Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.

Russia isn't going to be very happy, however there isn't much they can do unless they're willing to antagonise and use their capabilities.

Strategically, their invasion of Ukraine has been a monumental failure in pretty much all ways. Even if they do keep a land bridge to Crimea, consider the costs.

The sanctions will have a lasting impact, their export orders are going to be squashed, their forces have been bludgeoned along with their perceived capability.

Now, two more countries are likely to join NATO, which is what they were concerned with over Ukraine.
 
@PhilM & @Mutzo Nutzo : gentlemen, if you happen to have a few moments, would you explain the tangible benefits of Finland & Sweden joining NATO, please. And also, what real lessons will NATO planners have learned from the Ukrainian conflict? And if I can try your patience a bit further, what steps re defence should the U K be taking in the short to medium term?

Sorry to bother you both.
 
@PhilM & @Mutzo Nutzo : gentlemen, if you happen to have a few moments, would you explain the tangible benefits of Finland & Sweden joining NATO, please. And also, what real lessons will NATO planners have learned from the Ukrainian conflict? And if I can try your patience a bit further, what steps re defence should the U K be taking in the short to medium term?

Sorry to bother you both.
There's a lot of benefits which could be discussed, with a lot more detail than I could arguably give, but I'd say the top five benefits of joining NATO are:
  1. Defence - under Article 5, any NATO member can rely upon the support of other members if they were attacked as an attack on one is one on all.

  2. Improved capability - there's a handful of NATO battle groups already in existence, with more to be formed shortly in the Balkans if I remember correctly. Look at Estonia for example, where they have well-equipped and well-trained battle groups supporting their borders and improving their own troops.

  3. Access to modern equipment and training - as a NATO member, you're more likely to be accepted for imports of modern US, UK, EU technology etc.

  4. Integration - Part of NATO doctrine is compatibility and integration of weapons, ammunition, stores and training. It makes sharing resources easier.

  5. Nuclear weapons - they won't have them per se, but behind they can rely on ours and US's if everything goes a bit wrong.
 
There's a lot of benefits which could be discussed, with a lot more detail than I could arguably give, but I'd say the top five benefits of joining NATO are:
  1. Defence - under Article 5, any NATO member can rely upon the support of other members if they were attacked as an attack on one is one on all.

  2. Improved capability - there's a handful of NATO battle groups already in existence, with more to be formed shortly in the Balkans if I remember correctly. Look at Estonia for example, where they have well-equipped and well-trained battle groups supporting their borders and improving their own troops.

  3. Access to modern equipment and training - as a NATO member, you're more likely to be accepted for imports of modern US, UK, EU technology etc.

  4. Integration - Part of NATO doctrine is compatibility and integration of weapons, ammunition, stores and training. It makes sharing resources easier.

  5. Nuclear weapons - they won't have them per se, but behind they can rely on ours and US's if everything goes a bit wrong.

You also get cool jackets and a magazine 4 times a year. It has coupons for missile batteries.
 
@PhilM & @Mutzo Nutzo : gentlemen, if you happen to have a few moments, would you explain the tangible benefits of Finland & Sweden joining NATO, please. And also, what real lessons will NATO planners have learned from the Ukrainian conflict? And if I can try your patience a bit further, what steps re defence should the U K be taking in the short to medium term?

Sorry to bother you both.
One big benefit is the fact that Finland and Sweden both have very modern militaries. A big complaint in recent years about NATO is that some of the newer members weren't pulling their weight but that won't be the case with these two countries.
 
There's a lot of benefits which could be discussed, with a lot more detail than I could arguably give, but I'd say the top five benefits of joining NATO are:
  1. Defence - under Article 5, any NATO member can rely upon the support of other members if they were attacked as an attack on one is one on all.

  2. Improved capability - there's a handful of NATO battle groups already in existence, with more to be formed shortly in the Balkans if I remember correctly. Look at Estonia for example, where they have well-equipped and well-trained battle groups supporting their borders and improving their own troops.

  3. Access to modern equipment and training - as a NATO member, you're more likely to be accepted for imports of modern US, UK, EU technology etc.

  4. Integration - Part of NATO doctrine is compatibility and integration of weapons, ammunition, stores and training. It makes sharing resources easier.

  5. Nuclear weapons - they won't have them per se, but behind they can rely on ours and US's if everything goes a bit wrong.

Yes, thanks for this. But what, I wonder, are the benefits to the alliance as it stands now? Is a doubling of the border length not a problem? Or does the dominance of the Baltic Sea offset any disadvantage? Sorry to bother you.
 
Yes, thanks for this. But what, I wonder, are the benefits to the alliance as it stands now? Is a doubling of the border length not a problem? Or does the dominance of the Baltic Sea offset any disadvantage? Sorry to bother you.
NATO itself doesn't protect each and every border and in terms of Russia it's only like five countries within NATO that do although that'll change with Finland.

NATO's strength ultimately lies with Article 5 as any incursion or attack would require a full response from the member states, which is deterrent enough.

Finland's and Sweden's membership would increase the risk to the bloc overall in the short-term, but I suspect they'll feel in the long-term it's a benefit.

As you mentioned, there'll now be wider access to the Gulf of Bothnia and Finland alongside more coverage of the Baltic. This will worry Russia a fair bit.

NATO will benefit from their expertise, some intelligence and air assets in the region. The more isolated Russia is, the stronger the stance of NATO is.
 


Reassuringly sensible for a change

Sweden and Finland joining NATO gets them the security of article 5

Let's not now go and build bases etc there or deploy any weapons
 
There's a lot of benefits which could be discussed, with a lot more detail than I could arguably give, but I'd say the top five benefits of joining NATO are:
  1. Defence - under Article 5, any NATO member can rely upon the support of other members if they were attacked as an attack on one is one on all.

  2. Improved capability - there's a handful of NATO battle groups already in existence, with more to be formed shortly in the Balkans if I remember correctly. Look at Estonia for example, where they have well-equipped and well-trained battle groups supporting their borders and improving their own troops.

  3. Access to modern equipment and training - as a NATO member, you're more likely to be accepted for imports of modern US, UK, EU technology etc.

  4. Integration - Part of NATO doctrine is compatibility and integration of weapons, ammunition, stores and training. It makes sharing resources easier.

  5. Nuclear weapons - they won't have them per se, but behind they can rely on ours and US's if everything goes a bit wrong.
Also the benefits of having Finland and Sweden in NATO are massive for all the other NATO nations.

1. It gives NATO the capability of deploying land-based intelligence gathering infrastructure right on the Russian border close to their sub-bases in Murmansk, Arkhangelsk and Severomorsk. It also puts us very close to their nuclear-capable bomber bases in Lahkta.

2. Sweden and Finland will allow NATO to deploy additional air defence (Patriot) sites very close to Kaliningrad where their MIg-31K’s are based along with nuclear air-launched cruise missiles.

3. It gives NATO better access and control of the arctic area and will allow us to deploy SOSUS listening devices to detect the Russian boomers as they slip out on patrol.

4. And best of all it pisses Putin rar off.
 
@PhilM & @Mutzo Nutzo : gentlemen, if you happen to have a few moments, would you explain the tangible benefits of Finland & Sweden joining NATO, please. And also, what real lessons will NATO planners have learned from the Ukrainian conflict? And if I can try your patience a bit further, what steps re defence should the U K be taking in the short to medium term?

Sorry to bother you both.
I hope that the U.K. and NATO have learnt many lessons from this conflict.

1.The use and capability of drones/UAV’s as well as the capability to counter this technology is vital.

2. The use of light, mobile forces armed with ATGM’s are a real force multiplier. Ukranian SOF caused absolute havoc with their golf buggies and NLAW’s/Stugna/Javelins

3. Artillery kills troops and destroys moral - the ability to deploy large numbers of mobile self propelled guns with precision guided ammunition capable of destroying a tank from 60km is hopefully a massive lesson.

4. We really need to upgrade our MBT’s and also add more numbers plus the ability to recover and repair them in a combat situation (yes more tractors please).

5. ISTAR/EW I cannot underestimate the requirement to keep increasing funding of this capability - its a real game changer on the modern battlefield.

And we must spend on our armed forces - we need a much bigger standing army, more aircraft and more ships
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top