I’ve never done a fantasy team type of thing. Shoot me an email via the contact a front pager link and we can discuss offline. Thank you for thinking of me!
Another Scott
@Yutsano: Yup. When people are punished for telling the truth and giving their best professional advice, bad things happen. :-(
There’s a well known ratio of troops to population:
Putin would need on the order of 41E6/50 = 820,000 troops to occupy and pacify Ukraine – probably many more.
That’s why I worry that if he decides to undertake additional military action, he’ll use artillery and break things (and kill people) rather than try to take over the country and occupy it. And then sue for peace on his terms, try to install Yanukovych-II, hope for NATO to get wobbly, etc.
Just because the country is too big to conquer doesn’t mean that he cannot try to do immense damage.
With luck, the united NATO response and clear messaging that he will pay a heavy price will convince him not to go forward.
Cheers,
Scott.
Adam L Silverman
@Another Scott: I’ll endeavor to consult a thesaurus before my next post.
Adam L Silverman
@Gin & Tonic: You are welcome.
Adam L Silverman
@Aziz, light!: I have no idea. I have no contacts with anyone involved in dealing with this.
Adam L Silverman
@Denali: Hungary, despite being an EU and NATO member, needs to be walled off from all of this. And they need to be surveilled to make sure they don’t provide Putin another avenue to attack the EU and NATO.
Omnes Omnibus
@Kent: I don’t think that our willingness to just let a country on their borders turn into a meatgrinder without doing something about it would sit well. Our commitment to NATO needs a bit of shoring up (( know Ukraine isn’t in NATO). Plus all those refugees? It may not work out the way you think. And conflicts don’t always stay neatly within borders.
I tend to think that just letting a war happen between to industrialized countries in Europe is a bad idea. But then a lot of my views on foreign policy were crystalized by Bosnia and Rwanda. I would rather stop horrors before they start. YMMV.
Suzanne
@Adam L Silverman: I am interested in why you feel this is the best course of action regarding Hungary. Can you elaborate at some point? Gracias.
Omnes Omnibus
@Another Scott: Of course, Putin will use artillery. And the way Russians use it is not meant to be precise and accurate, it is massive and overpowering. You don’t have to be particularly good with it if you had massed of it and don’t really care about collateral damage.
Adam L Silverman
@Kent: I’m very worried about the humanitarian component to this, which is part of the reason I think we need to move Civil Affairs assets into theater.
I don’t talk about these things here because it is none of anyone’s business, but in this case I will because it provides context. I’m doing volunteer work with the agency where I live that is handling the resettling of the Afghan refugees. Among other things I’ve been providing them subject matter expertise on Afghan culture, religion, things like that. Most of the material is derived from stuff from when I was on civilian mobilization orders with the Department of the Army as the Cultural Advisor at USAWC. They handed me off to the state agency that coordinates all of this between the various not for profits helping as the state folks need the same type of cultural orientation. The woman running that for the state folks and I had a discussion last week that I’d seen nothing that indicates anyone – not the EU, not NATO, not us here in the US – are doing anything to prepare for humanitarian crisis that will need to be addressed if Putin reinvades/further invades Ukraine. Let alone if that conflict then spreads.
I’m sure the Pentagon has planners on it. I’m sure USAID’s Department of People, Refugees, and Migrants has their planners on it. But I’d expect to see resources moving into the EU and around the EU and nothing is being reported that that is happening.
The reason we have Green Berets doing FIDs with the Ukrainians and preparing them for Unconventional Warfare is to do exactly as you suggest. Turn it into a meat grinder.
As for the pipelines, if I was advising the Ukrainians, they’d be the first things to be secured and if they couldn’t, then they’d be on the high priority targeting list. If things get sporty, one way or another those pipelines are not going to be left alone.
Adam L Silverman
@Mike in NC: I’m getting ready to rack out, but ask me about that some time. I can actually confirm that was the case.
Adam L Silverman
@Suzanne: Orban cannot be trusted. Until or unless Hungary changes their government and the course that government has set them on, they need to be viewed as an untrustworthy and unfaithful ally. This applies to Turkey too, because of Erdogan and his government.
Suzanne
@Adam L Silverman: I can’t imagine Hungary not knowing that they’re only safe because of NATO, but I’m su you’re right.
Adam L Silverman
@Suzanne: George Soros personally paid for Orban’s education and helped get him set up and started in politics. Orban, solely for his personal gain, has turned himself into an anti-Semite and made the man who made his actual career possible into the diabolic villain lurking behind anything and everything that has ever been wrong in Hungary. Orban will do or say anything to maintain his power and extend it. He cannot and should not be trusted.
Adam L Silverman
And with that, I’m going to rack out. Everyone who may be experiencing bombogenesis or the effects of it, stay safe and warm.
Omnes Omnibus
Orban, no?
Suzanne
@Adam L Silverman: Must be why Tucker Carlson and Rod Dreher love him so much.
Yutsano
@Adam L Silverman: Agreed on Erdoğan. He has enough of a both sides game playing out in Syria between Russia and Turkiye* that he will be too unreliable a partner in this endeavour. Hopefully he and the Turkish military stay the hell out of all of this.
*Countries are allowed to change names, but seriously? Although I do like Czechia. Much less klutzy on the tongue.
Kent
I’m with you 100%. Understand that I was not myself arguing for a hands-off course of action and just letting the Russians create their own Vietnam or whatever. I was just wondering if there was an anti-Russia element in the defense establishment who might argue, at least devil’s advocate, that letting Russia destroy it’s economy and world standing in Ukraine might not be such a bad result.
slybrarian
@Adam L Silverman:
This is one of the things that confuses me a lot about the response from Germany, and to a lesser extent other non-border EU nations. Places like Germany and Greece have been throwing fits about Syrian refugees (and Italy and France about Libyan/African ones) for more than a decade. Syria is half the size of Ukraine and hundreds of miles from the EU with a sea in the way. Ukraine is right there next to Poland. I can’t imagine Germany would be much more welcoming of Ukrainians, given the still-present racial and sectarian issues, but Germany acts like if Kyiv gets shelled everyone’s just going to stay home.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: Yes, I mean Orban. Thanks for catching that, I’ve fixed it. Like I said, I’m ready to rack out.
Adam L Silverman
@slybrarian: I don’t have a good answer for you on this. I honestly don’t even have a bad one. I am as confused by it as you.
Omnes Omnibus
@Kent: And I think that Realists would have to recognize what I said in my first paragraph.
patrick II
@Mike in NC:
Where did you book those? Do they have tour names?
Soprano2
@patrick II: I can’t answer for him, but we took a 2 week Viking river cruise in 2015 that was the Rhine, the Mein and the Danube, so we saw the cities he mentioned. We loved it; the ships were nice, and the crew was first-rate. It’s for an older crowd; I was 54 when we went, and I was one of the younger passengers there. That was one of the nice things, no kids. There are several companies that do those cruises, they’re probably similar.
Morzer
I think that Putin began by bluffing and seeing what he could extract from a frightened Europe in return for not doing something that he did not essentially want to do. So far, he’s got nothing, which is why he’s making more menacing gestures and noises, while forcing the US to the negotiating table so that he can pose as the great master of destiny, for domestic consumption at any rate.
I don’t believe he wants to invade, because an actual war opens him up to all sorts of negative consequences and outcomes, while yielding a relatively low return. He clearly can’t hold Ukraine down militarily over the long term and a short, failed occupation is going to put him back pretty much where he began with an even more hostile Ukraine on his doorstep.
My guess is that he thought there was a good chance of “maximum pressure” extracting something substantial from Ukraine while Europe and the Americans dithered and uttered indignant noises. That clearly hasn’t worked and the question is whether Putin has gone too far to turn back emptyhanded. Is he a good enough player of the game to step back from the table in return for some soothing noises that he can sell to his luckless people as a Great Patriotic Triumph? Are Biden and the Europeans able to find a way to let the Great and Powerful Mr. Vladimir climb down? If he is and they are, this doesn’t have to end in tears.
Soprano2
Hey, can someone delete my extra comments? The site was hanging up on me, I guess that’s why it happened. I refreshed a couple of times and didn’t see it, then suddenly it was there 3 times.
Morzer
@slybrarian: When people are trying very hard not to think about their potential problems it’s almost impossible to get them to acknowledge that those problems might, in fact, exist. Germany is currently coasting along while clinging to the belief that this is the best of all possible worlds and we our Garten cultivate must. That’s part of why Merkel lasted so long, despite not being a particularly effective Kanzlerin. She was soothing, projected calm and didn’t scare the horses. You can get a long way with that affect in German politics.
Mike G
Trump, as he was scheming to bring his autogolpe to successful fruition also ordered Acting Secretary of Defense Miller to pull all of our military personnel out of Germany by the end of January 2021.
Sep 2020 — Former Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who was National Security Council’s Ukraine expert, rejected the idea that the Russians are blackmailing or otherwise using leverage to get President Trump to toe the Russian line. Why? Because they don’t have to.
“In the Army we call this ‘free chicken,’ something you don’t have to work for — it just comes to you. This is what the Russians have in Trump: free chicken.”
Sloane Ranger
It’s not just about Ukraine. Putin’s actions need to be looked at in the round. At the same time as he’s massing troops on Ukraine’s borders, the Russian navy is playing war games off the coast of Ireland, which is also not that far from the south west coast of England. To an observer, it certainly looks like he’s trying to ratchet up tensions rather than calm them. Whether this is him just swinging his dick, as I believe you Americans say, or whether there is some strategic purpose to the placing of a fleet there I don’t know. I’m not a military expert, but it seems to me that the Russian fleet is well located to threaten our coast or to play merry hell with US Navy forces trying to cross the Atlantic.
Subsole
@Gin & Tonic: How is that pronounced? (Edit: never mind, Comrade Scott got me covered!)
@Kent: Gonna go on a limb and say strengthen, simply because massive dislocations tend to make people scared, which makes them a lot more susceptible to conservative propaganda. As a very loose, general rule.
Subsole
@Morzer: I am wondering what effect Covid will have on all of this. How vulnerable are troops in camp to spreading infections?
Covid is, from what I hear, absolutely hammering Russia at the moment – and unlike us, they don’t really have great vaccines to protect themselves.
Dude’s military strength might be crumbling already, without shots being fired. Dunno.
@Sloane Ranger: I mean, it sounds ridiculous, but maybe he’s doing all this to remind his people he has an army? Pure domestic consumption? I mean, I’d just throw a parade, but people are built different…How happy are Russians with life in Russia?
aretino
stångor?
/pedantic
Sloane Ranger
@Subsole:
I suspect we over-estimate the effect of COVID-19 on Russian military thinking. The troops will be, by definition, young and fit, therefore the least likely to show serious symptoms or even any symptoms at all. If COVID-19 doesn’t affect their operational effectiveness, why take any notice of it at all? If they spread it among the Ukrainian population, or even bring it back home, I suspect that’s aprice Putin’s willing to pay. It’s not as if its under sort of control in Russia at the moment.
Plus, remember WWI continued blithely on its way, despite the Blue Flu epidemic!
WaterGirl
@Sloane Ranger: Putin aims to sow chaos anywhere and everywhere he can.
Chris Johnson
I strongly agree with this. There may be differences over ‘what to do about it’ or ‘what kind of messaging best brings about an appropriate reaction to it’, but fundamentally I see this take as obvious truth.
I think the way things are handled in an open war being waged primarily through propaganda, subversion and media manipulation is significant, important. The bottom line, though, is that Russia is waging war to the best of its ability. I would say all this IS the best they got: otherwise they would be doing more. They are not holding back in any meaningful sense: they can’t, they’d fail completely. It’s pretty amazing what they’re pulling off given their great deficiencies.
MinuteMan
@Another Scott: A tripwire would require troops in Ukraine not in a neighbor.
Another Scott
@MinuteMan: I was referring to tripwires of US troops in NATO countries. Adam’s discussion of movements of troops, etc., was all into NATO countries – Ukraine doesn’t want US troops, and AFAIK, nobody is seriously talking about sending US troops there. (Advisers, small Special Forces groups, excepted, of course.)
If small contingents of Americans in harm’s way in NATO countries aren’t sufficient deterrence to convince VVP that he shouldn’t invade them, then we’re in big trouble (because the days of a 10M men US Army are long gone and not coming back).
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
catfishncod
I hope Adam is still monitoring this thread; if not I will raise my points again on a later post.
I think there is a disconnect here between maximizing options (vs risk of intentional war against NATO or declared neutrals) and maximizing diplomatic leverage (vs risk of accidental war).
The complete deployment list Adam provides is meant as a robust defense of the NATO frontier: the line from Narva, Estonia, around the Balkans; between Bialystock and Brest, down to Wlodawa where the west border of Ukraine abuts the political Europe; and presumably to deter any wandering of invading Russian elements towards Slovakia, Hungary, or Romania. To us, that clearly sends the message “we are taking your talk of invasion seriously.” There is a diplomatic opportunity cost inherent in such a robust deployment — it means we are acting as if Russia is a great-power threat to NATO.
But also risks the cross-wired but plausible interpretation — in actual Russian high command deliberations, not just in propaganda — that NATO is willing to counter-invade in case of a second kinetic front being opened against Ukraine. Rather than deter, it could backfire and increase Russian momentum.
Another diplomatic factor to consider is the temperature of each member of the Alliance on whom troops are to be deployed. The front-line nations — the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Romania — are not going to mess around. (Hungary is a question-mark; Orban may believe he has a free pass.) The Germans are standing in solidarity with the rest of the alliance… but as far back in the pack as possible. Since the most established heavy-duty deployment mechanisms are based in Germany this might pose a problem.
A much lesser consideration is that the Russian propaganda machine — of which I must consider the presumed-sophont entity styled “Tucker Carlson” a component — will declare that this is exactly the preparations for NATO to first-strike the Motherland that they’ve always been crowing about. I include this mainly for the possible home front sabotage that might result.
The posture we are taking seems to indicate a presumption on the part of SHAPE, Washington, and Brussels that the preparations being observed are seen as committed to a Ukraine deployment (possibly via Belarus) and not easily or quickly converted into an anti-NATO strike force. I have no idea if this is accurate.
My questions then are:
1) How much of this deployment list is a package deal? I recognize that the heaviest elements would need the most lead time, but they are also the most problematic from any other angle. Can it be stratified?
2) As a first stab at stratification — it seems to me that the Civil Affairs and PSYOP deployments ought to be made no matter what other scenarios are in play… which makes me wonder…
3) Can those units be deployed covertly? Could they have been already? Would there be utility in doing so?
4) Naval assets are also much more readily re-tasked, even if they are slow to move and opportunity costs lurk around every choke point. Could we achieve a portion of the readiness posture advocated mostly by deployments to the Irish offshore economic zone, the Baltic (or at least the North Sea), and the Black Sea (or at least the Dardanelles)?
I’m just trying to see options between “full throttle” and “you peacenik fools”…