"Why Russia's War Games Should Scare Nobody" Topic

"Russia's armed forces conducted major military maneuvers last week, but they were only war games, thank God, and not the real thing. Ships from its Northern Fleet hunted down submarines of an imaginary enemy and garrisons of polar troops fought off simulated air strikes.

Part of the Black Sea Fleet also attacked an imaginary enemy in the southwestern region of the Black Sea. According to media reports, Russia deployed Iskander tactical missiles to the Kaliningrad region and Tu-22 aerial bombers to Crimea as part of the maneuvers. It was all presented as part of a snap inspection that President Vladimir Putin announced on March 16.

In fact, Russia simulated a so-called "large-scale war." That's military jargon for global warfare — the type of conflict that would inevitably end with the destruction of all life on this planet. It is logical to assume that this snap inspection would continue with the launch of strategic missiles because that is how such conflicts escalate…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well, their supersonic sortie yesterday, with transponders off, got peoples' attention around the Baltics, with 2 x Backfires, and 2 x Su-27s intercepted by Italian Typhoons, IIRC.

One of the retired NATO heads believes, like me, that Putin will try to "Crimea" the Baltics at some point in the future, just to see if NATO cracks under their Article 5 requirements.

Does Article 5 ferment the defence and recovery of a NATO member's territory from an invader, or the prosecution of the invader beyond those boundaries?

Look at what happened after 9/11 when Article 5 was invoked……

Does Article 5 ferment the defence and recovery of a NATO member's territory from an invader, or the prosecution of the invader beyond those boundaries?

Well, here's the full text straight from the NATO webpage:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

An attack against one NATO member *should* be enough to bring the US and every other member nation to bear, either moving troops stationed in Europe or deploying other assets.

The Russians testing that idea over the Baltic nations would not be good.

The US has no choice but to step up, because if we don't then every other treaty the US has is worthless.

So, if they send MREs, or C-Rats (or whatever the French call their military rations – my guess is they may be better than those from other nations) they've met their obligation?

Does an official, supportive tweet qualify?

We're all about that here now, on the other side of the pond, from NATO.

However, wouldn't they do it the same as was done in the Ukraine? Create an internal rebellion in the country to be taken and allow "rouge" volunteers to help the rebels. If Nato steps up, Russia just denies the insurgents and lets Nato cut them down. If Nato backs down, then more insurgents appear.

Yep, the former head of NATO, and the UK Defense Secretary believe Putin will do just that:

link

link

I agree with them.

Putin is only emboldened by the non-action over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and the anemic sanctions that have been placed on Russia thus far. Those appear to only strengthen his popularity at home, with the Russian people, further solidifying his grip on power there, and distracting the citizens from their own plight as the ruble plummets in value.

NATO and/or the Western nations will be falsely labeled as the "aggressors", and with the tight media control he has, he'll get away with that, especially if his opposition keeps dying off in mysterious "accidents".

Yes, those Rouge Volunteers are scary…

…whatever the French call their military rations – my guess is they may be better than those from other nations

I have seen a few reports and documentaries, one as far back as Lebanon 1982 prior to the attack on the US Marines' barracks.

Even in the field, their rations are quite good…pate', cheeses…higher end quality overall than what are standard field rations for US/UK-Commonwealth troops.

If and when they can get a hot meal…they are usually high end restaurant/home cooking meals…using top quality ingredients. Basically, bistro food.

Of course, French food tastes are generally on a higher plain than most other western nations, but the food ain't nun two bad.

The best rations y see were the Spanish ones.
I have a relative who made good money with them! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

However, wouldn't they do it the same as was done in the Ukraine?

Captured "volunteers" who are "on vacation" and committing attacks inside a NATO nation are not going to be as easy to write off.

Because you'd better believe that the Baltics and Poland are on a hair trigger right now.