6 ms·

there are already NATO battalions in Latvia and Lithuania. Albania, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain contrib

there are already NATO battalions in Latvia and Lithuania. Albania, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain contribute to the Canadian-led battlegroup in Latvia; Belgium, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway provide contributions to the German-led battlegroup in Lithuania; France and Iceland contribute to the UK-led battlegroup in Estonia; and Croatia, Romania and the United Kingdom are part of the US-led battlegroup in Poland. etc. it's so funny how many people comment without knowing anything about NATO or EU

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
[dead]
scottLobster 5y ago
The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members. I hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit, and they probably don't give that much of a shit about Latvia. Who's going to step into that gap for NATO? Poland recently ran a military exercise simulating a war with Russia that was, in the words of one of the Generals managing it, "worse than 1939". In the simulation the Polish forces held out for less than a week. Meanwhile attempts for an ex-US EU military organization are little more than vague proposals, in part because the EU started out as a peace project and, frankly, much of Europe isn't used to seriously worrying about its military security (the most notable exceptions being France, the UK, Sweden and Finland, perhaps Greece but they have other issues). Some NATO members ran out of bombs during the freaking Libya campaign. They've been under the US umbrella for more than a generation, in some cases 2 or 3 generations. Honestly I'm not sure Europe can fight these days. It certainly doesn't want to (and after the 20th century who can blame them?). Sure almost every European nation (Poland included) has some badass special forces. Too bad those won't be enough if Russia decides to act with impunity.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  How does MAD and France/UK nuclear arsenal fits into this ? It is my impression Russia (and maybe the EU but since I live in the EU I suppose we are the goodies) is waging an attrition small skirmishes war (don't really know what the end game is though).
- qwytw 5y ago
  What rational reason would Russia have to invade the Baltic States (or even for example Poland)? Even in best case scenario if the west does not directly intervene, they would get an additional few million people almost all of whom absolutely don't want to live in Russia and whom Russia could barely afford to police and a lot of additional economic sanctions. Also we're totally ignoring the internal political fallout (whatever their political views but I'm pretty sure most Russia would not support risking a full-scale war with the west).
  - deepsun 5y ago
    The reason is more territory. That is Russian never-ending external politics position, that's been followed through several centuries so far. Russia largely doesn't care about people as much as about territory.
    - qwytw 5y ago
      Why? Is Russia some sentient hive-mind?
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    Border security (same reason the Soviets held onto their gains), paranoia, and Putin needing an external enemy to galvanize his power. Plus they've taken the Crimea and effectively a large chunk of Ukraine with little effective pushback. They may believe that Europe and US lack the will for harsh punishments, particularly with Germany (among others) reliant on Russian natural gas. There are also a lot of ethnic Russians in the former Warsaw pact nations who might welcome a closer relationship. I can't speak to the will of the Russian people, but anti-western propaganda has been common there for well over a decade. If it's even been marginally effective they may be more geared up for conflict than people expect. Would you ask what rational reason China has to invade Taiwan?
neffy 5y ago
Nope... no battalions in Iceland.
- krf 5y ago
  Perhaps the comment was edited, but there is no wording in the current post that states battlegroups are in Iceland just that Iceland contributes to battlegroups in other countries.
  - neffy 5y ago
    Well... tis true that there is a mine clearing group to deal with the occasional mine that drifts in from the old WW2 mine fields in the North Atlantic. And they did send one of them over to participate in the Gulf War... https://www.icelandreview.com/news/iceland-featured-the-daily-show/ https://www.icelandreview.com/news/iceland-featured-the-dail... ...but there are still no battalions in Iceland. There isn't even a permanent US air base any more, they cleared out in the 2000´s.
skinkestek 5y ago
It is rather well known that the deployment of Nato soldiers to other Nato countries in peacetime serves more purposes than just training together and showing support. Russia knows well that if they do something on the borders of the eastern Nato countries they will anger not only that nation but they also risk killing young people from a number of other Nato countries at the same time, meaning that broad support for counter action will hopefully build very quickly compared to if only "some people in a former east block country got killed in an unfortunate accident" or "there was a border dispute" like in Ukraine. Some notes: - I support this. I am a trained soldier and if my country asks me I will come although I am old enough to realize it will hurt. I have read my history and history is not kind to pacifists - but see also my next point! - I absolutely do not like how Nato meddled in Afghanistan for about two decades. Defense allianse, not "attack alliance" or "do something vaguely good"-alliance is what I support. - I'm not sure if it will help in the short term. Russia is unpredictable and they are making a point of it. - On the other hand however maybe what we see is that it already works: Nato countries sees far less Russian aggression than Ukraine.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

[dead]

scottLobster 5y ago

The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members. I hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit, and they probably don't give that much of a shit about Latvia. Who's going to step into that gap for NATO? Poland recently ran a military exercise simulating a war with Russia that was, in the words of one of the Generals managing it, "worse than 1939". In the simulation the Polish forces held out for less than a week. Meanwhile attempts for an ex-US EU military organization are little more than vague proposals, in part because the EU started out as a peace project and, frankly, much of Europe isn't used to seriously worrying about its military security (the most notable exceptions being France, the UK, Sweden and Finland, perhaps Greece but they have other issues). Some NATO members ran out of bombs during the freaking Libya campaign. They've been under the US umbrella for more than a generation, in some cases 2 or 3 generations. Honestly I'm not sure Europe can fight these days. It certainly doesn't want to (and after the 20th century who can blame them?). Sure almost every European nation (Poland included) has some badass special forces. Too bad those won't be enough if Russia decides to act with impunity.

johnchristopher 5y ago
How does MAD and France/UK nuclear arsenal fits into this ? It is my impression Russia (and maybe the EU but since I live in the EU I suppose we are the goodies) is waging an attrition small skirmishes war (don't really know what the end game is though).
qwytw 5y ago
What rational reason would Russia have to invade the Baltic States (or even for example Poland)? Even in best case scenario if the west does not directly intervene, they would get an additional few million people almost all of whom absolutely don't want to live in Russia and whom Russia could barely afford to police and a lot of additional economic sanctions. Also we're totally ignoring the internal political fallout (whatever their political views but I'm pretty sure most Russia would not support risking a full-scale war with the west).
- deepsun 5y ago
  The reason is more territory. That is Russian never-ending external politics position, that's been followed through several centuries so far. Russia largely doesn't care about people as much as about territory.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Why? Is Russia some sentient hive-mind?
- scottLobster 5y ago
  Border security (same reason the Soviets held onto their gains), paranoia, and Putin needing an external enemy to galvanize his power. Plus they've taken the Crimea and effectively a large chunk of Ukraine with little effective pushback. They may believe that Europe and US lack the will for harsh punishments, particularly with Germany (among others) reliant on Russian natural gas. There are also a lot of ethnic Russians in the former Warsaw pact nations who might welcome a closer relationship. I can't speak to the will of the Russian people, but anti-western propaganda has been common there for well over a decade. If it's even been marginally effective they may be more geared up for conflict than people expect. Would you ask what rational reason China has to invade Taiwan?

neffy 5y ago

Nope... no battalions in Iceland.

krf 5y ago
Perhaps the comment was edited, but there is no wording in the current post that states battlegroups are in Iceland just that Iceland contributes to battlegroups in other countries.
- neffy 5y ago
  Well... tis true that there is a mine clearing group to deal with the occasional mine that drifts in from the old WW2 mine fields in the North Atlantic. And they did send one of them over to participate in the Gulf War... https://www.icelandreview.com/news/iceland-featured-the-daily-show/ https://www.icelandreview.com/news/iceland-featured-the-dail... ...but there are still no battalions in Iceland. There isn't even a permanent US air base any more, they cleared out in the 2000´s.

skinkestek 5y ago

It is rather well known that the deployment of Nato soldiers to other Nato countries in peacetime serves more purposes than just training together and showing support. Russia knows well that if they do something on the borders of the eastern Nato countries they will anger not only that nation but they also risk killing young people from a number of other Nato countries at the same time, meaning that broad support for counter action will hopefully build very quickly compared to if only "some people in a former east block country got killed in an unfortunate accident" or "there was a border dispute" like in Ukraine. Some notes: - I support this. I am a trained soldier and if my country asks me I will come although I am old enough to realize it will hurt. I have read my history and history is not kind to pacifists - but see also my next point! - I absolutely do not like how Nato meddled in Afghanistan for about two decades. Defense allianse, not "attack alliance" or "do something vaguely good"-alliance is what I support. - I'm not sure if it will help in the short term. Russia is unpredictable and they are making a point of it. - On the other hand however maybe what we see is that it already works: Nato countries sees far less Russian aggression than Ukraine.