Putin seems to be looking to expand the borders of Russia. NATO has lessened forces to be seemingly only a defense force.
Is the NATO’s fear of Putin expanding his borders and Putin’s fear of a stronger NATO a catalyst for a new arms race?
Not an “arms race” per se. There are certainly enough conventional and nuclear weapons to go around on both sides. What’s going on now is that NATO’s mettle is being tested by Russia. Putin is probing for weakness. So far he’s shown that the west’s bark is worse than its bite. NATO will have to show some resolve to convice him otherwise.
BTW, I don’t think Putin will risk an all out war with the west. He won’t win and he stands much more to lose. He’ll back down. But not before he stirs the pot some more.
We’re trying to establish a “red line” (yeah, I know) at NATO borders. Which pretty much tells Putin that Ukraine is his, as long has he can maneuver thru economic sanctions.
NATO seems to be stepping up with the ‘Spearhead’ force, will Russia counter with more fast reaction forces?
NATO spends twice as much on its military as Russia not counting the contribution of the US. With the US, the ratio is like ten to one. And Russia’s post-Soviet military command is famously full of graft and corruption, while the major NATO countries are well organized.
Any conventional war between the two would be decided in NATO’s favour pretty quickly.
It’s hardly anything new. Allied Command Europe Mobile Force - Land
It was replaced in 2002 with NATO Response Force:
Yet another re-vamping of rapid reaction forces out of already existing forces isn’t an arms race.
A force of a single person could satisfy “of up to” 25000. If there were a force of 25,000 ready to go there would be no reason for a NATO spearhead?
If there were a force of of 25,000 ready to go why would a spearhead force be needed?
To answer the question in the thread title…yes: weaponized computer malware is at the heart of a very major arms race right now.
To answer the question in the post…no, Putin’s adventurism isn’t really changing much of anything. It may lead to an increase in weapons spending overall, but not on a major scale. NATO – or just the U.S. alone – has far more weapons than needed to tip any conflict over into a nuclear exchange. Our air forces could sweep the skies of all Russian aircraft – but that would not be tolerated by any ICBM-armed Russian government.
You can’t possibly be serious.:rolleyes:
There is a force of 25,000 ready to go and has been since 2002. It’s called NATO Response Force. If you bothered to read the cite, NRF has already been used 6 times:
Individual NATO nations have also had their own individual rapid reaction forces as they have felt their own foreign policy dictates. See for example the US Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), later renamed USCENTCOM, US Central Command. Its maneuver elements consisted of XVIII Airborne Corps with the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), 9th Infantry Division - the “high tech test bed” motorized division, the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and the 6th Armored Cavalry Regiment as well as the 1st Marine Division. Size-wise, that’s a hell of a lot more than 25,000 strong, but just how ‘rapid’ it could actually be in practice was a matter of some debate. Less the 9th Infantry Division it was the initial force sent to Saudi Arabia in 1990 in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; and the ready battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division can still today be air dropped anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
For other NATO nations there was for French the Force d’action rapide (FAR) (sorry, wiki article is in French) from 1984-1999 which consisted of 47,000 men, 240 combat helicopters, 200 armored vehicles and 200 artillery pieces. It too formed the basis of the French force sent to the Gulf in 1990. Being formed from volunteer formations it also avoided the problems of laws that prevent French conscripts from being forced to serve overseas, a consequence of France’s unpopular wars attempting to hold onto its colonies in Algeria and Vietnam.
Again, re-vamping and re-organizing of forces that already exist isn’t an arms race.
Sure if Russia wants to enter again into a downward spiral where soviet style the nations wealth is burned up by the military trying to keep up with NATO’s money. Its a fool errand. I hope for his people that Putin isn’t that silly.
It seems that Russia might be willing to burn wealth for territory. Russia has Crimea and may even take parts of the Ukraine, all without being involved.
NATO seems to have no combat force ready to stymie Russian forces, and unless Russia attacks a NATO country I don’t know how Russia can be checked.
The NATO Response Force is overwhelming air powered and can not take territory. As long as Russia can say they are protecting the interests of Russian citizens we, the US, have little to no answer.
The Ukraine thing has been going on for six months. Its not really a “rapid response” issue, even if NATO didn’t have any force that couldn’t respond without several months prep-time, they would’ve had plenty of time to respond by now. The reason we aren’t fighting Russia there is because we don’t want to.
In no way has this resulted in Russia “burning wealth” on an arms race. In other ways yes, but not by ramping up arms production.
On what planet does NATO have no combat ready force? It has the most powerful conventional military force on the planet. What you are objecting to is that it doesn’t want to start WWIII with Russia over a country that isn’t a member of NATO.
- The NATO Response Force is not overwhelmingly air powered. 2) Its primary job isn’t to take territory but it can “act as an initial entry force for a subsequent primary deployment”. 3) Horseshit. The Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Want to place any bets on what happens if Russia claims to be acting to protect the interests of Russian citizens in Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia, which are NATO members?
We’re not going to start a war with Russia over Ukraine. Not going to happen.
We’ve pledged to treat an attack on Estonia or Poland as an attack on the United States, and the other NATO countries have pledged the same. That’s because those countries are NATO members, which is the anti-Russian defense pact you may have heard about.
The fact is, Ukraine does not have a mutual defense pact with the United States. We’re sorry as hell they’re getting their ass kicked by the Russians, and we’re sanctioning the hell out of Russia, but we’re not going to fight the Russians for them. The people who advocate sending troops all seem to have the idea that if we send troops the Russians are just going to fold, and we can end the war and protect Ukraine without fighting.
Are you willing to risk World War III to test that theory? Because, you know, the Russians also have this idea. And the Russians care a heck of a lot more about Ukraine than we do, since Ukraine has been incorporated into the Russian state on and off for hundreds of years.
There won’t be any “new” arms race, since there is currently one which is trending: Nuclear Weapons.
NATO’s member has already vowed to increase their military spendings in order to be more effective and “fearing” (little European countries)… Since Russia essentially said: “NATO? haha. Novorossiya.”
The underestimation Russia had for NATO, caused a fierce reaction, which left Russia more isolated than ever and now, with more and more sanctions being imposed on her, including energy sanctions I believe, Russia is left with little time to undo it’s annexations and retract any further claims in Ukraine, which is basically obstructing the international integrity of Ukraine, which she signed a deal not to, in exchange to Ukraine destroying all the nuclear warheads she had obtained after leaving Russia.
So, a new arms race might not be needed, until new space-to-ground missile technology is fully deployed… That sound funny doesn’t it? Russia might be mighty but she is definitely not foolish enough to start a large-scale regional war, in which she would have to confront Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgie and other European forces including Canada and US where in China would probably take a neutral side…
I wish luck to all those Ukrainians fighting against the fascist, expansionist and ultra-nationalist “non-Russian” forces, which are of course paramilitary Russian forces…
Okay, color me stupid… Ukraine has nuclear weapons? and Russia is STILL so stupid as to invade with conventional forces? How close to Kiev do those forces get before Moscow disappears?
This is a damn sight scarier than I had realized.
Ukraine had nuclear weapons on the breakup of the Soviet Union–since a lot of them were located there. I don’t believe Ukraine currently has any.
Ukraine gave them up in return for a guarantee that the US, the UK and Russia would not violate Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Shows how well nuclear disarmament works in practice, unfortunately.
Yes. Quite unfortunate.
Giving up WMD programs hasn’t gone well for Libya, either.
However, it did work for South Africa. Maybe that’s because its neighboring countries are so militarily weak.
That reasoning wouldn’t apply in the case of an independent Scotland. The pro-yes Scots, who are overwhelmingly anti-nuclear, seem awfully trusting of future English generations.
Geeze, guys, don’t scare me like that. (Thanks for the clarification.)
For every other nation on earth, one taste of Scots cuisine is enough to send 'em scuttling. The English, alone, seem to have an immunity…
More seriously, it does seem that some borders really don’t need defending. Canada really doesn’t suffer any meaningful threat from the U.S. With any luck, the English/Scots border will be similarly stress-free.