NATO Announces It Will Triple Quick Reactionary Force to 40K Troops

[ArmyATC]

.

NATO Announces It Will Triple Quick Reactionary Force to 40K Troops


(

CNN)NATO announced late Wednesday it will triple the capacity of its Response Force to 40,000 troops.

"We have just taken another step forward in adapting NATO to our changed and more challenging security environment," Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in Brussels, Belgium.

In light of Russia's involvement in eastern Ukraine and Moscow's recent decision to upgrade its military, including its nuclear arsenal, NATO is "carefully assessing the implications of what Russia is doing, including its nuclear activities," Stoltenberg said.

Stoltenberg also said the alliance is "working on how to deal with hybrid threats, including through close cooperation with the European Union," the organization said.

The Response Force currently has 13,000 troops and a new Very High Readiness Joint Task Force -- also known as the Spearhead Force -- will have 5,000 troops.

NATO isn't engaging in Cold War-style tactics, Stoltenberg said.

"We do not seek confrontation, and we do not want a new arms race," he added.

The multinational alliance has been conducting several military exercises recently. One took place last week in Sweden, and Russia's foreign ministry on Monday accused NATO countries of "sliding into a new military confrontation with destructive consequences."

OK. I was unaware that the Spearhead Force was different from the Response Force. But NATO will triple the Response Force to 40K.

Of course, who will truly know the numbers and what percent will be the Spearhead Force versus the Response Force.

Notice Stoltrnberg had to tie this to Russia's modernization and 'nuclear activities'. Then in the same breath say 'we do not want a new arms race'? I guess the reasoning is, ' OK Russia, we can build up troops in these areas, but let's not start a new nuclear arms race...'

Well we don't get the only say in whether there will be a new arms race, Moscow does, too. Very strange to announce such a massive increase in this Response Force so publically, what does any one think?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/world/nato-troops/index.html

 

[jayfeather31]

.

NATO Announces It Will Triple Quick Reactionary Force to 40K Troops


(

CNN)NATO announced late Wednesday it will triple the capacity of its Response Force to 40,000 troops.

"We have just taken another step forward in adapting NATO to our changed and more challenging security environment," Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in Brussels, Belgium.

In light of Russia's involvement in eastern Ukraine and Moscow's recent decision to upgrade its military, including its nuclear arsenal, NATO is "carefully assessing the implications of what Russia is doing, including its nuclear activities," Stoltenberg said.

Stoltenberg also said the alliance is "working on how to deal with hybrid threats, including through close cooperation with the European Union," the organization said.

The Response Force currently has 13,000 troops and a new Very High Readiness Joint Task Force -- also known as the Spearhead Force -- will have 5,000 troops.

NATO isn't engaging in Cold War-style tactics, Stoltenberg said.

"We do not seek confrontation, and we do not want a new arms race," he added.

The multinational alliance has been conducting several military exercises recently. One took place last week in Sweden, and Russia's foreign ministry on Monday accused NATO countries of "sliding into a new military confrontation with destructive consequences."

OK. I was unaware that the Spearhead Force was different from the Response Force. But NATO will triple the Response Force to 40K.

Of course, who will truly know the numbers and what percent will be the Spearhead Force versus the Response Force.

Notice Stoltrnberg had to tie this to Russia's modernization and 'nuclear activities'. Then in the same breath say 'we do not want a new arms race'? I guess the reasoning is, ' OK Russia, we can build up troops in these areas, but let's not start a new nuclear arms race...'

Well we don't get the only say in whether there will be a new arms race, Moscow does, too. Very strange to announce such a massive increase in this Response Force so publically, what does any one think?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/world/nato-troops/index.html

This is a big move. Tripling? This is getting intense..

 

[matty1053]

Good Day,
Seriously? Dang! In my opinion, the US media outlets need to cover this more... rather than a flag. This is definitely eye opening and scary at the same time. Since, you know how Mr. Putin is; threaten US/NATO to some extent and do nothing. But 40,000 troops is a LOT... People don't think of it a lot; BUT it's a "Quick Reactionary Force". As, it will respond to anything within hours and be anywhere within hours. Has this stuff going on happened before in the Cold War 1? Is this quick reactionary force in Alaska at all? Since, It would seem "odd" for them ONLY to be located in Europe. I'm sure Russia would launch some attacks from it's east coast.

 

[AlbertGrand]

Good Day,
Seriously? Dang! In my opinion, the US media outlets need to cover this more... rather than a flag. This is definitely eye opening and scary at the same time. Since, you know how Mr. Putin is; threaten US/NATO to some extent and do nothing. But 40,000 troops is a LOT... People don't think of it a lot; BUT it's a "Quick Reactionary Force". As, it will respond to anything within hours and be anywhere within hours. Has this stuff going on happened before in the Cold War 1? Is this quick reactionary force in Alaska at all? Since, It would seem "odd" for them ONLY to be located in Europe. I'm sure Russia would launch some attacks from it's east coast.

After the immediate post-WW2 period, when I guess it felt like war with USSR could break out any moment, the first Cold War then evolved over the course of about 35 years to its most militarised and most dangerous point, 1983 (the Cruise Missiles/Able Archer period, even more dangerous than Cuba IMO).

This is like going from nothing to the levels of 1983 in the course of about 18 months. Or, even 4 months since the idea of the USA arming Ukraine first became a definite possibility outside the mind of John McCain.

Re Russia's East Coast, I doubt Russia's desire is per se 'to start a war with the US'. They surely really just want control of some of those countries that used to be in the USSR, like Ukraine and the Baltic States, and probably parts of Poland, Finland and Sweden that they historically recognize as Russian. So their first priority would be to do that. If they could get away with it without the USA becoming involved, I'm sure they'd leave America alone. So while I'm sure Alaska is part of a fall-back plan for both sides, the US-NATO strategy must be to stop part 1, ie Russia v the former Soviets, from evolving in the first place.

 

[Encyclopath]

Is this quick reactionary force in Alaska at all? Since, It would seem "odd" for them ONLY to be located in Europe. I'm sure Russia would launch some attacks from it's east coast.

I imagine all the NATO member states held a vote on the question of "Should we reinforce the European theater, or the north-western corner of Canada?" and we failed to get a majority on that.

 

[jayfeather31]

Is this quick reactionary force in Alaska at all? Since, It would seem "odd" for them ONLY to be located in Europe. I'm sure Russia would launch some attacks from it's east coast.

I imagine all the NATO member states held a vote on the question of "Should we reinforce the European theater, or the north-western corner of Canada?" and we failed to get a majority on that.

Somehow though I think all the troops in Europe though might convince Russia otherwise. We are essentially providing a hole in our defense, big enough for a company of men to fit through, to attack North America. Sometimes the best surprises are the ones that are completely expected.

 

[Encyclopath]

I was mostly kidding, but I don't see it as realistic that either power will ever directly attack the other without there being a terrifying escalation of military confrontations between protectorates and proxy states leading up to it.
There are a whole host of plausible scenarios where that could happen in Europe, giving the number of parties and treaties and interests and factions, and resources and routes and disputed claims, all crammed into one region.

The region around Alaska just doesn't have that complexity needed to manufacture the appearance of justifiable armed aggression.

Russian will never attack the US or Canada out of the blue. If that ever happens, then any further war planning is a waste of time and resources. It's game over for everyone, forever. I see almost no chance of that not becoming a large scale global nuclear exchange.

 

[jayfeather31]

I was mostly kidding, but I don't see it as realistic that either power will ever directly attack the other without there being a terrifying escalation of military confrontations between protectorates and proxy states leading up to it.
There are a whole host of plausible scenarios where that could happen in Europe, giving the number of parties and treaties and interests and factions, and resources and routes and disputed claims, all crammed into one region.

The region around Alaska just doesn't have that complexity needed to manufacture the appearance of justifiable armed aggression.

Russian will never attack the US or Canada out of the blue. If that ever happens, then any further war planning is a waste of time and resources. It's game over for everyone, forever. I see almost no chance of that not becoming a large scale global nuclear exchange.

Perhaps... but the real question is, when the troops are landing and you've got the man on the button, will the man push it? We've never had a situation in which we've had actual troops attacking another (as in an invasion of a NATO country or vice versa). Simply put, does a conventional invasion, or even a conventional invasion with the usage of one nuclear weapon as a surprise (so to speak) justify the complete usage of strategic nuclear weapons, even though both sides know the consequences of such an act (the firing of all strategic nuclear weapons)?

 

[ArmyATC]

I was mostly kidding, but I don't see it as realistic that either power will ever directly attack the other without there being a terrifying escalation of military confrontations between protectorates and proxy states leading up to it.
There are a whole host of plausible scenarios where that could happen in Europe, giving the number of parties and treaties and interests and factions, and resources and routes and disputed claims, all crammed into one region.

The region around Alaska just doesn't have that complexity needed to manufacture the appearance of justifiable armed aggression.

Russian will never attack the US or Canada out of the blue. If that ever happens, then any further war planning is a waste of time and resources. It's game over for everyone, forever. I see almost no chance of that not becoming a large scale global nuclear exchange.

Excellent points. The way I see it is this: The escalation in direct or proxy military activity is directly proportional to the escalation of economic warfare being played out right now of how the old world reserve currency starts transitioning into the new world reserve currency.

Either it's relatively smooth and TPTB learn how to integrate the two equitably, or one side wants it all.

If one side wants it all, then all the worse-case scenarios begin to escalate rapidly and uncontrollably... IMO

Either way, the US standard of living and military ability takes a hit. The damage can be mitigated by sharing, or be catastrophic by greed.

That's what things like tripling this Reaction Force and stories that are similiar in their posturing don't sit well with me. It seems like a collision course is being set instead of a new relationship being fostered.

 

[Encyclopath]

The damage can be mitigated by sharing, or be catastrophic by greed.

Good summary of the entire situation. This is the (possibly literally,) ultimate incarnation of the Tragedy of the Commons.

With all the faith that has been invested in game theory as a means to prevent nuclear war, the problem should be immediately obvious to both sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

[Encyclopath]

Simply put, does a conventional invasion, or even a conventional invasion with the usage of one nuclear weapon as a surprise (so to speak) justify the complete usage of strategic nuclear weapons, even though both sides know the consequences of such an act (the firing of all strategic nuclear weapons)?

To answer the question, here's an interesting paradox: No, it never does (justify that), but it will almost always result in that.
Between those two events (conventional invasion, and strategic exchange), there are countless escalation cascade chains that nearly all end up in strategic exchanges. But, the pace that those escalations occur in terms of actions -> reactions -> responses -> counter-responses occur on a very brief timescale, and that pace increases at a geometric rate with each new threshold crossed. As the pace of events continues accelerating, it will inevitably overtake the capabilities for command and control to make accurate assessments, to issue orders, and for units down the line to interpret and carry out those orders. In addition, it will likely overtake all of the procedural and technical safeguards put in place to prevent an unintended exchange. It's like seawater flooding over the bulkheads in a sinking ship.

ICBM warning is only about 30 minutes, but that's the best case without relying on some very unlikely human intelligence.
SLBM warning is what, 10-15 minutes warning?
IRBM launch-to-impact time in Europe is something like 8 minutes;
When hypersonic delivery systems are in play, which they may be already, that might be under 3 minutes

In the most perverse analogy I can think of, that's literally faster than making toast.

And remember, it only takes the failure of the safeguards and process of one side, and only one time, for both sides to then willingly commit to a full exchange.

Edit Not only willingly, but they (the individuals up and down the command execution chain) will then be obligated to do so by their respective doctrine, laws and protocols, and in many cases under pain of death or imprisonment for failing to do so.

 

[BadKarma]

... They really should work on the toast thing, though.

 

[ArmyATC]

Time is on Putin's Side

Putin for his part pledged to strengthen Russia's nuclear forces, the only genuine strategic card that Russia has left. And it plays well with the home crowd.

Nato is also committed to helping Ukraine improve its ability to defend itself, a process that will be likely to take a decade or more.

Recognizing that stability will take years to achieve under the best of circumstances, as there is a growing understanding that the crisis is larger than Ukraine.

Now the media is starting to finally see the big picture. It will take a decade or more to fix Ukraine? Don't think the situation inside Ukraine has that long to wait.

It's much bigger than Ukraine, this Rapid Force, etc. NATO will have to figure out how to cede more power to Russia without looking weak to the EU. And Greece will precipitate that process, IMO

What is the mood in East Europe, anyone?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33286950

 

[AlbertGrand]

Good Day,
Seriously? Dang! In my opinion, the US media outlets need to cover this more... rather than a flag. This is definitely eye opening and scary at the same time. Since, you know how Mr. Putin is; threaten US/NATO to some extent and do nothing. But 40,000 troops is a LOT... People don't think of it a lot; BUT it's a "Quick Reactionary Force". As, it will respond to anything within hours and be anywhere within hours. Has this stuff going on happened before in the Cold War 1? Is this quick reactionary force in Alaska at all? Since, It would seem "odd" for them ONLY to be located in Europe. I'm sure Russia would launch some attacks from it's east coast.

Your question set me off thinking... and doing some research on 'rapid reaction forces' from the first Cold War. A search of the Guardian archive reveals this from, hey, guess when, 1983... (aka Year of Living Dangerously)



So that's France ALONE, with 47,000 men in their RRF to work alongside NATO (as France had a kind of associate membership then). I'm trying to find out about similar units from other NATO countries, but I suppose the best thing we can take from this is not to blow the latest NATO announcement out of proportion... things are moving much quicker today, but as I said earlier, it's from a 'standing start', and not the slow progression from the immediate Post War era that characterised the last Cold War.

This is what NATO chaps are probably referring to when they say "we are not at Cold War levels yet..."

 

[ArmyATC]

This is what NATO chaps are probably referring to when they say "we are not at Cold War levels yet..."

Love the article archives! One point, if that's the measuring stick on old Cold War levels, we'll be at nuclear war before NATO admits there's a New Cold War

There's no money, no political will, and not enough time economically to get troop levels to what they were then.

But the mindset is the same, or worse, isn't it? At least it feels that way to me. At least then there was not such delusions and denial of realities going on

But the 47K does put this is a perpective of sorts. I would love to see the ratios versus today's increases per capita against the old levels. That would give us a better clue.

 

[AlbertGrand]

Love the article archives! One point, if that's the measuring stick on old Cold War levels, we'll be at nuclear war before NATO admits there's a New Cold War

There's no money, no political will, and not enough time economically to get troop levels to what they were then.

Putin doesn't agree!

But the mindset is the same, or worse, isn't it? At least it feels that way to me.

Worse. Back then, there was recognition of Soviet spheres of influence, so Hungary, Czech, Afghan and martial law in Poland, although opposed politically, were never going to be met with any active, overt military challenge. We don't know how Ukraine's going to pan out... Yes Obama and Cameron stated "we will not start World War 3 over Ukraine", but are really they in charge? NATO seems to have taken on a life of its own way outside the scope it had then.

At least then there was not such delusions and denial of realities going on

True. Open discussion of civil defence back then - in the US, you had the stickers with the yellow and black nuclear signs, directing people to the nearest fallout shelter... in the UK, sirens openly being installed within schools and other buildings, government distribution of the 'Protect and Survive' leaflet. The media dare not broach the subject now. It would cause panic.

But the 47K does put this is a perpective of sorts. I would love to see the ratios versus today's increases per capita against the old levels. That would give us a better clue.

Not much talk in those days about how much it was actually costing. The attitude, in complete contrast to today in most western countries, was 'we find the money'... all round, we were better prepared in the 80s, so probably better able to avoid catastrophe.

 

[ArmyATC]

But the mindset is the same, or worse, isn't it? At least it feels that way to me.

Worse. Back then, there was recognition of Soviet spheres of influence, so Hungary, Czech, Afghan and martial law in Poland, although opposed politically, were never going to be met with any active, overt military challenge. We don't know how Ukraine's going to pan out... Yes Obama and Cameron stated "we will not start World War 3 over Ukraine", but are really they in charge? NATO seems to have taken on a life of its own way outside the scope it had then.

Remember this oldie but goodie..


"

Again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine How best to approach this," Panetta replied. "Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues I think we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here." Sessions made it clear he was not pleased with what he heard. 

"Well, I'm almost breathless about that," the Alabama lawmaker replied. "Because what I heard you say is, we are going to seek international approval and then we'll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek Congressional approval. I want to say to you, that's a big deal, wouldn't you agree? You served in the Congress," he reminded Panetta, a U.S. representative from California from 1977-1993. "Wouldn't you agree that would be pretty breathtaking for the average American? So would you like to clarify that?"

Here's the SECDEF admitting NATO trumps Congress. Doesn't get more clear than that.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/8205-obama-adm-will-seek-international-permission-for-going-to-war

 

[Encyclopath]

(At least in the US,) the overall public attitude regarding nuclear weapons, strategic conflicts, and war in general is completely different today (and for the worse).
I don't think I'm overstating anything TOO much for comedic effect, but this describes most millennials pretty well:

- Nuclear weapons are things that Iran and terrorists might get, but unless you live in New York or LA, you'll be ok. The US only has them to keep them out of terrorists' hands
- Rockets are only for launching satellites, but this one time, they sent one to the moon.
- The concept of a global nuclear exchange seems almost completely absent in anyone under 30. The most recent pop culture media to feature the topic in a meaningful way came out in 1991. (Terminator 2, unless anyone can think of a more recent? [T3 and T4 don't count, I said meaningful])
- Major wars cost the lives of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of US soldiers and 3 pilots; they consist of 30 days of airstrikes, (live streaming, or maybe Netflix exclusive next time), followed by an armored motorcade to the capital city, and then a decade of counterinsurgency.
- Iraq is what it looks like to lose a war
- Libya is what it looks like to win a war
- White people don't go to war with other white people, unless they are nazis.
- We spend more on defense than is spent by every other country that has ever existed, combined; we need to cut it drastically. This will always be the case regardless of the amount.

In short, much of the population doesn't know enough to be worried, angry, or scared, and the reason the media never covers these issues has little to do with censorship, public manipulation, or control. It's because their audience thinks it is boring.

In the height of the cold war, one of the critical fail-safes in the feedback system that prevented unintended nuclear war was the public, with their outrage and sense of self preservation.

That's no longer the case today; it' s as if one of the launch keys is already inserted, turned, and snapped off.

Call Hollywood immediately; get me John Lithgow and that guy from Police Acadamy: We need to remake The Day After

 

[ArmyATC]

Kiev Continues Blockade of South

RT’s Murad Gazdiev reported from the town of Volnovakha in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region that Ukrainian checkpoints, dividing the war-torn region from the rest of the country, can see queues of up to five kilometres, in temperatures as high as 30C. A recent decree from Kiev has banned the transport of more than 50 kilograms of goods to the eastern territories, and only Swiss vans with humanitarian aid are able to pass the checkpoints with relative ease, according to Gazdiev.


“I’m a lawyer myself, and had a look at their new order: it forbids the transportation of petrol, and things like that. I understand why petrol, it could be used by military vehicles. But it also bans transporting medication. What do drugs have to do with war? People desperately need them,” a man, who wished to remain anonymous, told RT.

Over 6,400 people have been killed since Kiev’s anti-terror operation broke out last April in eastern Ukraine. A total of 1.35 million Ukrainians are now designated as internally displaced persons, according to UN estimates.

I know, it's RT. But these stories have been in western media, just a lot less. It still shows the level of hatred, desperation, and inhumane practices that undermine long term peace.

I'm keeping my eye on the fighting starting in Ukraine, not NATO or RF directly. By increasing the NATO and RF forces in the AO, I believe it's a pre positioning for when one side or the other finally says so what..

Kiev is the most probable, IMO, because they are the state actors and can be easily drawn into or start something and get blamed. But can anyone see a political solution under these circumstances?

Starving people off the land is not a political solution, BTW

http://rt.com/news/270139-ukraine-troops-operation-refugees/

 

[IrisFigg]

(At least in the US,) the overall public attitude regarding nuclear weapons, strategic conflicts, and war in general is completely different today (and for the worse).
I don't think I'm overstating anything TOO much for comedic effect, but this describes most millennials pretty well:

- Nuclear weapons are things that Iran and terrorists might get, but unless you live in New York or LA, you'll be ok. The US only has them to keep them out of terrorists' hands
- Rockets are only for launching satellites, but this one time, they sent one to the moon.
- The concept of a global nuclear exchange seems almost completely absent in anyone under 30. The most recent pop culture media to feature the topic in a meaningful way came out in 1991. (Terminator 2, unless anyone can think of a more recent? [T3 and T4 don't count, I said meaningful])
- Major wars cost the lives of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of US soldiers and 3 pilots; they consist of 30 days of airstrikes, (live streaming, or maybe Netflix exclusive next time), followed by an armored motorcade to the capital city, and then a decade of counterinsurgency.
- Iraq is what it looks like to lose a war
- Libya is what it looks like to win a war
- White people don't go to war with other white people, unless they are nazis.
- We spend more on defense than is spent by every other country that has ever existed, combined; we need to cut it drastically. This will always be the case regardless of the amount.

In short, much of the population doesn't know enough to be worried, angry, or scared, and the reason the media never covers these issues has little to do with censorship, public manipulation, or control. It's because their audience thinks it is boring.

In the height of the cold war, one of the critical fail-safes in the feedback system that prevented unintended nuclear war was the public, with their outrage and sense of self preservation.

That's no longer the case today; it' s as if one of the launch keys is already inserted, turned, and snapped off.

Call Hollywood immediately; get me John Lithgow and that guy from Police Acadamy: We need to remake The Day After

as a young person >25 I and living in the uk I am quite concerned that no-one I know takes the idea of war seriously. to my generation, one born after the cold war basicaly ended, war is something that doesn't realy effect us. out of a population of around 63,182,000 only 186,940 are service personell (numbers from wikepedia, maybee not entireley acurate.) but that means in general you don't even come across the family of someone in the military in general day to day life. no-one here in general discusses foreign affairs much, because either the toppic is a heavy one and does not fit into general small talk or no-one want's to seem stupid when anyone else knows more than they do. it's weird that we've been braught up in a climate where war on us isn't a possibility, and I think this is a very new thing. as far back as ww1 or futher british people have been affected in a quite significant way by war on a global feild, but now all of a sudden no-one even talks about it apart from activists etc. .