|
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Ukraine - Military Debate | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 12:40 AM (420 Views) | |
| C.E | Mar 3 2014, 12:40 AM Post #1 |
![]()
|
Esteemed NATO military representatives, While the political aspect of the Ukrainian crisis is being debated in NATO by political representatives and in general, I have been tasked with discussing possible contingency plans in regards to the crisis in the event that NATO reaches consensus on intervening in the affair with the use of force. It is of uppermost importance that NATO has several plans drafted in order to facilitate a quick and successful response including rapid deployment into Ukraine. I would also request member states not to review this matter as to whether NATO should act or not will military power. This is only a military debate and planning section. United States has already ordered several movements within our military structure to enable rapid deployment to NATO-Ukraine border and even to Ukraine itself. I await my counterparts’ suggestions to this matter? |
![]() |
|
| Jos1311 | Mar 4 2014, 02:10 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
![]() Représentation Militaire de la France auprès de l'OTAN | Military Representative to NATO Lieutenant General Hogg, As the Russian aggression is becoming more and more evident and it is not likely that Moscow will voluntarily move from the Crimea, I would like to suggest that we provide a strong signal to Moscow by deploying additional forces to the various NATO and EU countries that are located near the border with Russia and/or Ukraine. This will mean that we provide additional troops to Norway, Poland, Romania, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. At the same time we should indeed have a plan ready to deploy units located at the border to move into Ukraine, with the permission of the interim government, if Moscow makes a move that indicates that they will head for Eastern Ukraine. According to French intelligence there are some 20,000 Russian troops in the Crimea, which have limited armor and air support. The presence of the Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol and most likely anti-air assets is somewhat concerning, however we believe that NATO can easily have the upper hand, due to our superior quality of both personnel and equipment. Initial steps we feel that need to be taken are the increase of the Baltic air-policing mission, which is currently being handled by the United States. While I would also like to propose to increase the various other NATO air defence Quick Reaction Alert missions. At the same time perhaps British and Dutch marines could initiate a cold weather training in Northern Norway, to put pressure on Moscow from that area as well, while several military exercises will also be undertaken in the other mentioned countries. |
![]() |
|
| MDRD | Mar 4 2014, 07:25 AM Post #3 |
![]()
|
![]() Lieutenant General G.J. BroeksMilitary representative to NATO for the Netherlands The Government of the Netherlands wants me to communicate that it is in full agreement with the French and American delegates. We must plan for the eventuality that NATO has to use (limited) military force. I do not however think it wise to send an official and direct message to Moscow, threatening to use military force, as of yet. The situation can still be resolved diplomatically. We must however show, through example, that NATO is preparing for the eventuality. My suggestion would be to take small steps. Steps like those suggested by the French. Exercises by marines/mountain infantry in Norway. But also land maneuvers in Poland/Germany. Carrier positionings by the USN would also send an important message. Whichever means of message conveying we chose, I would consider it absolutely necassery to change certain levelsof readiness. One important measure would be to increase the size of the Baltic Air Patrol. Another important measure would be to activate higher numbers of Quick Reaction Fighter Aircraft in all nations. The Netherlands currently has 2 F-16 Fighters ready at all times to respond to any breach of our air space in less then five minutes. We will be increasing this to 3 on both our Fighter bases and we will be putting one F-16 squadron on a hightened level of preparedness allowing them to react within a few hours. We would suggest similar measures throughout the rest of NATO. Edited by MDRD, Mar 4 2014, 07:26 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 3_14159 | Mar 4 2014, 08:21 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
Markus Bentler German Military Representative to NATO Ladies and Gentlemen, militarily - should it come to that - we have two important local goals in regards to Ukraine. The first is a defense of the remaining, unoccupied part of the country, while the second would be a return of the Crimean. The second one is, as for now, obviously of secondary priority. Additionally, we must be able to react without necessarily stationing NATO troops in Ukraine, depending on the wishes of their government. As for the first one, this means we have to be able to resist Russian forces pushing through connection near Armyansk. Since, according to reports, their armoured support seems limited, this means our highest priority would be to get an armoured division entrenched near Armyansk who - with additional support - should be able to hold Russian forces in the Crimean. Additionally, strikes against the supply and transport routes - harbours and transports, mostly, would have significant results on supply. All of this requires, however, to neutralize the Russian Black Seas fleet, either by positioning of a NATO force near them, or - if necessary - by outright destruction. Should the Ukrainian leadership disagree with the stationing of strong NATO forces in Ukraine - which I, personally, would prefer - there are two other possible actions we can take: - Stationing of AWACs assets in Poland, stationing of a NATO fast response force in Poland or - Stationing of AWACs assets in Ukraine and stationing of a NATO fast respone force in Poland. The stationing of AWACs assets would still give an advantage to Ukrainian forces due to coordination and us the ability for a closer picture, but would not carry the same message as the direct stationing of forces. |
![]() |
|
| winisle | Mar 4 2014, 09:24 AM Post #5 |
![]()
|
If we are looking at har-core military options, that is, the armed protection of Ukranian soverginity, then we need to look at available troop concentrations, at the logistics of bringing them into play and so on. This means, that the United States needs to activate a number of its Heavy Divisions, and to start looking at the transport of said divisions from the continental US to Europe. The one thing that will show a potential willingness to protect Ukraine is for the US to run a Command level Reforger style exercise, as well as the contracting, and earmarking of enough transport capacity to move a significant US combat capacity to Europe. This should be combined with readiness exercises of European based NATO troops. |
![]() |
|
| C.E | Mar 4 2014, 09:34 AM Post #6 |
![]()
|
As already being notified to our partners of NATO. The United States will deploy the 173rd from Vicenza, Italy to Poland following approval from Poland. We will furthermore increase the amount of fighter planes currently conducting NATO directed Air Policing in the Baltic states from 4 F-15c to 18 F-15c and 6 F-16. This is in progress. I would suggest that United Kingdom, Norway, France and the Netherlands immediately plan and execute a naval exercise along the shores of Norway to signal military strength to Russia. US naval assets will attend also. I would also request NATO members to promptly state explicit forces, Order of Battles, that can be deployed in Ukraine. Thereby enabling us to decide more carefully where to deploy which forces. As for the statement provided by the Turkish Representative, the US is evaluating the possibility to airlift Heavy Divisions into Ukraine, hwoever at current we review this as premature. But you are indeed correct that such initiatives would have huge effect on Russian willingness to expand its operations. Finally, we still await Ukrainian response in the NUC as we find it important to take their position into consideration. |
![]() |
|
| Eryk | Apr 26 2014, 04:43 PM Post #7 |
|
СССР
|
Polski Przedstawiciel Wojskowy przy Komitecie Wojskowym NATO l Poland Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee The Ukrainian government has placed a classified inquiry with the Ministry of National Defense of whether or not Poland would be willing to provide refuge and a base of operations for Ukrainian fighter aircraft should the Russian Federation invade. We have yet to provide an official answer ahead in order to consult such a request with our allies. We would not be opposed to such an arrangement in principle, we find that in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian fighter aircraft using Polish bases and operating out of them would be viewed as "harboring the enemy" potentially opening up Poland to a military strike. |
![]() |
|
| IrieLub | Apr 26 2014, 05:01 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
![]() Représentation Militaire de la France auprès de l'OTAN | Military Representative to NATO We would strongly urge against such a move as this would Inevitably draw Poland into any conflict making it a target. Perhaps if Ukraine wanted to ensure the safety of it's aircraft in such a event, they could be hosted in Poland but allowing them to operate from Poland during Wartime is a risky move not just for Poland but for NATO as well. Edited by IrieLub, Apr 26 2014, 07:48 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Eryk | Apr 26 2014, 05:58 PM Post #9 |
|
СССР
|
Polski Przedstawiciel Wojskowy przy Komitecie Wojskowym NATO l Poland Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee We concur with such an opinion, and will provide the Ukrainian government with such an option. However, we will stop short of allowing the Ukrainian military to utilize Polish territory as a "safe zone" before launching strikes against Russian forces. |
![]() |
|
| tommy300 | May 1 2014, 03:00 PM Post #10 |
![]()
|
![]() Vice Admiral Robert Davidson Military Representative to NATO Military Committee Due to the recent violent events in eastern Europe, the Canadian government is currently considering the possible deployment of naval assets to the Mediterranean Sea. Canada wants to reassure our NATO allies of our commitment to European peace and stability. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 4 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












Lieutenant General G.J. Broeks





8:55 AM Jul 13
