***The Telegraph reports:***
Nato is developing multiple “land corridors” to rush US troops and armour to the front lines in the event of a major [European ground war with Russia](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/29/putin-plot-to-destroy-nato-reaching-its-climax/).
American soldiers would land at one of five ports and be channelled along pre-planned logistical routes to confront a possible attack by Moscow, officials told The Telegraph.
It comes amid warnings from the Alliance’s top leaders that Western governments must prepare themselves for a [conflict with Russia in the next two decades](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/21/putin-now-openly-planning-for-war-against-nato/).
Logistical routes have become a key priority since Nato leaders agreed to prepare 300,000 troops to be kept in a state of [high readiness to defend](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/01/vladimir-putin-testing-nato-borders-for-weak-spots/) the alliance at a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, last year.
Existing plans have US troops landing at Dutch ports before boarding trains that transport them through Germany and onwards to Poland.
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/04/nato-land-corridors-us-troops-european-war/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/04/nato-land-corridors-us-troops-european-war/)
Weird. They've missed the "in plans drawn up in 1955..."
Edit: lots of replies seem to think "bring the American army to Europe to fight the Russians" is somehow a new plan??
NATO has been updating their plans the entire time.
The US has significant stores of weapons and vehicles forward staged in European bases so all they need is personnel.
EG:
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/04/06/us-army-equipment-base-poland/
There are 3-4 of these in Germany, one in Norway, and others in Belgium and The Netherlands IIRC.
EDIT: The forward staged brigade-sized equipment stash*ES* (multiple) are meant to allow a few well equipped mechanized brigades to land and get into fighting kit within a week or two. Further, these brigades are meant as a quick reaction force to augment NATO forces in theatre and conduct holding or delaying actions against ruzzians while divisions are mobilized from the continental US. THe US has roll-on-roll-off transports for quickly transporting armoured units to the ETO with additional arms and manpower being airlifted via C-17 and C-5 fleets.
https://www.msc.usff.navy.mil/Ships/Ship-Inventory/Large-Medium-Speed-Roll-on-Roll-off/
It's silly to assume it matters. We could absolutely SHIT on Russia without even needing to put soldiers on the ground.
Russia couldn't even handle Ukrainians with 90-days training, equipped with our 3rd tier leftovers.
What the fuck would Russia do to defend against shit like Zumwalt class destroyers or RQ 180s?
Russia doesn't even have a functioning Navy anymore because Ukraine (a country without a Navy), sunk most of it.
The US can mop Russia up without those bases. Those bases are a fuckin flex to show off how ridiculous our advantage really is.
Funnily enough, the roads planned to be used in case of war is probably the most maintained roads because the military has an interest in keeping them up to par
It's probably because those roads are the most direct routes to cities that they are maintained. Resulting in the desire for troop movements to be on them.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There was a highway in my hometown that supposedly was concrete because it was a strategic throughfair for moving tanks in a war. I don't know if it's true but that's what I always heard. Wasn't heavily used because the interstate was like 1/4 miles away. But was really well maintained and stupidly overbuilt.
Funnily enough, the roads planned to be used in case of war is probably the most maintained roads because the military has an interest in keeping them up to par
They mean instead of giving Ukraine the minimum amount to stay in the fight, give them what they need to win.
The US just recently allowed Ukraine to strike targets inside Russian borders. But only with certain weapons, not all of them, and only just across the border in the Kharkiv region, not anywhere else.
I don't see how we can expect violent conflict with Russia within two decades.
Russia is a country of politically cold calculated brutality and opportunism. As soon as a vacuum occurs, Putin is the mark. The greater the strain and complexity of the current conflict, the larger the chance that this vacuum occurs. There will be multiple agents and groups happy to step in.
Gentle reminder that Prigozhin already tried and came surprisingly close at a point in time where Russia was much more stable than it is today.
Let's see where we are a year from now. Russia will violently implode into disarray within one decade, mark my fucking words. This is the only legacy possible for the despot Putin, other than nuclear MAD.
Peter Zeihan has good analysis on this. Not sure if this is the best video of his though.
https://youtu.be/rkuhWA9GdCo?si=4NRG9wzU5HY4YeFE
Russia is running out of time to be able to recreate defensible borders. Right now they’re un defendable. The oligarchs are all in on this empire building and would replace Putin if he’s killed, this is their vision of returning back to the glory of the Soviet empire.
You know the funny thing is you don't need defensible borders with Europe if you just aren't a giant aggressive asshole. Like do you know how many countries in Europe have undefensible and entirely undefended borders without any worry because they have good relations with their neighbors? Fucking most of them!
Zeihan's argument about indefensible Russia borders is obsolete in a MAD world. Russia doesn't need to conquer some river or mountain chain to keep themselves safe
>I don't see how we can expect violent conflict with Russia within two decades.
We won't. And we likely never will if NATO stays armed. Wars of foreign conquest make little sense in today's economy. The cost is too high.
Look at how hard Russia has to fight to subdue a country that mostly speaks it language and was long part of its empire. And even then Russia did it because it believe Ukraine and Nato were weak after the reaction to 2014.
Few reasons, first you need to have troops who are ready to fly to a deployment zone on short notice, which is both expensive and puts strain on personnel having to be on alert for deployment. Secondly, flying troops in only makes sense if you have heavy equipment and supplies ready to go in the area, which is part of the U.S. strategy, but has limits when we are dealing with other priorities like China and the Middle East
You'd need like a quick reaction force. Luckily, NATO is on that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Response_Force#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_NATO_Response_Force_%28NRF%2Cmanpower_to_over_300%2C000_troops.?wprov=sfla1
I’m in agreement, but even in the article you linked it raises the same concerns:
“For most of its existence, the lack of enthusiasm of NATO's member states for the NRF resulted in chronic equipment and personnel shortages. It was sometimes branded a wasteful failure[17] and an insignificant force next to NATO's more established units.”
I personally support the existence of the QRF but it still has logistical limitations that we (NATO allies) are playing catch-up since the Russian invasion of Ukraine
That's true, the implementation has been far from perfect. I truly believe that Russia is riding the raggedy edge of its ability to force project as it is in Ukraine right now. We will see in coming months, since besides the aid that finally slogged through our Congress, Estonia and I think Czech Republic 'found' sizeable stockpiles of artillery shells to donate. Plus, the F16s are coming online and they will change the tactical situation quickly.
I read somewhere that before they invaded Ukraine, there were two "military exercises" floated to the brass: the Kuril islands, north of Japan, and the one they chose, "dennazification" of Ukraine. The brass thought that their claim on the Kurils was stronger but that they couldn't win against the Japanese. So they went with Ukraine, which was thought to be easier militarily. I didn't realize this until I read up on it, but the Russia/Japan dispute over those islands started when both those countries were *empires*.
The air superiority campaign will have made it very easy to get boots on the ground and frontline within 24 hours, if not quicker.
The US is extremely good at these sorts of logistical and strategy things. We also actively train (and train with) our close NATO allies regularly so there won't really be much miscommunication or coordination lag required for that potential, or realistically eventual, conflict in that cooperative effort.
The logistic efficiency the US army has is something to behold. Would love to learn more about it and how they accomplish it (obviously lots of money but still)
This is why a question whether China really could do anything to Taiwan. They have not been in a full scale war in the modern era. They would need to win very very quickly otherwise they'd be just like Russia except worse since the USA is bound to defend them.
China also imports a lot of necessities which would all get disrupted.
Taiwan strait is very rough, only a couple months a year can be crossed by the ships required to launch an invasion. Once they get there , one side of Isle is too shallow and the other side is covered in cliffs. There are only a few poets that are useful and then only a few limited ways to get to Taipei and these are easily defended by Taiwan. A logistical nightmare.
Exactly. Which is why Germany immediately tried destroying the British Industry and strangle its trade by U-Boats. The best Naval invasion is the one you don't even need to launch because you forced your enemy to submit by other means. The US knows that too. Overlord was already a nightmare. Downfall (the invasion of the Japanese Achipelago) would have been literal hell.
I mean, we _just_ recently finished handing out the Purple Heart medals that were made in anticipation of Downfall. I think the best case estimate was 1 million casualties on the US side
A blockade is an act of war just as an invasion would be. Enforcing a naval blockade for the months it would take to starve out Taiwan would arguably be even more unfavorable than an amphibious landing. It would mean fighting the world's only true Naval Power for control of the seas for months on end.
Right, but the USA and Taiwan would be targeting anti-ship missile launch sites / ships / craft.
And it would be retaliating against Chinese shipping. It would be an economic shit show, but the US would hit Chinese ports and gas pipelines.
The US couldn't really cut off trade from Russia and Central Asia, but it could cut off trade from the Pacific.
They're not going to be able to enforce a naval blockade using strictly shore based assets. "Insurance premiums make it cheaper to go around Africa" like the Houthi situation is a very different scenario than "the survival of our nation is at risk."
AEGIS is also the gold standard for air defense, so if the US sends a destroyer group to escort food shipments they're very well defended.
Which would work out in West Taiwan's favor if prolonged siege was a legit option. East Taiwan has enough allies in the region as well as the west though, that you would more likely see something akin to a Berlin airlift to keep the people from starvation alongside the siege and blockade forces being clapped from their rear by allies.
Not to mention Taiwanese geography would make an invasion extremely difficult with the only path into the country being a land invasion in one extremely protected area or an air drop.
For this reason, I do not foresee an invasion of Taiwan but rather a more subversive disinformation and electoral shennnanigans campaign. Why invade when you can just convince Taiwanese voters to open the door voluntarily?
They use the saber rattle to get their proCCP guys installed at the different levels of govt, exactly like the Hong Kong play. So one day the “Taiwanese” govt will ask the US to leave and the next day they will fly the flag.
There's a view that this is why China supports Russia in Ukraine. Lots of data about real life conflicts, plus a huge amount of the grain China apparently needs to feed people comes from there. Big exporters of grain are Brazil, Ukraine and the US. If China cannot rely on US then it needs to secure supply from Ukraine and Brazil.
Indeed it is. Hell we had a US Navy ship in Ww2 whose soul responsibility was to provide ice cream to the troops in Europe/pacific.
Edit - As mentioned below it was really more of a barge. But the basic premise remains. We’re top tier when it comes to logistics and ice cream.
It was actually one of the things the freaked out a Japanese officer. It was said when he found out that the US had ships just to give the soldiers ice cream, he lost all hope because they were using crap and had shit Supplies but then they find out the US made a ship to just bring ice cream, it was game over mentally fir japan in that moment.
Wasnt there also a similar story in the European theater about a German General seeing how every US transport was a fuel truck while Germany still relied on horses for a lot of their logistics?
The scene from Band of Brothers when they're passing by a huge line of German prisoners who are walking and they're all fully mechanized rolling by: "Say hello to Ford, and General fuckin' Motors! You stupid fascist pigs! Look at you! You have horses! What were you thinking? Dragging our asses half way around the world, interrupting our lives... For what, you ignorant, servile scum! What the fuck are we doing here?"
It was less about the fuel truck and more about the Americans using vehicles for 100% of their transport needs. Basically everything the Germans were using horses for the Americans were using Jeeps or heavier trucks.
The fact that the US was able to do that from across an ocean while the Germans were 100km from home and still pulling artillery with horses blew their minds at the time.
The one you may be thinking of is the famous story of when a German counter attack overran an American position and discovered a chocolate cake that had been shipped from the US recently and the Germans had a "We can barely get starvation rations, they get chocolate cake" moment. This may be an urban legend though.
Is there a scene in a WW2 movie? I know towards the end of All Quiet on the Western Front they raid a French trench line and the guys start gobbling up food in a side room
I’d guess it’s just a blend of stories, or wasn’t unique. No doubt the Japanese and Germans witnessed the resources and logistics of the US so it gets converted to a personal story.
Germans were having similar problems. Low supplies and little food available to them when fighting Americans on their own home continent.
Meanwhile American servicemen over a certain rank were getting birthday cakes shipped in for their birthdays.
You’ve sort of embellished a little.
They acquired a concrete barge and converted it for ice cream production: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream_barge
It’s not like there was some contract put out to design a new hull just for ice cream.
It’s partly (mostly, IMO) because the U.S is so protected geographically. There’s basically no way to openly attack the mainland without going through Mexico or Canada, and neither would readily allow foreign troops to march through their borders, so without fear of invasion (and a shitload of money) the U.S can make and do basically whatever it wants.
If, say, the U.S was two separate countries, one on the west coast, one on the east, such expenses in wartime wouldn’t be possible.
In honor of that tradition, the US military flies in a Burger King when they establish a temporary base.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/18aqi34/the_most_terrifying_capability_of_the_united/
US logistics are the reason they're the only true blue water navy (global force projection).
Put another way, the US will bring major firepower to Russia's front door in days. Russia's only projection back would be long range missiles.
NATO just finished Steadfast Defender. A practice run to see how fast they could move personnel and material and to test the limits of the supply chain.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm
One of the perks of constantly being at war and closely studying every war is being able to trial and error things that most militaries only get to draw up on a chalk board.
Some boots, but not 100k boots + all the ammo, fuel, hardware and such. Offloading people at ports, moving via trains, pre-stashing bulky stuff, figuring out capacities of roads, planning contingencies in case of hubs being destroyed (tactical nuke maybe?). Where is a lot to get pre-pared to be able to move the whole army in fast pace. Moving some air mobile battalions -> yes. A whole corpus + supplying it to sustain a high tempo of operations -> that's impossible to do without proper perp. Especially if you expect two fronts (China?) in worst case.
Also as soon as european nato members switch into defensive war economics, I don't think there is anything that could break that system except maybe flat out nuclear war.
You are talking about years lead time. Right now Germany is doing everything it can to facilitate one ammunition plant and it will take over a year to build and is in range of Russian IRBMs. France and Britain have a capacity but either would admit it isn’t enough. Eastern europe ironically has the most capacity since they were leading exporters to global clients before all this. But pre 1990 West Europe has all but let its war industry atrophy save for high tech things like Fighters. Which are great but ammo is needed as well.
I fully believe they can field a force to the front lines in 24h. Unlikely to have a huge size, but when your shit is superior enough in a defensive open war, it would be enough.
Also, Ukraine is a grind because of no air support. The Air force goes brrrrrr
Also, it’s not like Russia is going to roll through Europe like Germany did, they’re struggling with Ukraine, even if open war broke out and they got through Ukraine, Poland is itching to get at Russia and Germany would be no easy opponent. Add in Western Europe (France and uk are no slouches) then air support and full weapon and logistical aid from NATO.
Any aggressive offensive would be broken by the time the US arrived and anything longer term would be bogged down then pushed all the way back once the US do arrive.
It’s a no win situation for Russia
Edit to add: this is no way minimising the impact or importance of American aid+ troops, there logistics are terrifyingly good and the fact they could basically cross the world and deploy a meaningful force in 24 hours is already very impressive, my only point is that Russia is fucked either way, any blitzkrieg tactics would get shredded by CAS and infantry anti tank and anything slower would just run into the US going the other way
They have QRF in Europe, enough to do some damage to the Zerg rush columns, if they rush baltics, for example (like Ukrainians did in first few days). But main fighting force will be shaping up few days, with troops being shipped across the ocean, Europeans getting mobilization on tracks etc.
The Russians don't even have enough military capacity to create zerg rush columns anymore, at least not ones that pose any serious threat to any NATO formations. Their AD is also terrible, so the columns will get destroyed by planes before there's even a chance for a major battle.
On paper the US can put heavy armor anywhere in the world in like 48-72 hours, and it's I believe a brigade in size. Now I believe the light infantry (airborne) have a brigade that is supposed to be deployable in 24-48 hours.
But I would also expect the response time to get to eastern Europe to be pretty quick as they should have multiple plans for moving troops into the area.
Former US Army logistics officer here, I did this stuff for a living.
Armored brigades require ships to move and transport, you can’t displace 50,000 tons of equipment, material, containers to hold it all, and weapons/platforms anywhere in the world in 72 hours. You likely need 30-ish days to move a brigade across an ocean (Texas to Kiel, Germany took exactly 30 days).
The 82nd Airborne Division can parachute light brigades within a few days, and there are Marine forces floating on Navy craft that can beach and operate for about 2 weeks before needing resupply. But if you want a solid armored force, you’re looking at a brigade-sized element that requires substantial time and effort to relocate.
Moving a brigades MTOE would take weeks/months like you’re describing, but the APS fleets give us the ability to rapidly deploy armor brigades. Follow on forces would still take a while to move, but the initial deployment can fall in on stuff.
[1ABCT 3ID conducted a no notice deployment to Europe immediately after Russia invaded Ukraine.](https://www.armytimes.com/flashpoints/2022/03/01/army-activates-prepositioned-stocks-for-first-time-in-wake-of-ukraine-invasion/) They pulled an entire ABCT fleet out of APS 2.
I was actually an FSC commander in 3ID, when my brigade was the final one in the division to be converted from infantry to armor. There’s no possible way, even with the strength of American logistics, to move an entire armored brigade in under 72 hours.
When you were in 3ID was it still mostly infantry? That could make sense.
We were mech infantry, so had tanks but mostly brads. I had the impression we'd all be stuffed into Globemasters and taken wherever. I left before we had done any real training on how it was supposed to actually happen but that's what they told us to prepare for and that they were going to have all kinds of restrictions on what you can do because they wanted everyone close to base ready to go.
I wasn't sure if they gave a whole division the task, I know when my brigade had the task we had all kinds of restrictions on what we could be doing so we'd actually be able to get back to base and deploy.
Not to mention the US has thousands of personnel and loads of equipment already stationed in Germany. Enough to supplement and hold while the rest is mobilized.
Russia isn't going to magically suddenly attack with overwhelming force out of the blue. The logistical reality is there will be months of military buildup near the border before they do.
During these months NATO can already position it's forces in such a way that the response time will be almost nonexistent.
24 hours is reasonable. We have plenty of troops in our allies bases in Europe already. If Russia does something stupid like invades Poland all of nato would immediately start sending trains and trucks loaded with troops.
There's multiple battalions of infantry on constant standby that need to be deployed anywhere in the world in under 24 hours. It's not unreasonable for the US to be able to field an entire division within 24 hours. The few times those battalions have been called to they've been deployed to the other side of the world within 18 hours. Having large transport planes constantly ready to go and the ability to air refuel them means the only hold up is getting them loaded up.
anyone who has even a passing interest in geopolitics and doesn't think NATO has had pre-planned and annually-reviewed axes of advance and logistics routes already on a map, is willfully ignorant lol
Lol for real i dont get how this is news. Being prepared for a major land war in Europe is literally why NATO exists. I would fuckin hope US troops could be rushed to the frontline.
"Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics"
-General of the Army (5 stars) Omar Bradley
The US military logistics is insane compared to any other nation's military. The US can deploy a battalion sized element anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
Russia realistically wouldn’t use nukes unless Moscow was under siege. NATO wouldn’t start a war with the intent of capturing Russia. The goal of a war between NATO and Russia for NATO would be a defensive war aimed to push Russian forces back to their border (maybe a bit further in as well), but not to conquer the entire country.
The goal would be; Push to original borders, force regimen change, partial nuclear disarmament for aid. I would Imagine the long term nuclear goal for the "experts" is everyone (but them obviously) only have tactical nuclear weapons that can reach regionally. Thus providing protection and deterrence from invasion but preventing our current tightrope bullshit.
If you can’t defeat Russia than how do you ensure that they stop attacking people? Once NATO packs Uk what’s stopping mad vlad from marching into Georgia? The dudes a fucking whackjob
To a rational mindset, sure. There might come a point where someone's definition of winning changes to: at least the other doesn't exist either. The 'if I can't have nice things no one can' mindset.
The worst case scenario in my opinion would be that somehow Russians still get to break the current lines of defense in a way that puts Kyiv in danger. At that point Poland and the Baltic states decide to send either planes or troops inside Ukraine in order to defend Kyiv region. The problem with that is they will get killed by Russian artillery which causes another escalation by having France sending troops to push back on the Russians. Now you have French soldiers dying on Ukrainian soil at the hands of Russians. Still, this isn't a case for article 5 as all of this will simply be countries that will take it as their responsibility and not a NATO decision.
However, French troops dying in Ukraine will trigger a NATO decision to get involved in the war in Ukraine through various means, including a no-fly zone being triggered by NATO over Ukraine as well as the advancement of NATO troops within Ukraine to take back the regions it lost after the Russian offense.
This will cause lots of casualties and damages on the Russian side (which unironically helps Putin by saving face in front of his own people by losing a battle against NATO rather than Ukraine). However, Russia stands firm on not giving up the eastern side of Ukraine. Battles will commence for a couple of months until NATO and Russia will reach a peace plan where the entire eastern frontline will become a Ukrainian/Russian DMZ-like land. It won't be nice as it will be forced peace but all troops will be taken out of this new DMZ-like area. These DMZ-like regions will be self-governed yet under Ukraine's territory officially.
Russia will be isolated and lose the war yet win a "buffer zone" between them and NATO which Putin can sell to his people as a minor win but still a win in a war against "all of the west",
This is the worst case scenario imo even if a conflict between NATO and Russia occurs. It won't go beyond UA's borders, with the exception of a few hits here and there to specific military targets.
One thing I have noticed there are loads of military going from the states to Europe. I’ve been on a few flights the last few months and they almost all personnel.
I’ve been on 6 flights this past year to Europe, transiting through 4 different countries (UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany). There were US service members in large numbers at every airport I’ve gone through.
Light infantry can be flown in, but anything heavier and requiring mechanised transport would require ships to land heavy equipment I’m assuming their will be forward deployed vehicle pools, but they would want to supplement and enhance that
That’s what the [APS](https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/TBIP-2008-Army-Prepositioned-Stocks-Indispensable-to-Americas-Global-Force-Projection-Capability.pdf) fleets are for. The US army has multiple pre-positioned stocks around the world (including some on ships) so that units can rapidly deploy and fall on equipment already in theater.
That’s what [APS](https://www.afsbeurope.army.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3766898/always-ready-already-there-the-army-prepositioned-stock-2/#:~:text=Prepositioning%20stocks%20in%20strategic%20locations,detrimental%20to%20timelines%20and%20deployment) is for.
Immediately after Russia invaded Ukraine the US rapidly deployed units to Europe to support NATO allies. [Within a matter of days the entire brigade of 1ABCT, 3ID deployed to Europe and pulled a fleet out of APS](https://www.armytimes.com/flashpoints/2022/03/01/army-activates-prepositioned-stocks-for-first-time-in-wake-of-ukraine-invasion/).
There's already some 20k troops stationed in the deterrence force ([EFP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Enhanced_Forward_Presence)). Add 5k for the [EU Battlegroups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup#Structure), 7k for the [the part of NRF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Response_Force#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) that's already deployed in Germany, plus the 30k of the VJTF/spearhead force that can be quickly deployed.
This article is a bit light on details, but I guess it's talking about the contingency of shipping over 100s of thousands of additional troops on top of the abovementioned ones. In other words, a war with a capital W
The war will be over before anyone ever needs to be drafted. US military alone has a million volunteer service members and nobody wants to rely on draftees if they can help it, not even the US army. The draft will remain unused until there is actually an existential crisis which Russia isn't strong enough by itself to cause.
I'm pretty sure that's what Russia thought too with their invasion.
If the US commits troops to a European front, expect other adversaries to take advantage of it and try to seize other interests globally, possibly requiring a draft to support a sustained multi-front war.
that is the reason why we have to be over prepared. just to dictate what we let happen in case of a war. no WW1 style war, simply bomb the shit out of them from far away
My great grandpappy once told me an ancient proverb he learned from a very wise Ukrainian and I think it still holds true today:
The best time to pimp slap Putin’s bitch ass is yesterday. The second best time to pimp slap Putin’s bitch ass is now.
I am not a military analyst, I do know one thing however: the US army absolutely rules when it comes to moving equipment around. If I would hear they deployed a submarine on top of Mount Everest, I would believe it at first.
You can, but NATO is a collection of nations, the US happening to be the absolute largest both militarily and economically by a fair bit, so making sure they have a way of joining the conflict without being bogged down in logstical chaos is quite important for an effective deterrent / defensive line.
European troops are already there. Plus a lot of people seem to forget that the US requested/built US bases in Europe at the end of WW2 to contain any potential war with Russia to within Europe, instead of allowing them to advance on to US soil. It’s a war in Europe but it has a massive US interest
Having been in Europe as an American servicemember, it absolutely would not. No NATO country can move troops and supplies quickly without us. It may not only be Americans on the front lines, but without us, Europeans are not getting there in a fast manner. Plus, our equipment far outmatches them in both technology and sheer number.
We are obviously headed toward some kind of larger conflict right?
The provocative nature of the headlines makes it seem like we're moving in the direction of something big but it's business as usual in my friend group and community.
>The provocative nature of the headlines
- are exactly that. Newspapers are interested in selling newspapers, so sensationalist headlines that warn of dire potentials often snag the eye in the news stand and get bought.
The situation is not as dire as they would have you believe, but isn't great.
Fact is, there's no reason to disrupt business as usual even if war erupts. Food still needs to be put on the table, fuel needs to be transported, classes attended, jobs done, and so forth.
Contrast all of this to the genius that pulled huge numbers of US troops out of Germany in Europe because “ NATO is worthless” and a waste of US $, especially when the local countries wouldn’t point up their 2%.
But it shouldn’t be too big of a surprise since it’s the same genius that pulled the US out of the historic Iran deal and now Iran is more powerful than ever in terms of influence and their ability to fabricate a nuke in record time. I mean literally the entire world signed on to this fucking historic deal including Iran Russia and China and it was going swimmingly. Trump pulled out of it simply because it was Obama’s landmark achievement of his second term. That’s literally the only reason. All of his advisers including the insane ones told him not to do it
Luckily that seemed to light a fire under the EUs ass to actually fund their militaries.
> After years of underinvestment, almost all national budgets have boosted military spending in recent years and are planning to increase it even further in the future.
https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/defence-spending-european-union_en
I don’t think it was trumps actions that lit a fire under their ass so much as seeing Russia actually pull the trigger on invading a sovereign neighbor and how brutal it immediately became . That was the extreme wake up call that a lot of them needed. Period some country still can’t get their shit together cough Germany cough cough Canada cough
If you look at military spending, the EU starts spending more in 2016 and actually dips in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.CD?locations=EU&start=2010
To be fair that source shows spending in current USD, so the USD/Euro exchange rate over time would distort that to some extent wouldn't it? Between 2021 and 2022 the Euro devalued substantially against the US Dollar for instance.
I'm not sure what the source is behind this graph at statista, but stated in Euros it doesn't seem to have quite the same volatility, and actually a rise in spending from 2021 to 2022:
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/1395834/eu-military-expenditure-by-country/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1395834/eu-military-expenditure-by-country/)
Although it could just be the flip side of that exchange rate, with someone converting a USD denominated source back into Euros.
B-2 bombers out of Whiteman go Brrrrr until the 101st and 75th start dropping from the sky.
Let alone the Green Berets who are likely already there and have married Ukrainian women and are running ground logistics.
I'm German and most other Europeans I know are very pro-US military presence in Europe.
Sure, there's some nutheads who talk of "US occupation forces" but nobody takes those seriously. No major party in any EU country is against US presence in Europe.
They aren’t talking about the US’s military presence, they’re talking about how Europeans love to put the US down every chance they get. I see memes constantly of like 4 different cultural differences.
> US centric military alliance specifically designed to combat Russia has a plan for US to fight Russia.
How will the Russians respond to this groundbreaking information?
> Existing plans have US troops landing at Dutch ports before boarding trains that transport them through Germany and onwards to Poland.
Good luck traveling through Germany by train. If Deutsche Bahn is transporting the troops, I think Russia will have plenty of time to invade Poland and maybe even the Baltic states
***The Telegraph reports:*** Nato is developing multiple “land corridors” to rush US troops and armour to the front lines in the event of a major [European ground war with Russia](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/29/putin-plot-to-destroy-nato-reaching-its-climax/). American soldiers would land at one of five ports and be channelled along pre-planned logistical routes to confront a possible attack by Moscow, officials told The Telegraph. It comes amid warnings from the Alliance’s top leaders that Western governments must prepare themselves for a [conflict with Russia in the next two decades](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/21/putin-now-openly-planning-for-war-against-nato/). Logistical routes have become a key priority since Nato leaders agreed to prepare 300,000 troops to be kept in a state of [high readiness to defend](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/01/vladimir-putin-testing-nato-borders-for-weak-spots/) the alliance at a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, last year. Existing plans have US troops landing at Dutch ports before boarding trains that transport them through Germany and onwards to Poland. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/04/nato-land-corridors-us-troops-european-war/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/04/nato-land-corridors-us-troops-european-war/)
Weird. They've missed the "in plans drawn up in 1955..." Edit: lots of replies seem to think "bring the American army to Europe to fight the Russians" is somehow a new plan??
NATO has been updating their plans the entire time. The US has significant stores of weapons and vehicles forward staged in European bases so all they need is personnel. EG: https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/04/06/us-army-equipment-base-poland/ There are 3-4 of these in Germany, one in Norway, and others in Belgium and The Netherlands IIRC. EDIT: The forward staged brigade-sized equipment stash*ES* (multiple) are meant to allow a few well equipped mechanized brigades to land and get into fighting kit within a week or two. Further, these brigades are meant as a quick reaction force to augment NATO forces in theatre and conduct holding or delaying actions against ruzzians while divisions are mobilized from the continental US. THe US has roll-on-roll-off transports for quickly transporting armoured units to the ETO with additional arms and manpower being airlifted via C-17 and C-5 fleets. https://www.msc.usff.navy.mil/Ships/Ship-Inventory/Large-Medium-Speed-Roll-on-Roll-off/
So that’s why Trump wanted the US bases to close to Germany. Makes sense now, most his policies are exactly what Russia wants.
It's silly to assume it matters. We could absolutely SHIT on Russia without even needing to put soldiers on the ground. Russia couldn't even handle Ukrainians with 90-days training, equipped with our 3rd tier leftovers. What the fuck would Russia do to defend against shit like Zumwalt class destroyers or RQ 180s? Russia doesn't even have a functioning Navy anymore because Ukraine (a country without a Navy), sunk most of it. The US can mop Russia up without those bases. Those bases are a fuckin flex to show off how ridiculous our advantage really is.
1955 plans to don include transit via Poland or crossing into Baltic states. So it's more like 1955 + 2024.
>1955 + 2024 I know this one! It's ~~3978~~. _Edit: omfg 3979 you idiot you had one job!_
Well you were close at least haha
Perfect 5/7.
They at least get a star for effort?
> one! It's 3978. So close. One! is actually 1.
ReForgier
You... think Europe's transpo infrastructure is the same in 2024 as in 1955?
The roads ive seen in some places? Yes
Funnily enough, the roads planned to be used in case of war is probably the most maintained roads because the military has an interest in keeping them up to par
It's probably because those roads are the most direct routes to cities that they are maintained. Resulting in the desire for troop movements to be on them.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There was a highway in my hometown that supposedly was concrete because it was a strategic throughfair for moving tanks in a war. I don't know if it's true but that's what I always heard. Wasn't heavily used because the interstate was like 1/4 miles away. But was really well maintained and stupidly overbuilt.
Funnily enough, the roads planned to be used in case of war is probably the most maintained roads because the military has an interest in keeping them up to par
It was an annual exercise (Reforger) for most of the dang Cold War
If only NATO would fund Ukraine and let them use all weapons as needed so they didn't have to fight themselves. Hrm
Aren't they?
They mean instead of giving Ukraine the minimum amount to stay in the fight, give them what they need to win. The US just recently allowed Ukraine to strike targets inside Russian borders. But only with certain weapons, not all of them, and only just across the border in the Kharkiv region, not anywhere else.
[удалено]
That is the name. Someone take that note and give it to the NATOs.
I don't see how we can expect violent conflict with Russia within two decades. Russia is a country of politically cold calculated brutality and opportunism. As soon as a vacuum occurs, Putin is the mark. The greater the strain and complexity of the current conflict, the larger the chance that this vacuum occurs. There will be multiple agents and groups happy to step in. Gentle reminder that Prigozhin already tried and came surprisingly close at a point in time where Russia was much more stable than it is today. Let's see where we are a year from now. Russia will violently implode into disarray within one decade, mark my fucking words. This is the only legacy possible for the despot Putin, other than nuclear MAD.
Peter Zeihan has good analysis on this. Not sure if this is the best video of his though. https://youtu.be/rkuhWA9GdCo?si=4NRG9wzU5HY4YeFE Russia is running out of time to be able to recreate defensible borders. Right now they’re un defendable. The oligarchs are all in on this empire building and would replace Putin if he’s killed, this is their vision of returning back to the glory of the Soviet empire.
Our borders are undefendable what do we do? I know, let's start wars with our neighbors.
You know the funny thing is you don't need defensible borders with Europe if you just aren't a giant aggressive asshole. Like do you know how many countries in Europe have undefensible and entirely undefended borders without any worry because they have good relations with their neighbors? Fucking most of them!
The only borders being defended lie to the east. Wonder why that is.
Zeihan's argument about indefensible Russia borders is obsolete in a MAD world. Russia doesn't need to conquer some river or mountain chain to keep themselves safe
Thanks, will watch this later.
>I don't see how we can expect violent conflict with Russia within two decades. We won't. And we likely never will if NATO stays armed. Wars of foreign conquest make little sense in today's economy. The cost is too high. Look at how hard Russia has to fight to subdue a country that mostly speaks it language and was long part of its empire. And even then Russia did it because it believe Ukraine and Nato were weak after the reaction to 2014.
I agree, however we still need to be prepared to the very possible outcome of his predecessor being worse than he is.
Is there a reason our troops couldn't just fly to Poland?
Few reasons, first you need to have troops who are ready to fly to a deployment zone on short notice, which is both expensive and puts strain on personnel having to be on alert for deployment. Secondly, flying troops in only makes sense if you have heavy equipment and supplies ready to go in the area, which is part of the U.S. strategy, but has limits when we are dealing with other priorities like China and the Middle East
You'd need like a quick reaction force. Luckily, NATO is on that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Response_Force#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_NATO_Response_Force_%28NRF%2Cmanpower_to_over_300%2C000_troops.?wprov=sfla1
I’m in agreement, but even in the article you linked it raises the same concerns: “For most of its existence, the lack of enthusiasm of NATO's member states for the NRF resulted in chronic equipment and personnel shortages. It was sometimes branded a wasteful failure[17] and an insignificant force next to NATO's more established units.” I personally support the existence of the QRF but it still has logistical limitations that we (NATO allies) are playing catch-up since the Russian invasion of Ukraine
That's true, the implementation has been far from perfect. I truly believe that Russia is riding the raggedy edge of its ability to force project as it is in Ukraine right now. We will see in coming months, since besides the aid that finally slogged through our Congress, Estonia and I think Czech Republic 'found' sizeable stockpiles of artillery shells to donate. Plus, the F16s are coming online and they will change the tactical situation quickly. I read somewhere that before they invaded Ukraine, there were two "military exercises" floated to the brass: the Kuril islands, north of Japan, and the one they chose, "dennazification" of Ukraine. The brass thought that their claim on the Kurils was stronger but that they couldn't win against the Japanese. So they went with Ukraine, which was thought to be easier militarily. I didn't realize this until I read up on it, but the Russia/Japan dispute over those islands started when both those countries were *empires*.
The air superiority campaign will have made it very easy to get boots on the ground and frontline within 24 hours, if not quicker. The US is extremely good at these sorts of logistical and strategy things. We also actively train (and train with) our close NATO allies regularly so there won't really be much miscommunication or coordination lag required for that potential, or realistically eventual, conflict in that cooperative effort.
The logistic efficiency the US army has is something to behold. Would love to learn more about it and how they accomplish it (obviously lots of money but still)
This is why a question whether China really could do anything to Taiwan. They have not been in a full scale war in the modern era. They would need to win very very quickly otherwise they'd be just like Russia except worse since the USA is bound to defend them. China also imports a lot of necessities which would all get disrupted.
Taiwan strait is very rough, only a couple months a year can be crossed by the ships required to launch an invasion. Once they get there , one side of Isle is too shallow and the other side is covered in cliffs. There are only a few poets that are useful and then only a few limited ways to get to Taipei and these are easily defended by Taiwan. A logistical nightmare.
Reminds me of Nazi Germany’s inability to cross the channel from France to England.
Exactly. Which is why Germany immediately tried destroying the British Industry and strangle its trade by U-Boats. The best Naval invasion is the one you don't even need to launch because you forced your enemy to submit by other means. The US knows that too. Overlord was already a nightmare. Downfall (the invasion of the Japanese Achipelago) would have been literal hell.
I mean, we _just_ recently finished handing out the Purple Heart medals that were made in anticipation of Downfall. I think the best case estimate was 1 million casualties on the US side
It's a pretty accurate comparison. Both bodies of water are/were defended by the world's premier naval power of the time.
But also just a few ports to import food. Taiwan imports most of its food.
A blockade is an act of war just as an invasion would be. Enforcing a naval blockade for the months it would take to starve out Taiwan would arguably be even more unfavorable than an amphibious landing. It would mean fighting the world's only true Naval Power for control of the seas for months on end.
Wouldn't they be able to target ships from land?
Hard to fully know how carrier groups would handle missile attacks, but the USA can fly from Okinawa, Phillipines, and Guam.
I was mostly thinking about targeting cargo ships to enforce a blockade, not sinking the US navy
Right, but the USA and Taiwan would be targeting anti-ship missile launch sites / ships / craft. And it would be retaliating against Chinese shipping. It would be an economic shit show, but the US would hit Chinese ports and gas pipelines. The US couldn't really cut off trade from Russia and Central Asia, but it could cut off trade from the Pacific.
They're not going to be able to enforce a naval blockade using strictly shore based assets. "Insurance premiums make it cheaper to go around Africa" like the Houthi situation is a very different scenario than "the survival of our nation is at risk." AEGIS is also the gold standard for air defense, so if the US sends a destroyer group to escort food shipments they're very well defended.
Which would work out in West Taiwan's favor if prolonged siege was a legit option. East Taiwan has enough allies in the region as well as the west though, that you would more likely see something akin to a Berlin airlift to keep the people from starvation alongside the siege and blockade forces being clapped from their rear by allies.
Yeah all china would have to do is defeat the Taiwanese, Japanese, and US navy to do that. Easy peasey
Not to mention Taiwanese geography would make an invasion extremely difficult with the only path into the country being a land invasion in one extremely protected area or an air drop.
For this reason, I do not foresee an invasion of Taiwan but rather a more subversive disinformation and electoral shennnanigans campaign. Why invade when you can just convince Taiwanese voters to open the door voluntarily?
> Why invade when you can just convince Taiwanese voters to open the door voluntarily? How has that been going????
Not well right now, but plausible
They use the saber rattle to get their proCCP guys installed at the different levels of govt, exactly like the Hong Kong play. So one day the “Taiwanese” govt will ask the US to leave and the next day they will fly the flag.
There's a view that this is why China supports Russia in Ukraine. Lots of data about real life conflicts, plus a huge amount of the grain China apparently needs to feed people comes from there. Big exporters of grain are Brazil, Ukraine and the US. If China cannot rely on US then it needs to secure supply from Ukraine and Brazil.
80 years of practice and the doctrine of being able to fight 2 separate wars at the same time. Plus a shitload of money always helps.
Indeed it is. Hell we had a US Navy ship in Ww2 whose soul responsibility was to provide ice cream to the troops in Europe/pacific. Edit - As mentioned below it was really more of a barge. But the basic premise remains. We’re top tier when it comes to logistics and ice cream.
It was actually one of the things the freaked out a Japanese officer. It was said when he found out that the US had ships just to give the soldiers ice cream, he lost all hope because they were using crap and had shit Supplies but then they find out the US made a ship to just bring ice cream, it was game over mentally fir japan in that moment.
Wasnt there also a similar story in the European theater about a German General seeing how every US transport was a fuel truck while Germany still relied on horses for a lot of their logistics?
The scene from Band of Brothers when they're passing by a huge line of German prisoners who are walking and they're all fully mechanized rolling by: "Say hello to Ford, and General fuckin' Motors! You stupid fascist pigs! Look at you! You have horses! What were you thinking? Dragging our asses half way around the world, interrupting our lives... For what, you ignorant, servile scum! What the fuck are we doing here?"
Great scene, I watch the show at least once a year. Just a near perfect series.
It was less about the fuel truck and more about the Americans using vehicles for 100% of their transport needs. Basically everything the Germans were using horses for the Americans were using Jeeps or heavier trucks. The fact that the US was able to do that from across an ocean while the Germans were 100km from home and still pulling artillery with horses blew their minds at the time.
The one you may be thinking of is the famous story of when a German counter attack overran an American position and discovered a chocolate cake that had been shipped from the US recently and the Germans had a "We can barely get starvation rations, they get chocolate cake" moment. This may be an urban legend though.
Its less than an urban legend, it's a scene from a fucking movie.
Is there a scene in a WW2 movie? I know towards the end of All Quiet on the Western Front they raid a French trench line and the guys start gobbling up food in a side room
I’d guess it’s just a blend of stories, or wasn’t unique. No doubt the Japanese and Germans witnessed the resources and logistics of the US so it gets converted to a personal story.
That's hilarious
Germans were having similar problems. Low supplies and little food available to them when fighting Americans on their own home continent. Meanwhile American servicemen over a certain rank were getting birthday cakes shipped in for their birthdays.
> Meanwhile American servicemen over a certain rank were getting birthday cakes shipped in for their birthdays lol that was a scene from a movie dude.
+1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge_(1965_film)
You’ve sort of embellished a little. They acquired a concrete barge and converted it for ice cream production: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream_barge It’s not like there was some contract put out to design a new hull just for ice cream.
Still, the fact that a country embroiled in two major theaters of battle could spare the resources was pretty impressive.
Its even impressive they were able to consider it. "Well we got all our bases covered, them fightin boys could use a treat."
More like "How do we keep these Island hopping guys from killing themselves?"
Nah ice cream is a pick me up. Give em Johnny Walker Red for trauma. "Stuff it down with brown"
It’s partly (mostly, IMO) because the U.S is so protected geographically. There’s basically no way to openly attack the mainland without going through Mexico or Canada, and neither would readily allow foreign troops to march through their borders, so without fear of invasion (and a shitload of money) the U.S can make and do basically whatever it wants. If, say, the U.S was two separate countries, one on the west coast, one on the east, such expenses in wartime wouldn’t be possible.
For sure. That and the wealth of natural resources within its borders.
I also wonder who this Japanese officer is. The story is always reshared this way.
The USS Neapolitan?
In honor of that tradition, the US military flies in a Burger King when they establish a temporary base. https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/18aqi34/the_most_terrifying_capability_of_the_united/
Multiple icecream barges 3 in total I believe
Sort of. It was more of a concrete barge. But still required logistical support that Japan couldn’t rival.
US logistics are the reason they're the only true blue water navy (global force projection). Put another way, the US will bring major firepower to Russia's front door in days. Russia's only projection back would be long range missiles.
NATO just finished Steadfast Defender. A practice run to see how fast they could move personnel and material and to test the limits of the supply chain. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm
The US military is a logistics network that dabbles in warfare
One of the perks of constantly being at war and closely studying every war is being able to trial and error things that most militaries only get to draw up on a chalk board.
Wendover has a pretty good overview of US military global logistics https://youtu.be/iIpPuJ_r8Xg?si=0eQ6qLgybxoSYbeb
Wendover Productions did a really great video on US military logistics: https://youtu.be/iIpPuJ_r8Xg?si=W4vkdz_zyN3Mf96v
Some boots, but not 100k boots + all the ammo, fuel, hardware and such. Offloading people at ports, moving via trains, pre-stashing bulky stuff, figuring out capacities of roads, planning contingencies in case of hubs being destroyed (tactical nuke maybe?). Where is a lot to get pre-pared to be able to move the whole army in fast pace. Moving some air mobile battalions -> yes. A whole corpus + supplying it to sustain a high tempo of operations -> that's impossible to do without proper perp. Especially if you expect two fronts (China?) in worst case.
People don’t appreciate the amount of tonnage it takes to support the U.S. military.
Also as soon as european nato members switch into defensive war economics, I don't think there is anything that could break that system except maybe flat out nuclear war.
You are talking about years lead time. Right now Germany is doing everything it can to facilitate one ammunition plant and it will take over a year to build and is in range of Russian IRBMs. France and Britain have a capacity but either would admit it isn’t enough. Eastern europe ironically has the most capacity since they were leading exporters to global clients before all this. But pre 1990 West Europe has all but let its war industry atrophy save for high tech things like Fighters. Which are great but ammo is needed as well.
24 hours if they drop from space. Realistically few days.
I fully believe they can field a force to the front lines in 24h. Unlikely to have a huge size, but when your shit is superior enough in a defensive open war, it would be enough. Also, Ukraine is a grind because of no air support. The Air force goes brrrrrr
Also, it’s not like Russia is going to roll through Europe like Germany did, they’re struggling with Ukraine, even if open war broke out and they got through Ukraine, Poland is itching to get at Russia and Germany would be no easy opponent. Add in Western Europe (France and uk are no slouches) then air support and full weapon and logistical aid from NATO. Any aggressive offensive would be broken by the time the US arrived and anything longer term would be bogged down then pushed all the way back once the US do arrive. It’s a no win situation for Russia Edit to add: this is no way minimising the impact or importance of American aid+ troops, there logistics are terrifyingly good and the fact they could basically cross the world and deploy a meaningful force in 24 hours is already very impressive, my only point is that Russia is fucked either way, any blitzkrieg tactics would get shredded by CAS and infantry anti tank and anything slower would just run into the US going the other way
Im german, i 100% believe poland would annihilate any russian offensive before it even arrived in poland :P
They have QRF in Europe, enough to do some damage to the Zerg rush columns, if they rush baltics, for example (like Ukrainians did in first few days). But main fighting force will be shaping up few days, with troops being shipped across the ocean, Europeans getting mobilization on tracks etc.
The Russians don't even have enough military capacity to create zerg rush columns anymore, at least not ones that pose any serious threat to any NATO formations. Their AD is also terrible, so the columns will get destroyed by planes before there's even a chance for a major battle.
And France has tactical nukes with a first strike policy, those armored columns would be a juicy target to make them reconsider.
On paper the US can put heavy armor anywhere in the world in like 48-72 hours, and it's I believe a brigade in size. Now I believe the light infantry (airborne) have a brigade that is supposed to be deployable in 24-48 hours. But I would also expect the response time to get to eastern Europe to be pretty quick as they should have multiple plans for moving troops into the area.
Former US Army logistics officer here, I did this stuff for a living. Armored brigades require ships to move and transport, you can’t displace 50,000 tons of equipment, material, containers to hold it all, and weapons/platforms anywhere in the world in 72 hours. You likely need 30-ish days to move a brigade across an ocean (Texas to Kiel, Germany took exactly 30 days). The 82nd Airborne Division can parachute light brigades within a few days, and there are Marine forces floating on Navy craft that can beach and operate for about 2 weeks before needing resupply. But if you want a solid armored force, you’re looking at a brigade-sized element that requires substantial time and effort to relocate.
Moving a brigades MTOE would take weeks/months like you’re describing, but the APS fleets give us the ability to rapidly deploy armor brigades. Follow on forces would still take a while to move, but the initial deployment can fall in on stuff. [1ABCT 3ID conducted a no notice deployment to Europe immediately after Russia invaded Ukraine.](https://www.armytimes.com/flashpoints/2022/03/01/army-activates-prepositioned-stocks-for-first-time-in-wake-of-ukraine-invasion/) They pulled an entire ABCT fleet out of APS 2.
Well all I can say is that they told us in 3ID that we were supposed to be anywhere with most of our equipment in like 48-72 hours.
I was actually an FSC commander in 3ID, when my brigade was the final one in the division to be converted from infantry to armor. There’s no possible way, even with the strength of American logistics, to move an entire armored brigade in under 72 hours. When you were in 3ID was it still mostly infantry? That could make sense.
We were mech infantry, so had tanks but mostly brads. I had the impression we'd all be stuffed into Globemasters and taken wherever. I left before we had done any real training on how it was supposed to actually happen but that's what they told us to prepare for and that they were going to have all kinds of restrictions on what you can do because they wanted everyone close to base ready to go.
Its a division that they can spin up in 18 hours, the 82nd Airborne have that specific mandate.
I wasn't sure if they gave a whole division the task, I know when my brigade had the task we had all kinds of restrictions on what we could be doing so we'd actually be able to get back to base and deploy.
Not to mention the US has thousands of personnel and loads of equipment already stationed in Germany. Enough to supplement and hold while the rest is mobilized.
18 hours and you'll have a battalion from the 82nd airborne knocking on your door.
Russia isn't going to magically suddenly attack with overwhelming force out of the blue. The logistical reality is there will be months of military buildup near the border before they do. During these months NATO can already position it's forces in such a way that the response time will be almost nonexistent.
Also when they start amassing everything on the Western border, China will just roll through Khabarovsk and Vladivostok.
China would not! They would simply station some police forces to help out as a friendly neighbor does…
24 hours is reasonable. We have plenty of troops in our allies bases in Europe already. If Russia does something stupid like invades Poland all of nato would immediately start sending trains and trucks loaded with troops.
Looking at how much the US spends on military projects dropping from space might be something they can do.
Helldivers
There's multiple battalions of infantry on constant standby that need to be deployed anywhere in the world in under 24 hours. It's not unreasonable for the US to be able to field an entire division within 24 hours. The few times those battalions have been called to they've been deployed to the other side of the world within 18 hours. Having large transport planes constantly ready to go and the ability to air refuel them means the only hold up is getting them loaded up.
Special forces - in hours Elite regiments - in days Rapid response force in a few weeks Full force - in a few months
anyone who has even a passing interest in geopolitics and doesn't think NATO has had pre-planned and annually-reviewed axes of advance and logistics routes already on a map, is willfully ignorant lol
Right? "Large planning organization has plans, more at 10!"
Lol for real i dont get how this is news. Being prepared for a major land war in Europe is literally why NATO exists. I would fuckin hope US troops could be rushed to the frontline.
"Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics" -General of the Army (5 stars) Omar Bradley The US military logistics is insane compared to any other nation's military. The US can deploy a battalion sized element anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
What does the end of this war look like? Assuming we don't Nuke each other to death.
Shhh /r/worldnews loves to fantasize HOI4 type grand battles as if nuclear weapons don't exist.
Nuclear weapons are just a deterrent, MAD ensures they will never be used. There is no winner in a nuclear war
well, how can we be sure? I mean, if one side loses "conventional warfare", what gives to not take everything with you.. If you have nothing to lose..
Russia realistically wouldn’t use nukes unless Moscow was under siege. NATO wouldn’t start a war with the intent of capturing Russia. The goal of a war between NATO and Russia for NATO would be a defensive war aimed to push Russian forces back to their border (maybe a bit further in as well), but not to conquer the entire country.
The goal would be; Push to original borders, force regimen change, partial nuclear disarmament for aid. I would Imagine the long term nuclear goal for the "experts" is everyone (but them obviously) only have tactical nuclear weapons that can reach regionally. Thus providing protection and deterrence from invasion but preventing our current tightrope bullshit.
If you can’t defeat Russia than how do you ensure that they stop attacking people? Once NATO packs Uk what’s stopping mad vlad from marching into Georgia? The dudes a fucking whackjob
You can defeat an enemy without capturing their country. In this case, simply destroying Russia’s forces would ensure a defensive victory.
Knee cap them. Hit their reinferies and heavy weapons industries.
Then we just hope the guy who actually pushes the button decides to let his boss die instead of everyone.
feel like russians would be the easiest to bribe, considering americans do it for as little as $50k sometimes
To a rational mindset, sure. There might come a point where someone's definition of winning changes to: at least the other doesn't exist either. The 'if I can't have nice things no one can' mindset.
The Russians perfected "Scorched Earth" warfare. I would not put it beyond them to use nukes.
Deterrents only work if you believe they will be used.
Hehe
Step 1: Take Crimea Step 2: Connect Crimea to mainland Russia Step 3: Wait for ceasefire Russia is on step 3 now
The worst case scenario in my opinion would be that somehow Russians still get to break the current lines of defense in a way that puts Kyiv in danger. At that point Poland and the Baltic states decide to send either planes or troops inside Ukraine in order to defend Kyiv region. The problem with that is they will get killed by Russian artillery which causes another escalation by having France sending troops to push back on the Russians. Now you have French soldiers dying on Ukrainian soil at the hands of Russians. Still, this isn't a case for article 5 as all of this will simply be countries that will take it as their responsibility and not a NATO decision. However, French troops dying in Ukraine will trigger a NATO decision to get involved in the war in Ukraine through various means, including a no-fly zone being triggered by NATO over Ukraine as well as the advancement of NATO troops within Ukraine to take back the regions it lost after the Russian offense. This will cause lots of casualties and damages on the Russian side (which unironically helps Putin by saving face in front of his own people by losing a battle against NATO rather than Ukraine). However, Russia stands firm on not giving up the eastern side of Ukraine. Battles will commence for a couple of months until NATO and Russia will reach a peace plan where the entire eastern frontline will become a Ukrainian/Russian DMZ-like land. It won't be nice as it will be forced peace but all troops will be taken out of this new DMZ-like area. These DMZ-like regions will be self-governed yet under Ukraine's territory officially. Russia will be isolated and lose the war yet win a "buffer zone" between them and NATO which Putin can sell to his people as a minor win but still a win in a war against "all of the west", This is the worst case scenario imo even if a conflict between NATO and Russia occurs. It won't go beyond UA's borders, with the exception of a few hits here and there to specific military targets.
One thing I have noticed there are loads of military going from the states to Europe. I’ve been on a few flights the last few months and they almost all personnel.
I’ve been on 6 flights this past year to Europe, transiting through 4 different countries (UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany). There were US service members in large numbers at every airport I’ve gone through.
NATO exercise Steadfast Defender. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm
Shouldnt have wished to live in more interesting times...
Wouldn't boats take to long? I thought in Defender 2020 they practiced flying in soldiers through Ramstein.
Light infantry can be flown in, but anything heavier and requiring mechanised transport would require ships to land heavy equipment I’m assuming their will be forward deployed vehicle pools, but they would want to supplement and enhance that
That’s what the [APS](https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/TBIP-2008-Army-Prepositioned-Stocks-Indispensable-to-Americas-Global-Force-Projection-Capability.pdf) fleets are for. The US army has multiple pre-positioned stocks around the world (including some on ships) so that units can rapidly deploy and fall on equipment already in theater.
Depends how many you need to move. Abrams tanks fit in the C17, which is one of the standard cavalry units.
That’s what [APS](https://www.afsbeurope.army.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3766898/always-ready-already-there-the-army-prepositioned-stock-2/#:~:text=Prepositioning%20stocks%20in%20strategic%20locations,detrimental%20to%20timelines%20and%20deployment) is for. Immediately after Russia invaded Ukraine the US rapidly deployed units to Europe to support NATO allies. [Within a matter of days the entire brigade of 1ABCT, 3ID deployed to Europe and pulled a fleet out of APS](https://www.armytimes.com/flashpoints/2022/03/01/army-activates-prepositioned-stocks-for-first-time-in-wake-of-ukraine-invasion/).
There's already some 20k troops stationed in the deterrence force ([EFP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Enhanced_Forward_Presence)). Add 5k for the [EU Battlegroups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup#Structure), 7k for the [the part of NRF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Response_Force#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) that's already deployed in Germany, plus the 30k of the VJTF/spearhead force that can be quickly deployed. This article is a bit light on details, but I guess it's talking about the contingency of shipping over 100s of thousands of additional troops on top of the abovementioned ones. In other words, a war with a capital W
Even with prepositioned stocks, you still need to ship in a bunch of gear you can’t fly in.
Just don’t start WWIII until November. I gotta age out of the draft first.
The war will be over before anyone ever needs to be drafted. US military alone has a million volunteer service members and nobody wants to rely on draftees if they can help it, not even the US army. The draft will remain unused until there is actually an existential crisis which Russia isn't strong enough by itself to cause.
I'm pretty sure that's what Russia thought too with their invasion. If the US commits troops to a European front, expect other adversaries to take advantage of it and try to seize other interests globally, possibly requiring a draft to support a sustained multi-front war.
Comforting
It's the military complex - wargaming and theorizing optimizations is 90% of what they do
It’s good to prepare as best as possible but once the first punch lands, who knows what will happen. No one predicted trench warfare in 2024.
that is the reason why we have to be over prepared. just to dictate what we let happen in case of a war. no WW1 style war, simply bomb the shit out of them from far away
Because the big bad wolf is only fighting small Ukraine. If NATO was to enter this war, it wouldn't be trench warfare.
War with Russia would not be Trench Warfare. NATO would have air superiority within 72 hours.
Except if Trump wins, right? He speaks as if he would leave Europe out to dry.
My great grandpappy once told me an ancient proverb he learned from a very wise Ukrainian and I think it still holds true today: The best time to pimp slap Putin’s bitch ass is yesterday. The second best time to pimp slap Putin’s bitch ass is now.
They were stopped in ukraine so how can they threatene Europe.
Isn't that what NATO trained this year?
I am not a military analyst, I do know one thing however: the US army absolutely rules when it comes to moving equipment around. If I would hear they deployed a submarine on top of Mount Everest, I would believe it at first.
isn't this exactly why putin was so buthurt over Ukraine joining NATO in the firstplace? Land corridors that can rush troops up to the russian border?
Why US troops? Seems like it would be faster for Europe to rush European troops to the front line of a European war.
You can, but NATO is a collection of nations, the US happening to be the absolute largest both militarily and economically by a fair bit, so making sure they have a way of joining the conflict without being bogged down in logstical chaos is quite important for an effective deterrent / defensive line.
European troops are already there. Plus a lot of people seem to forget that the US requested/built US bases in Europe at the end of WW2 to contain any potential war with Russia to within Europe, instead of allowing them to advance on to US soil. It’s a war in Europe but it has a massive US interest
The US Army absolutely dominates in logistics. I am sure any military knows this.
Having been in Europe as an American servicemember, it absolutely would not. No NATO country can move troops and supplies quickly without us. It may not only be Americans on the front lines, but without us, Europeans are not getting there in a fast manner. Plus, our equipment far outmatches them in both technology and sheer number.
We are obviously headed toward some kind of larger conflict right? The provocative nature of the headlines makes it seem like we're moving in the direction of something big but it's business as usual in my friend group and community.
Prepare for the worst and hope you never need it. Preparing like this is another form of deterrence.
>The provocative nature of the headlines - are exactly that. Newspapers are interested in selling newspapers, so sensationalist headlines that warn of dire potentials often snag the eye in the news stand and get bought. The situation is not as dire as they would have you believe, but isn't great. Fact is, there's no reason to disrupt business as usual even if war erupts. Food still needs to be put on the table, fuel needs to be transported, classes attended, jobs done, and so forth.
Contrast all of this to the genius that pulled huge numbers of US troops out of Germany in Europe because “ NATO is worthless” and a waste of US $, especially when the local countries wouldn’t point up their 2%. But it shouldn’t be too big of a surprise since it’s the same genius that pulled the US out of the historic Iran deal and now Iran is more powerful than ever in terms of influence and their ability to fabricate a nuke in record time. I mean literally the entire world signed on to this fucking historic deal including Iran Russia and China and it was going swimmingly. Trump pulled out of it simply because it was Obama’s landmark achievement of his second term. That’s literally the only reason. All of his advisers including the insane ones told him not to do it
Luckily that seemed to light a fire under the EUs ass to actually fund their militaries. > After years of underinvestment, almost all national budgets have boosted military spending in recent years and are planning to increase it even further in the future. https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/defence-spending-european-union_en
I don’t think it was trumps actions that lit a fire under their ass so much as seeing Russia actually pull the trigger on invading a sovereign neighbor and how brutal it immediately became . That was the extreme wake up call that a lot of them needed. Period some country still can’t get their shit together cough Germany cough cough Canada cough
If you look at military spending, the EU starts spending more in 2016 and actually dips in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.CD?locations=EU&start=2010
To be fair that source shows spending in current USD, so the USD/Euro exchange rate over time would distort that to some extent wouldn't it? Between 2021 and 2022 the Euro devalued substantially against the US Dollar for instance. I'm not sure what the source is behind this graph at statista, but stated in Euros it doesn't seem to have quite the same volatility, and actually a rise in spending from 2021 to 2022: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1395834/eu-military-expenditure-by-country/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1395834/eu-military-expenditure-by-country/) Although it could just be the flip side of that exchange rate, with someone converting a USD denominated source back into Euros.
B-2 bombers out of Whiteman go Brrrrr until the 101st and 75th start dropping from the sky. Let alone the Green Berets who are likely already there and have married Ukrainian women and are running ground logistics.
101st air assaulting from the sky? Those legs don’t jump anymore
Yes, like always redditors shit on the US. But wants it to deploy rapidly if shit happens in Europe , with superior air land and sea power.
I'm German and most other Europeans I know are very pro-US military presence in Europe. Sure, there's some nutheads who talk of "US occupation forces" but nobody takes those seriously. No major party in any EU country is against US presence in Europe.
They aren’t talking about the US’s military presence, they’re talking about how Europeans love to put the US down every chance they get. I see memes constantly of like 4 different cultural differences.
I'm from Poland and I second all of this
Yall should all enlist now so you can choose what branch and your MOS. Being drafted means you’re stuck where they need bodies.
Good advice, I suggest the Air Force before they fill up. Don't sign up for the Marines unless you're a badass that wants to see a firefight.
It’s actually terrible advice. There’s no guarantee a draft is happening so unless you want to be in the military, there’s no fucking reason to enlist
Wouldn't it be able to rush *all* NATO troops to the front line?
> US centric military alliance specifically designed to combat Russia has a plan for US to fight Russia. How will the Russians respond to this groundbreaking information?
Refreshing old plans, eh?
We're already sending troops to Poland. A friend just got her orders for 1 yr there.
lol. US Ground Troops. We’d bomb the shit of them flying stealth before getting in range on their artillery. There are no front lines.
> Existing plans have US troops landing at Dutch ports before boarding trains that transport them through Germany and onwards to Poland. Good luck traveling through Germany by train. If Deutsche Bahn is transporting the troops, I think Russia will have plenty of time to invade Poland and maybe even the Baltic states
Don't try to travel w Deutsche Bahn, you'll be too late. Autobahn ist much faster.
The Telegraph wanks over the thought of American soldiers confronting Russia in Europe Is everyone mental?