While I emphatically agree that Europe needs to rebuild conventional deterrence, there is an important layer of messaging that NATO members need to ensure is heard loud and clear. You provided the Estonian example in your article.
The message is this: If you cross our borders with little green men they will be killed or captured without hesitation. If you launch long range strikes that violate the sovereignty of any NATO member - even if you claim it was an accident - NATO will neutralize this threat. More importantly, NATO will follow up on such an "accident" by adopting a permanent policy of neutralizing all missiles and drones in Ukrainian (and possibly Belarusian, and Russian) airspace that are deemed a threat to NATO.
No Article 5 required in these cases. We know even small NATO countries have the capacity to interdict limited incursions of little green men, and NATO has already implemented a common air defence that, though somewhat limited, could be enhanced to support this kind of active deterence.
The Russians may have some cards to play, but not very many. If NATO makes consequences clear in advance, the need for the invocation of Article 5 becomes less urgent and makes testing it much more difficult.
Perhaps these are overly bold suggestions, but the time for prevarication is over. The Russian military command are cowards as are Putin and the rest of the Russian political leadership. For evidence, look no further than the senseless deaths of Russian service members by the hundreds of thousands, the commission of countless war crimes against civilian populations as a substitute for battlefield competence, and the increasing need for "beautiful reports" to provide an illusion of success for the chain of command and the wider world. In summary, the Russians have proven themselves to be excellent liars and bullies. There is no strength or virtue here - they live in a house of cards.
I don't see a nuclear question arising given a clear message and active deterrence on the part of NATO. A campaign of sabotage aimed at NATO members is a far more likely escalation and far more difficult to manage in free societies.
Wes, the likelihood of the conflict going nuclear are high, because Russia would struggle with any of the key NATO countries. Poland and Germany? Tough and both together? Russia is in a bind. The Nordic countries, especially Finland are tough. I wouldn’t want to fight Finns on their ground, no way.
Watching Russia trying to maneuver in Ukraine made me realize how badly they were prepared. Lousy maintenance and maintenance is the key factor along with logistics.
I was actually contemplating a video or article comparing Poland's military versus Russia's toe to toe (without NATO help) I actually think Poland would tear them apart, especially post Ukraine. The only big issue is Russia's air force is mostly intact, and massive. Poland's is relatively small in comparison.
I agree and the Poles would like nothing better than to make up for the occupation. The Air Force is a bit shallow the Germans would help with although they do have some readiness issues
Hey Bender! No. The UK retains full operational control of its nuclear weapons. Only the British prime minister can authorize a launch, and the United States has no veto or requirement to approve it. But I think there's an important distinction between operational independence and technological independence. Britain's Trident II missiles are manufactured in the US and maintained through a shared missile pool at Kings Bay, Georgia. The UK manufactures its own nuclear warheads and operates its own submarines and launch systems.
So Britain can independently launch its existing nuclear weapons, but it remains heavily dependent on American support for their long-term maintenance and replacement.
My worry in Lithuania would be the brigade just over the Russian side of the border turning the stolen land in Lithuania into a meat grinder with drones and artillery.
Yes. That’s certainly possible. Yet another Overton window stretching for me.
My father was trained for WW2 paratrooper action. He instinctively scoped out the defensibility of every town he visited. I guess we are full circle now.
Wes, I’d agree with your analysis for the previous USSR, but today there’s an addled desperate old man in charge. Britain and France’s nukes are in the “…and then we blow the world up” category. Russia has 2,000? tactical nukes for its Iskander’s. NATO ex-USA has ziltch. That ‘ratio imbalance’ fueled by Putin’s imperial dreams is a significant risk. Fortunately right now the chances of a small handful of nukes getting past the patriot interceptors is low, but if the Patriot magazines get completely drained and a Russian Baltic adventure goes sideways…well I wouldn’t trust that the Kremlin would do the right thing.
Look forward to your Poland vs. Russia article, but it should include all countries previously occupied by Moscow (including Finland which had a limited occupation). Those countries have a visceral memory,and they know if they “don’t hang together they will surely hang separately” (Benjamin Franklin).
While I emphatically agree that Europe needs to rebuild conventional deterrence, there is an important layer of messaging that NATO members need to ensure is heard loud and clear. You provided the Estonian example in your article.
The message is this: If you cross our borders with little green men they will be killed or captured without hesitation. If you launch long range strikes that violate the sovereignty of any NATO member - even if you claim it was an accident - NATO will neutralize this threat. More importantly, NATO will follow up on such an "accident" by adopting a permanent policy of neutralizing all missiles and drones in Ukrainian (and possibly Belarusian, and Russian) airspace that are deemed a threat to NATO.
No Article 5 required in these cases. We know even small NATO countries have the capacity to interdict limited incursions of little green men, and NATO has already implemented a common air defence that, though somewhat limited, could be enhanced to support this kind of active deterence.
The Russians may have some cards to play, but not very many. If NATO makes consequences clear in advance, the need for the invocation of Article 5 becomes less urgent and makes testing it much more difficult.
Perhaps these are overly bold suggestions, but the time for prevarication is over. The Russian military command are cowards as are Putin and the rest of the Russian political leadership. For evidence, look no further than the senseless deaths of Russian service members by the hundreds of thousands, the commission of countless war crimes against civilian populations as a substitute for battlefield competence, and the increasing need for "beautiful reports" to provide an illusion of success for the chain of command and the wider world. In summary, the Russians have proven themselves to be excellent liars and bullies. There is no strength or virtue here - they live in a house of cards.
I don't see a nuclear question arising given a clear message and active deterrence on the part of NATO. A campaign of sabotage aimed at NATO members is a far more likely escalation and far more difficult to manage in free societies.
Wes, the likelihood of the conflict going nuclear are high, because Russia would struggle with any of the key NATO countries. Poland and Germany? Tough and both together? Russia is in a bind. The Nordic countries, especially Finland are tough. I wouldn’t want to fight Finns on their ground, no way.
Watching Russia trying to maneuver in Ukraine made me realize how badly they were prepared. Lousy maintenance and maintenance is the key factor along with logistics.
I think a desperate Putin would go nuclear
I was actually contemplating a video or article comparing Poland's military versus Russia's toe to toe (without NATO help) I actually think Poland would tear them apart, especially post Ukraine. The only big issue is Russia's air force is mostly intact, and massive. Poland's is relatively small in comparison.
I agree and the Poles would like nothing better than to make up for the occupation. The Air Force is a bit shallow the Germans would help with although they do have some readiness issues
A piece on that would be interesting
Wes, is it still the case that the UKs nuclear force is under US control?
Hey Bender! No. The UK retains full operational control of its nuclear weapons. Only the British prime minister can authorize a launch, and the United States has no veto or requirement to approve it. But I think there's an important distinction between operational independence and technological independence. Britain's Trident II missiles are manufactured in the US and maintained through a shared missile pool at Kings Bay, Georgia. The UK manufactures its own nuclear warheads and operates its own submarines and launch systems.
So Britain can independently launch its existing nuclear weapons, but it remains heavily dependent on American support for their long-term maintenance and replacement.
Okay, thanks. I was a little confused about that. I hope no one tells Trump about that.
Lithuania can easily eject a couple hundred soldiers from 10sqkm.
More difficult is the Crimea scenario.
My worry in Lithuania would be the brigade just over the Russian side of the border turning the stolen land in Lithuania into a meat grinder with drones and artillery.
Yes. That’s certainly possible. Yet another Overton window stretching for me.
My father was trained for WW2 paratrooper action. He instinctively scoped out the defensibility of every town he visited. I guess we are full circle now.
Wes, I’d agree with your analysis for the previous USSR, but today there’s an addled desperate old man in charge. Britain and France’s nukes are in the “…and then we blow the world up” category. Russia has 2,000? tactical nukes for its Iskander’s. NATO ex-USA has ziltch. That ‘ratio imbalance’ fueled by Putin’s imperial dreams is a significant risk. Fortunately right now the chances of a small handful of nukes getting past the patriot interceptors is low, but if the Patriot magazines get completely drained and a Russian Baltic adventure goes sideways…well I wouldn’t trust that the Kremlin would do the right thing.
Look forward to your Poland vs. Russia article, but it should include all countries previously occupied by Moscow (including Finland which had a limited occupation). Those countries have a visceral memory,and they know if they “don’t hang together they will surely hang separately” (Benjamin Franklin).