"Will NATO Soldiers 'Lay Down Their Arms' In A War ..." Topic

…Against Russia?.

"Russian troops were allegedly on the hunt for NATO soldiers during a mission in the northwest of the country. However, there is no need to panic. The alliance is not invading, as it was merely a mock exercise to simulate a hypothetical incursion into Russia.

The opposing force was not specified, but messages played over loudspeakers as the drills took place left little room for the imagination.

"NATO soldiers! You are being lied to! You are not peacekeepers! Lay down your arms," a female voice warned the soldiers in a recording played on loudspeakers, according to RIA Novosti's reporter on the scene…."
See here
link

Amicalement
Armand

i really cannot see how a NATO/European/US soldier could be motivated to fight against somebody very similar to him who is fighting against their true common ennemies that everybody among Europe and Russia perceive as such..

NATO will only act in defense of another NATO country. As long as Russia stays out of NATO countries I doubt she will need to be afraid of any NATO soldier. However, if she attacks a NATO country, then no amount of propaganda will convince NATO soldiers to lay down their weapons.

basileus66 +1

i really cannot see how a NATO/European/US soldier could be motivated to fight against somebody very similar to him who is fighting against their true common ennemies that everybody among Europe and Russia perceive as such..

Well soldiers fight who they are told to fight, they do not get the option.

As for fighting the Russians, why not? Russians could not be rated as the 'good guys' since the Napoleonic wars.

that's interesting..VV Reply…so the boys from the Allied Nation that really ended the nazi domination over europe, including the most important contribuition in losses both from the resistance and regular army..and maybe civilian population.. and the one tha stamped out muslim terrorists from Cecenia and it's the only one doing the same thing, in our place, succesfully from Syria…could'nt be rated as good boys….

ITALWARS: I am not sure I understand your posts. I try to be careful, not to be DH'ed (;-)).First: EVERYONE in The Netherlands had a relative or at least know someone with a relative in the shot down MH-17 (and please do not try my intelligence in denying Russian responsability). So we at least will have no problem with a fight. Second: we all know that Russia has turned into a kleptocracy in a dictatorship.And third: like basileus66 already said: NATO will not attack but only defend and no one would even think for a second about laying down their arms.

..Porthos i really don't care if you don't understand my posts…also i don't care.. if you want to be DH'ed and if you need so much your fight….it's your problem not mine..also.i 'm sorry for you ..but i'm not afraid by you :-)))))..b

we also have to differentiate between NATO soldiers….A trigger happy unit of Turkish soldiers or NATO new entry unit of soldiers from former Varasaw Pact , probably with regional/cultural motivations, would possibly be at risk at fighting vs Russians..but as history and good sense had shown in the past..between equilibrated leaders the reason will prevail…if you rember the potentially dangerous Pristina Airport's onfontation in 1999…the experienced leaders of British French and Norwegian forces choosed the best approach and no fights took place with the Russian paras

The premise that NATO will only defend other NATO states under attack is an incorrect one. Look at NATO's involvement in Serbia and Kosovo and in Libya for examples. NATO could very well wage pre-emptive war against Russia or others.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Yes, I think most if not all NATO members will do their duty. And some of the newer members like Poland, former WP, have No love for "Mutha' " Russia.

My only concern is what the Turks will do ? As they become more islamic and less secular. They joined NATO, decades ago. And among other reasons to be more European and less islamic, etc., … But as we see, it appears their leadership may be going backwards ?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see how anyone could willingly put themselves into a position where they would enter a POW camp.

Legion- Indeed.

I don't see any Western soldier throwing their lives away in an undefendable situation. Surrender is an option when all other options are gone.

I don't expect NATO soldiers to fight to the death unless in extraordinary circumstances such as extreme holding situations to cover a bridge, to allow civilians or wounded to escape, etc.

War takes lives, but throwing away lives because of fanaticism does not make sense for NATO. If surrendered, they remain relatively safe and available for when hostilities cease or negotiations to exchange prisoners.

As discussed before, Russia does not have a chance in winning a war with NATO; they will initially overrun NATO territories but ultimately fail against Western arms and numbers. Assignments of forward NATO troops should only be "speed bumps", not death sentences. Also, in war, NATO will definitely launch spoiling raids and invasions against Russian territories. There will even be annexations after a conflict -I do not see Kaliningrad remaining in Russian possession after any war between Russia-NATO.

NATO will not preemptively attack Russia, since they have nukes.

Serbia, Kosovo, and Libya did not.

that's interesting..VV Reply…so the boys from the Allied Nation that really ended the nazi domination over europe, including the most important contribuition in losses both from the resistance and regular army..and maybe civilian population.. and the one tha stamped out muslim terrorists from Cecenia and it's the only one doing the same thing, in our place, succesfully from Syria…could'nt be rated as good boys….

Lets see. Prior to being attacked by Germany in WW2, Soviet Russia was supplying Germany with goods and training grounds, and of course took its share of the conquest of Poland. So would say that Russia fighting Germany was pure self-defence. Our alliance lasted as long as Germany was still fighting. Then Russia went on to oppress Eastern Europe. So no good guys there.

So far the largest number of foreign fighters fighting for ISIL have come from Russian territory. So no win there.

And Russia fights in Syria to support Assad. Still no sign of a good guy.

So yes I stick by my comments.

NATO is not going to attack Russia, this was for domestic consumption to continue a false narrative that Russia is under threat from NATO.

As others have stated the combat power of NATO is sufficient to cause massive casualties in a short space of time.
Once the mothers in Russia catch on to what is happening then military action would cease.
One of the major reasons why Russian casualties in Eastern Ukraine have been hidden is to avoid that negative reaction.

+1 Rod. NATO has proven thar its remit is malleable.

+1 Kiltboy too. Although paranoia about NATO's intentions did almost lead to war in the 80's. Sometimes propaganda can take on a life of its own.

as to NATO actions in Serbia, Kosovo and Libya those did not happen in a vacuum.

Kosovo had suffered through two years of violence and 4 UN resolutions calling for ceasefire and withdrawal of combatants, presence of international observers, Rambouillet accords etc. NATO intervened when the OSCE withdrew citing an impending full out humanitaian catastrophe. THEN NATO intervened and Kofi Annan even admitted that the use of force is sometime justified in the pursuit of peace. UNSC Resolution 1244 is considered by many outside of Russia as post event legal justification for those actions.
Libya wasn't just a NATO operation but was taken under UNSC resolution 1973 and supported by forces from countries outside of NATO such as Jordan, Qatar, UAE and Sweden with Sudan allowing transit of it's airspace.

NATO is not going to preemptively attack Russia.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see how anyone could willingly put themselves into a position where they would enter a POW camp.

When all other means of resistance have been exhausted, it's allowable under the Code of Conduct, but you're still expected to not make the Prison Guard's job easy.

Soldiers do as they're told, people have very short memories, we spent the best part of 40 years preparing to fight to the last man against the Russian hordes.

Mako 11 wrote:

NATO will not preemptively attack Russia, since they have nukes.

Serbia, Kosovo, and Libya did not.

That's exactly why nuclear non-proliferation is so difficult to achieve. Nukes are a powerful deterrent to super-power predation. But with an ABM screen in Poland and Romania and given high enough stakes at risk, I don't think we can dismiss the idea of NATO initiated pre-emptive war and I am certain that the Russians won't believe such assurances even if we in the West do. In fact, far more worrying than the posturing of Putin or the provocations of the West is the recent overhaul and revitalization of the Russian civil defence infrastructure despite a lack of money and in the light of the growing schism with Western Europe and NATO. This shows that Russia thinks nuclear war may be a realistic option for one or the other side in this unfolding potential conflict.

Faced with the real possibility of nuclear attacks throughout Europe after a collapse of conventional defense and the likelihood that both sides in the conflict would quickly escalate to using tactical chemical and nuclear weapons as force multipliers, I think Europeans might sue for peace before a wider scale thermonuclear exchange made western Eurasia a toxic wasteland. They would probably not hold the line as their British island-neighbours and more distant American cousins might be inclined to do. "What point fighting a war to lose everything?", they might well ask.
Cheers?
Rod Robertson.

Kosovo was a classic case of NATO and the West being played by the underdog, in this case the KLA (once described as the most inept terrorist organisation ever, they quickly learnt what pushed buttons n the West and played us beautifully). They did an excellent job of hitting the Serbs repeatedly until it provoked a reaction, then made sure that reaction was broadcast far and wide. Actually from a NATO perspective the campaign was an embarrassment on several fronts, played by the KLA, duped by the Serbs (their spoofing of NATO ISTAR has become the stuff of legend), a campaign that triggered the very humanitarian crisis that it was claimed to be preventing, a planned 3 day air power "demonstration" that was conducted without any strategic aims other than "bomb stuff" which endured for nearly 80 days, confrontations with the Russians and the Chinese that came close to catastrophe, a resolution brokered by the Russians when some of the more ridiculous clauses in Rambouillet were deleted (clauses which no self respecting government would have acceded to; one could be excused for thinking they were written that way deliberately), triggering a wave of post campaign ethnic cleansing of Serbs by the Albanians which was conveniently ignored, and seriously damaging NATO's image outside of its member nations. Quite rightly the Kosovo campaign forms part of the curriculum at a number of staff colleges around the world as an example (indeed many examples) of what not to do. Most definitely not NATO's finest hour, but at least it did give James Blunt the opportunity to avoid WW3 :)

Very much agree foxweasel. The Plt Ldr, Co Cdr, Bn, Bde Div. Cdrs, etc. don't make those decisions. It literally is way above their pay grades. However you hope those at the very highest authority, military and elected civilian leadership makes the right choices.

But all that being said, I doubt NATO will invade Russia. And I'd say Russia would not invade any NATO member. At least anytime soon.

The US/NATO and the Russians know how costly in both blood & treasure, etc. That such an attack would cost. As opposed to jihadis … The West and East wants to survive. To live and enjoy another day …

The point that there was a 2 year build up of successive violence and attempts through the UN to stop it still stands.
NATO did not just wake up and decide to go into Kosovo.
China was rightly furious when their embassy was bombed.

The Russians are perfectly capable of using their knowlede of missiles and rocketry to see the missile defense will not work against Russian ICBMs and sub based missiles.
That there are paranoid bullies in charge is more of a problem. The main threat to Russian leadership's grip on fleecing the Russian economy for personal gain is that the Russian population may figure it out and start another revolution. There was a potential leader in Nemtsov so he was executed in front of the Kremlin with his planned protest turned into a memorial march instead.

That was the warning to anyone else not to try anything similar. But just to be sure the outside enemy has to be invoked to keep the population focussed as being the victim of external forces and not suffering from an internal kleptocracy.

Kiltboy:

The question I have is, given your description of the state of affairs, are you looking through a window at Russia or through a mirror at us in the West? We too have bellicose bullies who support kleptomania on a societal scale and use public relations and media distortion to distract and pacify the body politic. We too have militaries and intelligence services which deliberately cause strife, war and humanitarian disasters and abuse both our own national laws and international law to get what we want. The problem is that Putin is too much like the established elites of the West but is not a member of their club. They don't like the competition and they don't like the way he is challenging western political, financial and now military hegemony globally. The same is true of China, which is now beating the West at its own game.

The thing about wars is that they often just creep up on you without you noticing their run-up. Then they escalate unpredictably as events cascade out of control. Despite the Putin regime being an odious bunch, diplomacy and bargaining is a better strategy than isolation, encirclement and threat/confrontation, if people want to prevent the situation from escalating out of control. The masters and mistresses of Europe have had too much bloody history in their collective past to willingly enter the gladiatorial ring with Russia, but options for moderation are being undermined by harder-line British and American foreign policy and financial interference. If push comes to shove, I think Europe will choose a compromised life rather than a principled and glorious death in the face of Russian threat and aggression. Hopefully, if cooler heads prevail, we may never have to find that out, if we learn to talk and settle our differences rather than fight over them.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

the first part Rod I Robertson analysis is , also if i cannot totaly agree with him thanks to my great simpathy for Putin, a very honest analysis

Not looking at a mirror at all Rod and there is no comparison in my mind.
The former Warsaw pact countries have experienced life under Soviet control in Moscow and chose the alternative of the West.
Those countries are actively seeking protection from Russia by forming protective alliances or joining existing ones such as NATO.

i cannot totaly agree with him thanks to my great simpathy for Putin

It takes all sorts to make a world.

Indeed many former Warpact members are seeking more protection from Russia, thinking that Putin may claim 'historic' rights over their countries as well. Putin is indeed making things interesting in Europe.

IIRC, the locals cheered as Russia armor moved in to secure an airport.

China was rightly furious when their embassy was bombed.

More and more the intel was long after the fact. That the Chinese were helping the Serbs targeting US Stealth aircraft. And then the Chinese could gather up the remains of a shot down. Then try to "reverse engineer" the aircraft or parts of it. For their own use. They did something similar in A'stan. And paid the locals to bring remains of US "smart" munitions, tech, etc., …

Of course as far as I know there has been no confirmation of this by the USA. No surprise there. There is a lot of things that go on "behind the curtains. That the public really does not need to know, as in this case.

One F117 was shot down. Fortunately the pilot was quickly recovered by US CSAR. But I think the bombing of the Chinese structure may have been a severe warning ? To stop the assistants to the Serbs …

Then the Russians left the airport as they had no logistical supplies and were isolated.

Russia was obviously backing Serbia throughout the violence in Kosovo so it wouldn't be surprising if some locals did cheer the Russians and there is still a Serb minority in Kosovo.

None of which changes the fact that NATO did not create a crisis in Kosovo but was reacting to a crisis that had been created over a two year period.
NATO is not going to preemptively attack Russia, there is no rational reason for doing so as there is nothing to be gained by such an attack.

Then the Russians left the airport as they had no logistical supplies and were isolated.

Russia was obviously backing Serbia throughout the violence in Kosovo so it wouldn't be surprising if some locals did cheer the Russians and there is still a Serb minority in Kosovo.

Yes that is the way I remember it. And IIRC, KFOR is still in the region.

Regardless, I don't think either NATO or the Russians are going to do anything more than "sabre rattling" … if that …

Russia was obviously backing Serbia throughout the violence in Kosovo so it wouldn't be surprising if some locals did cheer the Russians…

I recall that the commander of NATO forces said something like "The Serbs just surrendered to the Russians!" as his forces were advancing on the Serbs. I think he was a Brit.

It was an Russian attempt to throw a monkey wrench into NATO efforts to end hostilities in the Balkans and to protect and support the Serbs.

"Kosovo was a classic case of NATO and the West being played by the underdog, in this case the KLA (once described as the most inept terrorist organisation eveuse gas againtr"
it seemed that the lesson has still to be learned…Syria and Ucraina for example…West Countries and NATO find themselves again and again giving their patronage to dreadful actors like the outlaws of Maidan square or the cutthroats that persecute christans in Siria or against civilians in the name of the supposed to be anti Assad opposition…for those and other reasons i'm still not able to understand how could be the European post comunist Russia seen as an ennemy…or how could Political corrupted élites hope that their soldiers culd fire against other soldiers with similar culture and thinking…

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in breach of the Budapest agreement to preserve the Sebastapol naval base.
Russia has invaded Eastern Ukraine in the Donbass and shot down MH17 over Ukraine.
Russia has threatened it's neighbors with nuclear weapons should they think about joining a defensive alliance.
The European countries that were under communist control absolutely do not want to be part of Russia again.

That is why Russia has been placed under selective sanctions.

"None of which changes the fact that NATO did not create a crisis in Kosovo but was reacting to a crisis that had been created over a two year period."

True. But its reaction was poorly conceived and dreadfully executed.

"But I think the bombing of the Chinese structure may have been a severe warning ?"

Err, actually no. I had the good fortune to spend a bit of time working with someone who was in the NATO planning and targetting cell and who was there during the Chinese Embassy thing. Deliberate it most certainly wasn't. Cock-up it most definitely was and for the most ludicrous of reasons.

the most clear of your explanation is the last one..
the others are point of views dictated by unnatural media propaganda…the Crimea topic is quite naif…would you like if , for example, Mexico, sponsored by China .would put again his feet (and his guns) on Texas ?

naif?

No those are the facts of what happened.

West Countries and NATO find themselves again and again giving their patronage to dreadful actors like the outlaws of Maidan square or the cutthroats that persecute christans in Siria or against civilians in the name of the supposed to be anti Assad opposition…for those and other reasons i'm still not able to understand how could be the European post comunist Russia seen as an ennemy…or how could Political corrupted élites hope that their soldiers culd fire against other soldiers with similar culture and thinking

Well the other view is that the Ukrainians kicked out their corrupt leader, who promptly went to Russia. To be welcomed by Putin.

And if you think the Syrian rebels are bad, you obviously have not seen the documentaries about the terror the Assad regime has been inflicting on its citizens for the past 40 years. Now of course it is bombing Syrian towns and cities into rubble – which you can see with your own eyes, as even RT shows the destruction inflicted by Assad and his allies.

But I agree, Russian propaganda is very different from reality. So if you believe it, the real world will seem very strange.

if i must be honest..i haven't seen Assad the documentaries you point me…but i'm almost sure, withoung consulting any reliable sorces, that you're true.. the handling of his own people could'nt have been good and neither acceptable in human rights therms…but..can you please point me one..just one leader of a M. East or , in many case, African country..possibly in which the rule reference is not a State by a Religion..i'm sorry to say..the Muslim one..which in fact is not only a religion..where trade union activists are accepted, dissident journalists not jailed and opposition not only a toolken one…what do you think of the very presentable King of Morocco or bearded despots and satraps that ruled M. East Countries and Armies considered the best US Allies?….well..i'm little bit out of topic

David Manley, thanks for your posts on the NATO/Serbia/Kosovo conflict, quite accurate critique in my judgment. At the time I was appalled that the US was entering history next to Nazi Germany in bombing Belgrade on Easter. I also remember Clinton exulting because he was finally going to get to make his mark as a "war president" (by slamming a small country that couldn't hit back, what an impressive victory, let's throw him a Triumph). Plus the way Wes Clark tried to engineer a shooting clash with the Russians only to be thwarted by a sensible British CO on the scene.

Certainly not a shining hour for NATO or the US in my view, and it set a bad precedent for choosing sides in someone else's conflict and getting played as a cat's paw by locals with grudges.

A shooting war with Russia is likely to evolve in a similar way, with the US/NATO getting into a proxy war (Ukraine, say) with insurgents or government forces someplace opposed to Russians and each side unwilling to back down.

then no amount of propaganda will convince NATO soldiers to lay down their weapons.

More than likely true since most of them would be lying down their weapons with out any need for propaganda.

They just do not have the will to fight.

As I posted, some of the newer members like Poland, former WP, have No love for "Mutha' " Russia. I think they for one have the will to fight. Some of the other "new guys" .. Not so sure ?