Posted on Apr 11, 2016
Is the US Military capable of facing Russia in the Baltics?
5.15K
33
28
6
6
0
If you're not familiar with the scenario, read the following...https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-army-may-not-be-able-to-hold-off-russian-attack-europe
One of the scenarios that the Pentagon plans against is outlined in this piece. It shows a significant problem. While this author doesn't go into it, one of the problems is stationing. We have the forces, but none in Europe. Thoughts?
One of the scenarios that the Pentagon plans against is outlined in this piece. It shows a significant problem. While this author doesn't go into it, one of the problems is stationing. We have the forces, but none in Europe. Thoughts?
Europe
Warfare
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 8
1
1
0
While in Iraq I had to work with the Ukrainians. My beliefs are based off that interaction. We would whip the snot out of them. They have no ability to make any decisions without senior level input. I mean down to small details have to be cleared by an officer.
Their equipment is dated and ineffective. Sure they have new jets and tanks, 4 of them. They are for show not for battle. All dogs and ponies.
They don't have well trained troops and they don't have 13 million of untrained troops anymore.
They are still capable of nuking something and because of the reasons above there is much more of a chance that they will use them.
Their equipment is dated and ineffective. Sure they have new jets and tanks, 4 of them. They are for show not for battle. All dogs and ponies.
They don't have well trained troops and they don't have 13 million of untrained troops anymore.
They are still capable of nuking something and because of the reasons above there is much more of a chance that they will use them.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Leadership practices aside, they are still a formidable enemy. This isn't going to be like fighting Ukraine if we had to. The Russian military may not be as highly modernized...yet, but they have made some significant improvements and have a national backbone. That makes a huge difference. We are also not on our backdoor fighting...they will be.
(2)
(0)
SGT William Howell
COL (Join to see) All very valid points. Hitler made the mistake of underestimating the USSR and we saw where that got him. I would also assume that one does not become a LTC without knowing something about how to defeat the enemy. Maybe just a tad more than a Buck SGT.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Their military has suffered, but it's been a long time since 1990. The Russian military survived the huge recession there and Russia has been investing in their military. It never stopped being a threat, and now that they are actually investing money they can do something with it. If they can see gains from their conquests in Georgia and the Ukraine, why not continue to use military force to get economic gains?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The article uses "army" as a replacement for "military" when that is not how we fight. It's not 1980 anymore, and no service fights a war by itself. The article makes some valid points though, and I agree there is a disconnect between the NSS's "Two MRCs At Once" strategy and the actual manpower and funding which reflects one MRC plus a smaller low-intensity regional conflict.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Concur. He does talk about the low likelihood that we would have air superiority, but doesn't bring this into a Joint discussion. Our national strategy has changed over the last few year though as well. We are no longer trying to win two wars simultaneously. They are "near simultaneous" as he stated in the article and only one requires us to "win." The other is a lesser form of victory...not winning but not being defeated.
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
COL (Join to see) - Yes, the win-hold-win. But it is simultaneous. From the 2015 NMS: "If deterrence fails, at any given time, our military will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale, multi-phased campaign while denying the objectives of — or imposing unacceptable costs on — another aggressor in a different region." page 6. Notice here it doesn't stipulate the second aggressor as a MRC, so I think it's morphing on the two MRC part as well. Still, I can't imagine how we'd even pull it off along with the current quagmire of ISIS in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria.
http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_National_Military_Strategy.pdf
http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_National_Military_Strategy.pdf
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Sir, I'm referencing the DPG, which I can't go into beyond what is laid out in this article. The DPG is classified. The NMS of 2015 is not what is being used. It is "near simultaneous."
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Ever since the end of WW2 We have been fighting proxy wars with Russia. We have not come out on top each time. But a full scale war with Russia in the Baltics would be a disaster. Just the thought of moving that many troops and equipment is staggering. We are not talking about trying to overwhelm a much smaller force like we did in the Middle East. We are talking about a huge army with a lot shorter distance to move troops and supplies. Also what allies can we count on for help? The outcome of such a war would be staggering for Europe. Also n this day and age there is no way the United States will be able to stay isolated. Russia would bring this type of war home to the American people, and they just would not be able to take it.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
The biggest problem is getting there. Russia is RIGHT THERE. It would take them days...not weeks or months to reach the Baltic Sea. It would take us months to build a force that was capable of making any movement in that direction. We would then have to fight an entrenched enemy. We would also have to figure out how to fight with oversized vehicles over terrain that doesn't support it. The new version of the M1 is going to weigh near 80 tons. There aren't any rails or trucks that can move them on the planet. There aren't any bridges over the small rivers which we have to cross that can support them. We also don't have massive amounts of light infantry any more. Tough nut to crack here.
(1)
(0)
SGT Patrick Reno
COL (Join to see) - Spent 2 years in Berlin, all we would have ever been was a speed bump for them. And that was when we still had all our forces in Germany.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google