THE MOMENTS OF MAXIMUM PERIL, diplomatically-speaking, are seldom the consequence of excessive strength. Strong states have little reason to fear their neighbours. It is, rather, perceptions of national decline and diminishing military strength that spur national elites towards diplomatic recklessness – and war.
How, then, should we interpret the news that in May 2017 the Nato alliance will be deploying an additional four battalions (approximately 4,000 troops) to Poland and the Baltic States? Is it a demonstration of strength: a firm “don’t mess with even the smallest of our member states”, directed at the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin; or yet further evidence of the West’s rising levels of anti-Russian paranoia?
On the face of it, Nato remains a very strong alliance – especially in relation to the military capability of the Russian Federation. According to an article authored by Ian Shields of Anglia Ruskin University and published in The Independent of 28 May 2016: “NATO is significantly larger than Russia in simple numbers: NATO has a total of 3.6m personnel in uniform, Russia 800,000; NATO 7,500 tanks, Russia 2,750; NATO 5,900 combat aircraft, Russia 1,571.”
But numbers aren’t everything, it’s what you do with them that counts. At the 1805 Battle of Austerlitz, the French Emperor’s, Napoleon Bonaparte’s, Grande Armée of 67,000 men outmanoeuvred and decisively defeated a combined Austrian and Russian force of 85,000. Imagination, daring and superior strategic thinking continue to play a vital role in diplomatic and military encounters.
In this respect the Russian leader has proved himself more than match for his European rivals. His willingness to use military force, both to advance and defend his country’s strategic interests, has reduced Nato to playing repeated games of catch-up and bluster. For the West’s political leadership Putin’s successes have been galling enough. For Nato’s generals, however, Russia’s strategic application of force has been a personal and professional humiliation. They are hungry for revenge.
The decision to deploy an additional 4,000 troops to Russia’s western borders has been undertaken in an attempt to both intimidate and deter Putin from contemplating a lightning-fast repossession of the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Nato knows that Russia’s massive army could roll over the Baltic states in a matter of hours. Its purpose in stationing troops there is not to halt any Russian advance, but to require Russia’s soldiers to engage American, British and Canadian troops on their way to the Baltic shore.
Applying the same process of cold deliberation that he used in relation to Georgia, the Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Putin must decide whether this “Cross the Latvian border and start World War III” threat is real, or just another example of Nato bluster. The generals may be willing to incinerate the world for Latvian independence, but what about the peoples of Western Europe? And, how willing would a President Trump, or Clinton, be to invite their own people’s annihilation by authorising a nuclear strike against Russia?
In Trump’s case, Putin is reasonably confident that the nuclear codes will not be activated for the Baltic States. He cannot be so sure about the hawkish Hillary Clinton. That being the case, it is not difficult to understand why Putin is deploying his cyber warriors against the Democratic Party’s candidate. It is just one more demonstration of Putin’s strategic daring – and yet another example of the West’s inability to come up with an effective response.
It is often argued (by the winners of World War I) that Germany was only willing to risk war with Russia in 1914 because its generals knew that given a few more years, and a few more French loans, the Russian “steamroller” would be utterly unstoppable. “If war is going to come in any case”, they are said to have reasoned, “better now than later.”
There are alarming echoes of these grim calculations in Nato’s most recent deployment. Faced with economic stagnation, diminishing military budgets, and increasingly restive populations, have the generals of Europe – and Britain in particular – come to the same doom-laden conclusion as the German General Staff of 1914.
“If we wait, then in a few years Nato will be both militarily and politically incapable of stopping Putin and the Russians from reconstituting their lost empire. Better now than later!”
This isn’t a show of strength, it is a suicide mission.
E X A C T L Y ! !
I haven’t looked at the numbers but there is no way NATO countries have even 4000 tanks
Sam they are probably those rubber blow up models Britain used during the last war to scare Germany away from invading Britain!!
NATO is just a scaring machine now, since they failed in the “Arab Spring” debarkle.
Now they are being used by Germany trying to show that the EU is still solidly together after Brexit.
Watch the truth on RT.
Putin is a Grand Master Chess layer that I have no doubt.
It’s a really simple strategy of his. All it is is to be nice. And every one is literally losing there shit.
The west need to learn to play it smart and be nice. And especially not bullshit in pre election promises and press statements.
The US has nearly 8000 main battle tanks in active service with a reserve of 4000 (idk the numbers deployed in Europe but the majority will be there
France has about 200,
Germany about 220
GB about 230
Greece has nearly a 1000!
Chris is correct
The US only has 2000 in active service. The rest are awaiting maintenance after getting chewed up in Iraq. They don’t make engines for them so rebuilds are a give in and takes ages.
UK-200ish
Jerry-200ish
France-100ish
Rest of Europ no more than 500.
Me Finding definitive numbers on short notice is difficult because I heard these secound hand from senate estimates and other finance minister please give me money for tanks committies.
And stand by my statement that NATO has no more than 4000 modern MBTs.
The US alone has over 3000 M1 Abrahams.
In a continental tank war the Russians have nothing that could stop them.
5 years ago we could have said that but you just have to look at what the pentagon is saying about Russia participation in Syria. Russia has proven it can sustain large high tempo formations using a variety of weapon system suck as the iskander missile, S300/400, cruise missiles, Sukhoi family of jets, bombers, submarines, air and navel logistics, troops and tanks and everything else inbetween, not to mention the Lightning assaults in Ukrain. I’m not saying all of this will win a shooting war with the west. What I am saying is they went from a third world military to a modern one literally in 6 mouths which is unprecedented. Just as a rule of thumb it’s taken the RNZAF 10 years to introduce the NH90 into full readiness. The NH90 could only be deployed on the Cantabury last year. All I’m sayin in this instance is that Russia has still got it and they ain’t mucking around.
Exactly and we need to get rid of war mongers and fear mongers and those who defend NATO. Journos who perpetuate and defend the war mentality need to be retiring soon.
TDB – This above comment was not in response to Sam or Andrew but AFEWKNOWTHETRUTH.
TDB please change it as it is not meant to be where it is.
It is misleading and not what was intended.
It’s all good where it is. Fuck war!
More nonsense from Trotter. It’s getting tiresome.
What annoys the hell out of me is that when we look back to 1950’s when USSR was the bad boy on the block and since then till the tearing down of the Berlin wall we lived in a must more harmonious world as we had no large Global aggressive Corporation’s or any real widespread Terrism then as we have now because there was a balance of power then between the “East and West”
This balance between “the free capitalist west and the Communist east had some sort of levelling effect on skirmishes much more effectively than we see today as rogue nations are seeking their own Nuclear arsenal.
Be careful what you wish for as the Corporate monsters don’t think of human tragedies of wars , just the profit that can be derived.
Perhaps we were better off when we and a “East & West” balance then?
THIS IS WHERE I SUBMITTED MY REPLY TO AFEWKNOWTHETRUTH.
In that case you need to read Chris’s article more carefully. Chris is not defending Nato – he is saying that the Nato Generals will say, “Better war now.”
Read it carefully, and correct your comment above.
Why in gods name would Russia want to “steamroll” over the Baltic States. It has enough on it’s plate, continuing to rebuild after being severely financially mauled by the 1990’s open slather capitalism and looting by every oligarch and foreign business under the sun, than to engender more greif with foreign wars of aggression – which is what that would be. Why do you think Russia has kept clear of the Eastern Ukraine states – it would cost a mint to get them back on their feet and Russia doesn’t need the headache.
“Putin is deploying his cyber warriors against the Democratic Party’s candidate” – and where is the proof of this, other than the standard Russophobic bleatings from the US government mouthpieces?
You’ve been watching too much Fox news, Chris!
Fantastic JONO 100%
Russia has risen from the ashes of a failed western attempt to takeover Russia by the greedy Global Corporates.
Read it again, Jon L. It is in the minds of Nato leaders that Putin may have such long-term intentions, and it is therefore the Nato leaders who will decide, “Better a war now.”
Chris is not saying that Putin will start a war – he is saying that Nato leaders may try to forestall him. Putin may invade the Baltic States, but only when he thinks he can get away with it -ie, without starting a war.
One thing that can not be underestimated is that the Russian emperor at the time of Napolean was just a boy not a general. Russia dose not have that problem now. When will the west learn to play the great game properly.
Um, Chris, I think these are Russia’s Western borders, and Nato’s Eastern borders, not Russia’s Eastern. (Japan, China, etc.)
An interesting analysis. I was in Europe in 1977, when all the scare stories were that if the balloon went up, swarms of Soviet tanks would overwhelm the West’s low numbers, and be on the banks of the Rhine in 3 days. Later I learned it was all bullshit – at least one third of the aging Soviet tanks were unserviceable and needing repairs… And the majority of Russian troops there were geared to keeping the Poles, Czechs etc under Soviet control, rather than leading to an unlikely invasion into Europe. Such an invasion was unlikely, because the Soviets were always aware that they had little chance at any time of beating the USA and its allies. Especially if it went nuclear, which it would if Soviets looked like winning conventionally.
But we in the West were constantly fed the big scare stories to justify pushing the arms race further – which eventually bankrupted the Soviets.
I doubt if Putin at present would contemplate taking on Nato while the USA is committed. Trump is the game-changer – he has made noises about reducing the commitment to Europe.
Suddenly Chris’s scenario becomes a scary possibility – far from nonsense Mr Afewknowthetruth. I note that we are constantly getting anti-Russian propaganda fed to us in our servile media. Another bad sign, I fear.
I hope Chris is wrong, but it would not surprise me if humans were foolish enough to forestall destruction through global warming by risking all-out nuclear war.
Thank your gods we have Vladimir Putin.
Apart from ignoring climate change the Russians are the only sane group on the planet.
If Putin saw or heard of families sleeping in their cars in down town Moscow, heads would roll.
And they have so much class, unlike our bunch of hill billies, not so much the ones that lose the plot in the Doma? but even then at least they are showing passion and that their politicians have backbones.
Putin wouldn’t plunge his population into landless serfdom via importing a disproportional amount of foreign home buyers ….. $$$$
The USA is trying to pull the same game they had running in Afghanistan, keep the USSR trapped in their ‘Vietnam’ while helping Saudi Arabia keep the price of oil below cost, now they think they can fuck with then in Syera.
Interesting times.
1.They certainly would, Robert. Unfortunately, the heads would be those of the people who had the temerity to be noticed by the Western press, sleeping in their cars, wouldn’t you think?
2. Foreign home buyers in Moscow? hahahahaha.
On a lighter note – The Russian special forces probably have their secret weapon at the ready. Check out this mode of transport at 13:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXr7vXobXx4
Snorted my beer when I read that Chris. Socialist sympathies with the mother country die hard eh?
The idea of NATO kicking off a war against Russia “because it will be too late if we wait” is preposterous. If anything it is Russia that will want to make a land grab before it falls too far behind.
As time goes on Russia is sinking fast in all major statistics:
Australia has a larger GDP than Russia
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php
Russia’s GDP has almost halved since 2014
https://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2016-data-and-charts-forecast
Russia’s ranking in innovation and science is a mere 62nd best in the world: http://archive.rusbase.com/news/author/benhopkins/infographic-science-innovation/
Russia’s electric grid is falling apart
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060010742
Russian demographics are already appalling and getting worse
http://www.geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/mapping-russias-demographic-problems
Hitler thought much the same about Russia, didn’t he? And Russia is NOT the mother country of Socialists – that is plain childish of you.
aWanderer -NZ;s Electric Grid is falling apart also.
As is US roads,
bridges,
tunnel’s
water aquifers
sewerage systems.
So nobody’s safe today.
As we are on the cusp of another Global banking crash of central banks and the entire FIAT money system.
http://dailyreckoning.com/fiat-currency/
AWANDERER:
Some sanity in this thread at last! Thanks for the facts.
Since the collapse of oil prices (how’s that ‘Peak Oil’ going guys?) the Russian economy has been sliding fast.
In my view the real reason for Russian incursions into the West are all about a weak dictator trying to stir up patriotic sentiment in the face of widespread discontent with his rule. It’s an old game: Deflect attention away from internal problems by flag waving and the creation of an external foe on which to blame all your woes.
So this NATO move is all about containing the overspill from a failing state.
As for Russian military capability, it’s mostly old Soviet junk manned by unwilling conscripts. They’ve managed to re-engine some of their fighters with western units (The USSR never did manage to make a decent jet engine) but they’ve get eaten alive by todays NATO planes.
They have no money to replace their old T72 range of tanks so that remains the mainstay of their armour. Ask Saddam how well they fared against western weapons…
Lel. The Russian economy is just fine. Buy rubble
Totally out of touch…….typical neocon Andrew, aren’t you, spouting 90s information and glib sarcastic crap.
That is why Putin likes to drum the nationalist message, as any nation in trouble has governments try keep people in line and perhaps even excited by going on about the bad outsiders and how they harm the nation.
It led to the rise of the Nazis, the humiliation of Germany after losing WW1. Something similar of a humiliation is felt in much of Russia, after they lost their global power with the break up of the Soviet Union, that was really dominated by Russia.
Putin will of course not want a war, I reckon, but his ambitions to make Russia a strong power again, it can lead to taking unreasonable risks, that is where the danger lies, and NATO then perhaps over-reacting. As things are, Russians feel being surrounded by Nato friendly and Nato member countries now, somehow encircled.
So a Wagenburg mentality has developed.
“Applying the same process of cold deliberation that he used in relation to Georgia, the Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Putin must decide whether this “Cross the Latvian border and start World War III” threat is real, or just another example of Nato bluster. The generals may be willing to incinerate the world for Latvian independence, but what about the peoples of Western Europe? And, how willing would a President Trump, or Clinton, be to invite their own people’s annihilation by authorising a nuclear strike against Russia?”
NATO is largely reliant on the US forces, as the European member states are not that powerful on their own.
As for Russia and Putin, they fear that their former grandeur and power has waned, and it may be compared to the loss of national dignity the Germans felt after losing WW1, that the Russians felt after the Soviet Union broke up and after financial, economic and social crisis hit them for years.
Putin is popular same as Trump is in the US, as Putin is on his way to “make Russia great again”.
And his adventure, that was successful, in the Crimea, may well be just one attempt to regain control over regions and even states around Russia. Putin and his government are working overtime to destabilise Europe, hence the new friendliness with Turkey after a brief falling out over a Russian plane over Syria or temporarily over Turkey having been shot down.
Russia is spending big on rebuilding and modernising its military arsenal, and his also keen on a form of cooperation with China.
What we have is Nato members like Poland and the Baltic States being honestly concerned, and NATO stationing additional forces there is rather a measure to reassure the new members of that alliance than serious military “preparations”.
But both may go hand in hand.
We will be best advised to not be too casual and relaxed about what goes on globally, also in East and South East Asia.
Economic growth has reached its limits, and the fight over remaining resources has started, watch the fight over Arctic and even Antarctic minerals and also petroleum to take shape.
Once the limits of growth hits the pockets of populations, nationalist soundings are sent out, to keep people “engaged” and loyal to their governments. When that starts, as it has over years now, any slight spark here or there can set off an explosion, that nobody wanted, but that is how all major wars started, remember especially WW1 and that shooting of a member of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy by a Serbian nationalist.
Nobody wanted a large war then, but see what happened. The present global realities are rather similar to the world before WW1. Forget the colonies, and simply replace them with “spheres of interest”. Syria is only one place where we see an example of how things can swiftly escalate.
Putin seems to prefer Trump, both have similar mindsets, it seems, and Trump may not have such a high priority to fight for European states, who have spent less on armed forces (per capita) than the US has. So if Trump says, go to hell, we look after “America First”, then there may be a serious incident of Putin taking a risk and exercising power over Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia (formerly occupied by “Soviet” Russian troops).
What will Europe do? They will NOT go to war, they have no appetite for it, just look at the reluctance of most of Europe to get involved elsewhere (except the Brits and French).
So this is stuff to watch. But it is more of a symbolic gesture, this stationing, I reckon, as the Baltic states demand such “protection”.
Always worth a bit of study, although not perfect, Wikipedia offers a lot of useful info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
Looking at the map for “participating countries” shows us that Australia and New Zealand are “global partners” of NATO!
Russia has been reducing manpower, but is investing heavily in more modern weapons and IT strategic defence and also attack systems.
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces
Until at least 2012 a lot of manpower reduction occurred, but since them there is some restructuring going on that includes more investment in special forces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces
But the German Bundeswehr would be not match for Russian forces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr
We know that Turkey has a large force:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces
But that is more in manpower and only some weapon equipment, it is no match to Russia, and given recent warming of relationships, I doubt they would be keen to have a fight with Russia for the near future.
Add the British:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army
And the French:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Armed_Forces
It may look a bit better, combining the above, but without the massive US forces, NATO would not be what it is in total numbers, hence the data Chris may refer to needs some scrutiny.
As we know, the EU is struggling to keep members come to agreements on important matters, so does NATO quite often.
An attack on a member state may lead to action, but it may not, it all depends, on how much “appetite” there will be to get dragged into a major war.
But as commented before, wars often start from small skirmishes or incidents, that escalate.
“The decision to deploy an additional 4,000 troops to Russia’s eastern borders ”
So they’ve sent them to Japan?
Andrew – I made that point way back at 6.42pm.
Did anyone hear John Kerry at the UN meeting blaming everything on Russia and continuing his ongoing perpetual war defense ?
As if the US and others are so pure and non violent. What a load.
And on the heals of the US killing more innocents.
And our very John Key as the president of this useless UN meeting of ego maniacs and war mongers and NWO idiots. Nothing transpired constructive and why was Jonky at the helm. Look deeper.
NATO – more troops and more journalists like the one above, instilling more Russian fear and cold war mentality. We need new leaders and new open minded journalists and we need to get rid of the UN war mongers and liars and put the idiots like John Kerry and Jonky Donky and Helen etc. out to pasture.
Why not a meeting talking about PEACE AND NOT SO MUCH WAR.
Just why is the UN not anyone’s friend – the truth is out there.
Key’s speech to the UN was that of a weak leader of a small country with no clout. He sounded weak and almost silly there, it may have been ok at the local Rotary Club to hold such a speech, not at the UN. And him sitting in as chairman of the Security Council meeting, made him look like a learner, a young boy excited about meeting the real big knobs, who show him how international relations are manipulated and how muscles based on military strength can be flexed.
John Boy Key the learner, he has not even got his own country in shape, so what do we expect from him at the UN?
Well said. And did you see RT’s slamming of John Kerry and exposing the lies he spewed at this recent UN meeting ?
The UN is a circus. That meeting accomplished nothing but create more division; more lies and more war mongering. The agenda there is to vilify Russia and lie about Russia and encourage perpetual war mostly for oil profits and other resource rape.
And our very own donky jonky at the helm – what a joke and he is far from a learner or he would learn something about integrity and the truth by now. He is a suck up, and a good little boy doing his job for his puppet masters. He and Obama and Helen make a great threesome.
In my opinion the Russians are no better than the US government and their military industrial complex. They do all have blood at their hands, and habitually lie to their own and other peoples.
TDB if you choose again not to publish my two comments just submitting, I , no many of us, want to know why.
perhaps because you talk dribble
At least my dribble is truth based and not more brainwashed propaganda supporting the elite group of pro war ; pro TPPA and idiot upper 1% who have taken the world down the dungy.
How much does National pay you my sweet troll Dave in denial , from another planet, thinking he is on top of the world ?
Righteousness and lack of integrity knows some bounds somewhere.
Where are my comments ? ? ? ?
My comments always go up quickly and unedited
my comments always get on here unedited
Key is not doing a bad job over this, better than, Better than Little could manage I suspect
What planet do you dwell on ?
I am not part of Blakes 7
So what does ” Blakes 7 ” mean on your planet ?
I think Key has done a good job, will be interesting to see if this helps Helen Clark.
As far as I know John Key has said and done nothing at all about 4,000 Nato troops being moved to Nato’s Eastern borders. So what on Earth do you mean, Dave? Has he done a good job by saying nothing at all on the topic? Possibly a good argument, knowing John Key.
John Key has done an abyssmal job and lets hope that he and Helen are put out to pasture very soon.
That UN meeting accomplished nothing but more proven lies from John Kerry and more chapped lips from our kiss up Jonky donky.
Oh dear…
I hope Chris Trotter has not got around to reading these comments.
And by the way, what has John Key said or done about 4,000 Nato troops being moved to Nato’s Eastern border? What on earth are you talking about, Dave? How is John Key doing a good job when he has said and done nothing?
Ahh, I get it. If he had said something, he would have stuffed it up.
??? What is Key doing about 4,000 Nato troops being moved to Nato’s Eastern borders? As far as I know he has said or done nothing at all about this matter.
As you say, maybe a good job for him…
Let us reflect on the US liars and hypocrites:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/13/us-israel-aid-38-billion-record-military-assistance
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/19/headlines/codepink_activists_to_protest_us_military_aid_to_saudi_arabia
Is ANYBODY surprised we had ISIS, Nusra Front and others, who declared war to this shit?
Indeed, the lies and hypocrisy of “the west” and the US are incredible, they are the worst liars out there. The Russians are equally bad, but who puts any faith in these powers, they will not work in honesty with liars and rather keep fighting the shit on the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxtikCMQDIo
Stationing troops in the Baltic does little to alter the calculus if Russia responds to aggression. Kettling salient formations is something the Russians do well. All NATO has done by parking 4 divisions in the Baltic states is confirm that they have forgotten the lessons of the Ostfront generally, and Heeresgruppe Kurland specifically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Group_Courland
Incidentally, Russia recently re-formed the 1st Guards Tank Army. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be in the Stryker Brigade who gets to face them.
And I add my one cent’s worth by posting this in depth interview with the possible but not probable next President of the now defunct US Inc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkPe-9rM1Q
And with this President in charge, my bet is on Russia to win this silly move by NATO on the chessboard.
Interesting that Finland has declined to join NATO.
The powers at play will try it out here first, they already have the game go on in Syria and Iraq, more is to follow, and enough cannon fodder is available, the unemployed and angry in many countries will be “happy” to try all this out, will they not?
http://www.idexuae.ae/
Lots of “toys” to play with, I am sure our very industrious PM is well informed and busy making deals behind the scenes. Those fucking idiot journos that are still employed for useless MSM outlets like TVNZ and TV3, i.e. the Gower idiot, they do not care, they rather serve the interests of a corrupt government doing the mercenary service for the US than ask any real questions.
What a fricking disgrace this useless country at the bottom of the arse of the world has become. Did you once protest against nukes in French Polynesia, or are you now resigned only to US boot licking, I ask???
Comments are closed.