NATO considering deployment of up to 300,000 troops on border with Russia

[onthedarkside]

 

Politico writes that NATO intends to stop Russia if it decides to expand the war beyond Ukraine. Because of this, the Alliance is talking about strengthening its eastern borders and the need to send up to 300,000 troops to the border.

 

Such actions will require coordination and great efforts from the 30 NATO members to provide soldiers, training facilities, large quantities of weapons, equipment and ammunition.

 

However, the news outlet emphasises that coordination may be challenging, as many allies are already concerned about their own insufficient ammunition stocks, which take time and money to replenish.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/nato-considering-deployment-300-000-024600132.html

 

[DaLa]

I would have thought 300,000 troops would send a clear message regardless of if they have enough ammo or not.

 

There would be another 100 flights from Russia landing in Phuket full of 'tourists' that don't fancy the prospect of taking on an army that size.

[Eleftheros]

Since the only borders NATO has with the main European part of Russia are in Estonia and Latvia, plus a tiny bit in the deep Arctic region of Norway, it might get a bit crowded at the border.  Or perhaps they can surround Kaliningrad as well, ease the crush slightly.

 

Still leaves rather a large gap in the middle of Europe, though, but.

[Tug]

Good!let the Russians know their war of conquest isn’t going to be tolerated push them to get rid of their evil dwarf Putin and re join the world the russan people deserve a better more open government 

[steven100]

better still ... flatten Moscow ,   that'll send a bigger message. 

[Credo]

It sounds like some of the NATO members need to up their game when it comes to military performance.  These are troubling times.  You want good soldiers, well-trained and able to engage any enemy.  For that, you do need to make sure they have all the equipment, arms and ammunition they need.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

However, the news outlet emphasises that coordination may be challenging, as many allies are already concerned about their own insufficient ammunition stocks, which take time and money to replenish.

Not forgetting the cost, at a time when covid policies have wrecked Euro economies and inflation is worrying.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Credo said:

It sounds like some of the NATO members need to up their game when it comes to military performance.  These are troubling times.  You want good soldiers, well-trained and able to engage any enemy.  For that, you do need to make sure they have all the equipment, arms and ammunition they need.

 

LOL. IMO since the Berlin wall fell, European nations have been reducing the size and efficiency of their military forces. Since BAOR ended the British army is significantly reduced.

Depending too much on America.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, steven100 said:

better still ... flatten Moscow ,   that'll send a bigger message. 

Followed by the flattening of Berlin, London and Paris.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, DaLa said:

I would have thought 300,000 troops would send a clear message regardless of if they have enough ammo or not.

 

There would be another 100 flights from Russia landing in Phuket full of 'tourists' that don't fancy the prospect of taking on an army that size.

300,000 troops are just a bigger target for a nuclear tipped missile.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

Such actions will require coordination and great efforts from the 30 NATO members to provide soldiers, training facilities, large quantities of weapons, equipment and ammunition.

 

However, the news outlet emphasises that coordination may be challenging,

What the <deleted> has NATO been doing the last 30 years if that's how unprepared they are?

[Wobblybob]

Yahoo are quoting a Ukrainian news source (Pravda), perhaps it is not as reliable as most of us would like it to be. But this news of the deployment of 300,000 troops has been banded about by other less biased news sources for the past 8 months now, but with no movement to the best of my knowledge. 

 

Hope to be proven wrong. 

[Bkk Brian]

23 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Yahoo are quoting a Ukrainian news source (Pravda), perhaps it is not as reliable as most of us would like it to be. But this news of the deployment of 300,000 troops has been banded about by other less biased news sources for the past 8 months now, but with no movement to the best of my knowledge. 

 

Hope to be proven wrong. 

The yahoo article saus the source is Politico. There is a link to full story on it.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

Yahoo are quoting a Ukrainian news source (Pravda), perhaps it is not as reliable as most of us would like it to be. But this news of the deployment of 300,000 troops has been banded about by other less biased news sources for the past 8 months now, but with no movement to the best of my knowledge. 

 

Hope to be proven wrong. 

I'd be interested to know from where they can find 300,000 troops with nothing better to do than sit on a border waiting for an attack that likely ( IMO ) will never come.

Most military forces are mainly support troops, and the fighting ones are likely needed elsewhere.

 

https://www.army.mil/article/45200/infantry_leaders_sharpen_training_tactics_to_meet_battlefield_demands

Infantry Soldiers make up 15 percent of the Army force.

 

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

As of 2022, the British Army comprises 79,380 regular full-time personnel,

[Phoenix Rising]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd be interested to know from where they can find 300,000 troops with nothing better to do than sit on a border waiting for an attack that likely ( IMO ) will never come.

I guess you don't buy insurance for any possessions? Or is it insurance against Putin in particular you are against?

[Bkk Brian]

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd be interested to know from where they can find 300,000 troops with nothing better to do than sit on a border waiting for an attack that likely ( IMO ) will never come.

Most military forces are mainly support troops, and the fighting ones are likely needed elsewhere.

 

https://www.army.mil/article/45200/infantry_leaders_sharpen_training_tactics_to_meet_battlefield_demands

Infantry Soldiers make up 15 percent of the Army force.

 

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

As of 2022, the British Army comprises 79,380 regular full-time personnel,

There's 30 countries in NATO, soon to be 32 even if not all contribute. Now work out how many from each. Its certainly possible and explanations on how are here:

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-is-racing-to-arm-its-russian-borders-can-it-find-the-weapons-eastern-edge-military-leaders-james-j-townsend-jr-us-one-billion-citizens-army-europe/

[rabas]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd be interested to know from where they can find 300,000 troops with nothing better to do than sit on a border waiting for an attack that likely ( IMO ) will never come.

Most military forces are mainly support troops, and the fighting ones are likely needed elsewhere.

 

https://www.army.mil/article/45200/infantry_leaders_sharpen_training_tactics_to_meet_battlefield_demands

Infantry Soldiers make up 15 percent of the Army force.

 

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

As of 2022, the British Army comprises 79,380 regular full-time personnel,

Total population of current NATO countries is 949.01 million. [ref]. 

 

Total population of the Russian Federation is 143.5 million. [ref]

 

[Yellowtail]

Let's hope that we consider diversity, equity and inclusion much more with selecting troops than has been the case historically. 

[candide]

And some people are arguing that NATO was a threat to Russia.....

[bradiston]

19 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

Since the only borders NATO has with the main European part of Russia are in Estonia and Latvia, plus a tiny bit in the deep Arctic region of Norway, it might get a bit crowded at the border.  Or perhaps they can surround Kaliningrad as well, ease the crush slightly.

 

Still leaves rather a large gap in the middle of Europe, though, but.

Assemble in the North West along soon to join Finland's 832 mile border with Russia, Estonia and Latvia. Defending even the threat of that would require a massive diversion of troops and armaments from eastern Ukraine. Could Russia defend 2 fronts? Seriously doubt it. The prisons must be nearly empty by now. Zelensky could push the fxxxxxx out. Curtains for the Jolly Waggoners.

[Bangkok Barry]

22 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

Since the only borders NATO has with the main European part of Russia are in Estonia and Latvia, plus a tiny bit in the deep Arctic region of Norway, it might get a bit crowded at the border.  Or perhaps they can surround Kaliningrad as well, ease the crush slightly.

 

Still leaves rather a large gap in the middle of Europe, though, but.

You've forgotten that Finland especially with it's long border, and Sweden, have applied to join NATO

[Eleftheros]

6 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

You've forgotten that Finland especially with it's long border, and Sweden, have applied to join NATO

No, I haven't. They are not members of NATO as it stands, and it still all depends on Turkish President Erdogan, one of the most unstable people on the world political scene.

[Denim]

17 hours ago, Credo said:

It sounds like some of the NATO members need to up their game when it comes to military performance.  These are troubling times.  You want good soldiers, well-trained and able to engage any enemy.  For that, you do need to make sure they have all the equipment, arms and ammunition they need.

 

At least us English have the mighty longbow to fall back on.

[scottiejohn]

Just now, Denim said:

At least us English have the mighty longbow to fall back on.

And he has WMD's!

[bradiston]

13 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

No, I haven't. They are not members of NATO as it stands, and it still all depends on Turkish President Erdogan, one of the most unstable people on the world political scene.

Erdogan is ok with the Finns. Shouldn't be long before they're in. Sweden just has to sort out it's disagreement with Erdogan over the Kurds.

[Salerno]

30 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

No, I haven't. They are not members of NATO as it stands, and it still all depends on Turkish President Erdogan, one of the most unstable people on the world political scene.

Not quite:

 

https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/17/turkey-president-erdogan-asks-parliament-to-ratify-finland-nato-membership

 

Still whinging about Sweden but we're talking borders here anyway.

 

Being a member is not a prerequisite for inviting other nations in to bolster defence in any case. Both nations have worked with NATO forces for decades under such things as the Partnership for Peace program.

[Eleftheros]

Well, I guess it's a sign of the times we live in when sticking 300,000 NATO troops on Russia's border could conceivably be mentioned in the same breath as a "Partnership for Peace".

[Purdey]

Wonder how concerned American parents are that their sons and daughters are likely to be pushed into yet another foreign war in countries they can't find on a map? 

Some pressure from them might put NATO's plans in disorder. Aren't Americans sick of these neverending wars? 

[Eleftheros]

4 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Aren't Americans sick of these neverending wars? 

I guess that depends on whether you mean the American people, or the federal government.

[roquefort]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What the <deleted> has NATO been doing the last 30 years if that's how unprepared they are?

Bringing 'democracy' to places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Mission accomplished (not), but hey, it's only a few trillion $ wasted.