Seeking to reassure countries that have grown fearful of Russia, Western defense ministers will consider the creation of an easily deployable military force that could be sent into nations feeling threatened, a senior U.S. Defense official said Thursday. The creation of such a force would take NATO back to its roots as a deterrent against Soviet might after years of concentrating on missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan. North Atlantic Treaty Organization defense chiefs plan to discuss the proposal at a meeting today. The Bush administration is pushing the idea as a compromise that could reassure allies without provoking Russia. However, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stepped up the Bush administration's denunciation of Moscow, alleging in a speech in Washington that Russia had shown a "worsening pattern of behavior" in which it was "increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad."
The creation of such a force would take NATO back to its roots as a deterrent against Soviet might after years of concentrating on missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan. North Atlantic Treaty Organization defense chiefs plan to discuss the proposal at a meeting today. The Bush administration is pushing the idea as a compromise that could reassure allies without provoking Russia.
However, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stepped up the Bush administration's denunciation of Moscow, alleging in a speech in Washington that Russia had shown a "worsening pattern of behavior" in which it was "increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad."
With NATO divided over how to respond to a newly assertive Russia, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday that he would urge alliance ministers meeting here to adopt a cautious and deliberate approach that would reassure newer members along the Russian border without provoking hostilities. Mr. Gates has said he does not anticipate any armed Russian incursions into the territory of NATO member countries, but said Moscow was more likely to pursue strategies of "pressure and intimidation," including restricting its supplies of oil and gas, on which Europe depends. Mr. Gates made his comments as the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, struck a conciliatory tone in Moscow, saying he hoped that Russia and the United States could find a way to improve relations.
Mr. Gates has said he does not anticipate any armed Russian incursions into the territory of NATO member countries, but said Moscow was more likely to pursue strategies of "pressure and intimidation," including restricting its supplies of oil and gas, on which Europe depends.
Mr. Gates made his comments as the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, struck a conciliatory tone in Moscow, saying he hoped that Russia and the United States could find a way to improve relations.
The EU isn't going to risk a war with Russia and the US doesn't have a modern army, anymore.
The US Air Force hasn't attacked a modern, integrated, anti-aircraft defense since World War II.
Either way, the attacking forces would be savaged.
(AFC, BBS)
Russians and Americans have been having cat fights for decades, up to 280 a year, under-reported "incidents at sea." They're heavy sparing partners- and quite often the Russians get the best. A war with Russia would be a total disaster for the world.
As for the Georgia campaign, the Russian attack was a classic low-level operation. Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of their campaign was the lack of precision bombing. The Russians are deliberately using non-surgical weaponry as an admonition. And if their nuclear warheads are just as imprecise?
AFAIK, this system is still in the 'talking' phase. Throw some money at R&D and it could be developed.
But not today.
LOL, that's not the impression one gets from watching Top Gun ;-) A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
As for top guns, Karl Rove's "Mission Accomplished" set was stolen from Putin. To clench the 1999 elections Putin piloted a SU-27 over Checheny with a top gun as co-pilot, Maj. Gen. Alexander Kharchevsky.
General Kharchevsky is the head of the 4th flight training center (CBPiPLS) from Lipetsk, where one of the most capable Russian Air Force units is based. Several years ago Kharchevsky visited the United States, where he flew a number of simulated combat missions on his Su-27 fighter against some of the best American pilots. Kharchevsky won all of the 26 missions flown. (It was after Kharchevsky's trip to the U.S. that several Western military aircraft manufacturers, including Lockheed and Saab, declined an offer by Sukhoi Design Bureau to conduct a public one-on-one close combat simulation at an international air show between any of the latest Western fighters and the Su-35 air-superiority fighter.)
On May 1, 2003 (or the day before), Bush co-piloted a plane onto the USS Lincoln to announce the Mission had been accomplished. He however resorted to a normal guy pilot, a very American thing to do.
A proper film would pit the two pilots against each other, maple syrup and apple pie. I'll go see it if there's no fuckwit scientologist in the cast. Hell, I'll even write the script. Dick'll be the evil guy.
PS. It was Kharchevsky who "sank" the Kitty Hawk.
One can read recent weapons initiatives in the US as ways to get around that. If you believe some of the hype, the more or less canceled F-22 Raptor was supposed to be the key to cracking modern air defense networks, and its cheaper and less effective replacement, the Joint Strike Fighter, is supposed to have a good chunk of that capability.
Then there are the various anti-satellite weapons the US has been developing, to deal with the satellite tracking issues.
None of its ready for use, though.
And your downthread comment about the US Army is right as well.
And if the F-22 is as good as the US propaganda claims it is... Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Not that the Americans are selling the F-22 to anyone, but the F-35 has gotten into developmental trouble... ;) Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The quality of people being brought into the military has lowered. They are losing the NCO corp (the heart of a fighting force) because of Iraq. The quality of the Army has lowered. The suicide rate is appalling.
The US is spending a ton of money, per year, but that is spread-out over the standard bills just to have a Air Force, Navy, Marine Corp, National Guard (Territorials,) and their associated Reserve Units. Billions of dollars per month goes to Iraq. And so on and so forth.
Yes, the US spends a lot, too much IMHO, on its military but it's a 'holding action,' as it were.
The equipment has been worn down some, but that just mean more money to the military industrial complex. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Against sturdier foes armed with the very latest weaponry and a limitless budget - like Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan - its record isn't quite as convincing.
But no, I've never claimed the Americans were good at counter-insurgency. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
One might say there is an established doctrine of how to beat the US military: Allow them into the country and then conduct guerrilla/insurgency warfare until they leave.
(And with the high birthrate that doesn't really matter).
In more developed nations where people actually want to live reasonable lives, like in Georgia, an insurgency is hard to imagine no matter how much the neocon press has been writing about it.
And when push comes to shove, if someone starts an insurgency against you, you very likely have done something very wrong. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
when push comes to shove, if someone starts an insurgency against you, you very likely have done something very wrong.
Yeah. Like invading their country.
Seriously. The Bush administration and the GOP (neo-lib, conservative) dominance of economic policy over the last decades has gutted the US. There isn't enough money to fight two wars, maintain a global military presence, bail-out the financial sector, pay for the weapons systems now coming on-line, and re-supply & equip the Armed Forces.
