# Trump Orders some US Troops Out of Germany.



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2020)

Pulling troops out of Germany is ok by me but seems to alarm the Europeans. Its in effect a small reduction from 34500 to 25000. But the 9000 troops might move from Germany to Poland .

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trumps-order-to-pull-troops-from-germany-alarms-european-allies/ar-BB159XM2?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## FJAG (8 Jun 2020)

One report on the German viewpoint:



> *German foreign minister laments decline of US ties *
> 
> While other politicians have slammed a rumored 9,500 US-troop exit from Germany, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas says Berlin will simply "take note of" Donald Trump's plan. He admitted that US-German ties were "complicated."
> 
> ...



See whole article here

And this (translated from German using Google translate):



> *US General calls Trump's withdrawal order "colossal mistake"*
> 
> President Trump has ordered a quarter of U.S. soldiers to withdraw from Germany. The former US commander for Europe flagged the move as a political maneuver with immense collateral damage.
> 
> ...



https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/us-general-nennt-trumps-abzugsbefehl-kolossalen-fehler-a-2e034e83-dc9c-4bc9-8ce5-3c1a375fba15

So. About that Russian collusion?  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2020)

These Generals need to watch their words because they are a violation of the UCMJ. To be held to account they would need to be called to active duty then charged with criticizing civilian leaders. From a practical standpoint they might be safe from recall and punishment but Trump might be tempted to send a message to the former Obama generals and admirals.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Jun 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> These Generals need to watch their words because they are a violation of the UCMJ. To be held to account they would need to be called to active duty then charged with criticizing civilian leaders. From a practical standpoint they might be safe from recall and punishment but Trump might be tempted to send a message to the former Obama generals and admirals.



The article clearly states he is retired, nothing prevents a retired member from offering an opinion.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jun 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> These Generals need to watch their words because they are a violation of the UCMJ. To be held to account they would need to be called to active duty then charged with criticizing civilian leaders. From a practical standpoint they might be safe from recall and punishment but Trump might be tempted to send a message to the former Obama generals and admirals.



They aren't "Obama generals". They are American generals and most of them have spent just as much of their careers (or more) under Republican presidents. 

I presume that you're referring to Article 88 of the USMJ. 



> “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State ...”



My understanding of the law is basically:



> Although the armed forces could employ this prohibition to restrain retirees’ political speech, the government has only initiated court-martial proceedings against one retired service member—nearly one hundred years ago in United States v. Salvagno. And the retiree in question—a former Army musician—was acquitted.
> 
> Moreover, military prosecutors have limited discretion to proffer charges against retirees for violations of the UCMJ. For example, AR 27-10, Military Justice, states, “Army policy provides that retired Soldiers ... will not be tried for any offense by courts-martial unless extraordinary circumstances are present. Prior to referral of courts-martial charges against retired Soldiers, approval will be obtained from the Criminal Law Division ... of the Assistant Secretary of the Army.”
> 
> It’s therefore unlikely that retired officers’ political speech, even if personally offensive to named officeholders, will result in the referral of charges and court-martial.



See AR 27-10, article 5-4 at page 26 Legal Services - Military Justice

That said, in the cloud-cuckoo land that now makes up the US administration, anything could happen. Hopefully no one ever tells Trump that Article 88 exists, although I would think it would constitute the biggest case of command influence that your country has ever seen.

 :cheers:


----------



## garb811 (8 Jun 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> These Generals need to watch their words because they are a violation of the UCMJ. To be held to account they would need to be called to active duty then charged with criticizing civilian leaders. From a practical standpoint they might be safe from recall and punishment but Trump might be tempted to send a message to the *former Obama generals and admirals*.


The really interesting thing is this administration is the first time in my entire life that I've heard anyone ever insinuate that just because someone served at a certain rank in the previous administration, they are therefore beholden to them and/or of like political views. 

I suppose the next logical step for those who believe this nonsense is to push for a confirmation process for snr US military personnel that mirrors the circus that the confirmation hearings for the US Supreme Court have become, followed by purges of "wrong minded" snr leadership when the political winds change direction and a new boss takes the seat.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jun 2020)

garb811 said:
			
		

> The really interesting thing is this administration is the first time in my entire life that I've heard anyone ever insinuate that just because someone served at a certain rank in the previous administration, they are therefore beholden to them and/or of like political views.
> 
> I suppose the next logical step for those who believe this nonsense is to push for a confirmation process for snr US military personnel that mirrors the circus that the confirmation hearings for the US Supreme Court have become, followed by purges of "wrong minded" snr leadership when the political winds change direction and a new boss takes the seat.



Oh Boy are you ever going to be unhappy.



> The role of the Senate in confirming senior military officer promotions and appointments stems directly from the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Counsels, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all Other Officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law." Generals and Flag Officers (Admirals), fall into the category of "all Other Officers of the United States" and require Senate confirmation. Other military officers also require Senate confirmation, but this report, will focus on the process for the military's highest ranking leaders -- one-star through four-star officers.



https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS21714.html



> 10 U.S. Code § 531 - Original appointments of commissioned officers
> (a)
> (1)Original appointments in the grades of second lieutenant, first lieutenant, and captain in the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, and Regular Marine Corps and in the grades of ensign, lieutenant (junior grade), and lieutenant in the Regular Navy shall be made by the President alone.
> (2)Original appointments in the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel in the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, and Regular Marine Corps and in the grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain in the Regular Navy shall be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.



See for example: https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/noms_confn.htm

and see here: https://www.stripes.com/news/military-update-senate-seeks-to-end-limbo-in-promotions-for-officers-1.50378

So far it hasn't become that type of circus BUT, the mechanisms are all in place for it.

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2020)

garb811 said:
			
		

> The really interesting thing is this administration is the first time in my entire life that I've heard anyone ever insinuate that just because someone served at a certain rank in the previous administration, they are therefore beholden to them and/or of like political views.
> 
> I suppose the next logical step for those who believe this nonsense is to push for a confirmation process for snr US military personnel that mirrors the circus that the confirmation hearings for the US Supreme Court have become, followed by purges of "wrong minded" snr leadership when the political winds change direction and a new boss takes the seat.



Generals and Admirals appointed by a democrat DoD to my mind are suspect. Officer promotions are approved by the Senate but the list can be held up by just one Senator. Sadly the case of Gen Powell is an instance where he claimed to be a Republican but he is known to have voted democrat including Obama and Hillary. The military is supposed to be apolitical but evidently that has changed. I served under Presidents of both parties, but the budget cuts came under Democrats.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jun 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Generals and Admirals appointed by a democrat DoD to my mind are suspect. Officer promotions are approved by the Senate but the list can be held up by just one Senator. Sadly the case of Gen Powell is an instance where he claimed to be a Republican but he is known to have voted democrat including Obama and Hillary. The military is supposed to be apolitical but evidently that has changed. I served under Presidents of both parties, but the budget cuts came under Democrats.



The military kowtowing to the political party that gives them the biggest budget is how most tin-pot dictatorships get started.

The last time that I looked your military's oath of office was to the constitution and not to the president nor to the Republican party. Democracy: the right and privilege to vote for whosoever you think will serve the country best.

 :cheers:


----------



## Mick (8 Jun 2020)

So where do "Obama Generals" stop and "Trump Generals" start?  CJCS Gen Mark Milley has been a general officer since at least 2007, and was appointed to 4-star billets by President Obama, starting in 2014, first as Commanding General of US Army Forces Command, and as Army Chief of Staff.  Similar career trajectories are no doubt similar for all incumbent JCS members and combatant commanders.  Are they Trump Generals or  Obama Generals?  Or is that only determined once they offer an opinion in retirement?


----------



## garb811 (8 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Oh Boy are you ever going to be unhappy.
> ...


Thanks, but I know the process exists. It's just not the circus the Supreme Court is, yet.


----------



## Lumber (8 Jun 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Generals and Admirals appointed by a democrat DoD to my mind are suspect.



Suspect of what? You think generals and admirals appointed by a democrat DoD are somehow less capable? Less honourable? Less loyal? More likely to drag their feet when carrying out missions approved by a Republican president? Less likely to be successful in their missions because they weren't promoted based on their skill but instead based on some assessment of their political ideology? Actually, to that last somewhat rhetorical question, how would the DoD even know what their political leanings are if, as good officers, we don't blatantly advertise our political opinions?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jun 2020)

If I recall correctly there has been past scandals by the selection boards of US Generals. I think there was one prior to WWII and another involving the Mexican war?


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The military kowtowing to the political party that gives them the biggest budget is how most tin-pot dictatorships get started.
> 
> The last time that I looked your military's oath of office was to the constitution and not to the president nor to the Republican party. Democracy: the right and privilege to vote for whosoever you think will serve the country best.
> 
> :cheers:



The same oath members of Congress make. The US officer corps used to be rather conservative , but now maybe not so much.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 Jun 2020)

Is there not almost always an element of politics involved when someone is appointed by a politician? 

And self-interest isn't limited to just politicians.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jun 2020)

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> Is there not almost always an element of politics involved when someone is appointed by a politician?
> 
> And self-interest isn't limited to just politicians.



You're not suggesting that some CAF Generals had leanings towards particular political parties now, are you? 

Oh, wait...


----------



## CBH99 (8 Jun 2020)

While the relationship between the US and Germany might not be what it used to be (Can be said about the US and almost any country) - this isn't that big of a deal.

Reducing from approx. 34,000 to 25,000.

25,000 is still a pretty hefty chunk of troops, equipment, and capability in Germany.  Capabilities the German's don't necessarily have.




Any attack from Russia would require considerable reinforcement from American units stateside, regardless of whether there are 25,000 or 34,000 stationed there.  

Repositioning those troops to Poland, a country that has invested some serious $$ and interest in being a real regional ally to it's neighbours, could be a good move for both.   :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2020)

And we continue to demonstrate why we should always hope for Republican presidents.  They will never invade us or buy us.  They have no desire to add 8 more Democrat states.  Now the Democrats..... They are another matter entirely ... And they have a track record.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jun 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> While the relationship between the US and Germany might not be what it used to be (Can be said about the US and almost any country) - this isn't that big of a deal.
> 
> Reducing from approx. 34,000 to 25,000.
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (20 Jun 2020)

> Trump’s Former Ambassador to Germany Gets His Revenge
> 
> In order to punish the Germans for their supposedly low military expenditures, U.S. President Donald Trump wants to withdraw troops from the country. Observers see it a petty move by former Ambassador Richard Grenell that will primarily hurt American interests.
> 
> ...



Read rest of article here: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/donald-trump-s-former-ambassador-to-germany-gets-his-revenge-a-e201cdff-9563-4ad8-be40-efb2c6fc6d99

 :cheers:


----------



## Ralph (20 Jun 2020)

It'll be interesting to see where exactly the cuts are made and if they'll end up affecting the training centres at Graf and Hohenfels that the Army uses constantly, vice the HQs.

https://www.dw.com/en/us-military-in-germany-what-you-need-to-know/a-49998340


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jun 2020)

There is more of a need to have troops in eastern Europe than in Germany. However to move troops from the US to Europe we will need facilities in Germany if we are to reinforce NATO.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jun 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There is more of a need to have troops in eastern Europe than in Germany. However to move troops from the US to Europe we will need facilities in Germany if we are to reinforce NATO.



The point of the article is that these troops are not really "front-line" troops anyway but are "support" personnel there to create and run a base that supports US operations throughout the region including Europe but especially the Middle East. These cuts are more harmful to US operations than to European security.

Just as importantly, the decision was made politically and without input from DoD. A little pre-election posturing rather than concern US national interests.

 :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The point of the article is that these troops are not really "front-line" troops anyway but are "support" personnel there to create and run a base that supports US operations throughout the region including Europe but especially the Middle East. These cuts are more harmful to US operations than to European security.
> 
> Just as importantly, the decision was made politically and without input from DoD. A little pre-election posturing rather than concern US national interests.
> 
> :cheers:




It is always the same, isn't it? Amateurs, like Trump, want to cut the boring but damned hard to rebuild infrastructure and support base while hanging on to the bright, shiny toys.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The point of the article is that these troops are not really "front-line" troops anyway but are "support" personnel there to create and run a base that supports US operations throughout the region including Europe but especially the Middle East. These cuts are more harmful to US operations than to European security.
> 
> Just as importantly, the decision was made politically and without input from DoD. A little pre-election posturing rather than concern US national interests.
> 
> :cheers:



Anyone within 72 hours of the Russian LD should be considered 'frontline' I would say. 

Depending on circumstance, of course, that could mean everyone up to the English Channel a.k.a. 'The World's Largest Tank Trap'


----------



## dimsum (22 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The point of the article is that these troops are not really "front-line" troops anyway but are "support" personnel there to create and run a base that supports US operations throughout the region including Europe but especially the Middle East. These cuts are more harmful to US operations than to European security.
> 
> Just as importantly, the decision was made politically and without input from DoD. A little pre-election posturing rather than concern US national interests.
> 
> :cheers:



I'm sure that behind the scenes, there are several high-ranking GOFOs saying "how the F are we going to sustain operations" to the WH administration.  I believe there's a quote about logistics people like to use here


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jun 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm sure that behind the scenes, there are several high-ranking GOFOs saying "how the F are we going to sustain operations" to the WH administration.  I believe there's a quote about logistics people like to use here



Something like: 'We can issue you leather belts because you'll need to eat those at some point.'


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jun 2020)

Statement by DoD on troop cuts in Germany..



> The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff briefed the President yesterday on plans to redeploy 9,500 troops from Germany. The proposal that was approved not only meets the President’s directive, it will also enhance Russian deterrence, strengthen NATO, reassure Allies, improve U.S. strategic flexibility and U.S. European Command’s operational flexibility, and take care of our service members and their families. Pentagon leaders look forward to briefing this plan to the congressional defense committees in the coming weeks, followed by consultations with NATO allies on the way forward. We will be providing timely updates to potentially affected personnel, their families and communities as planning progresses.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Statement by DoD on troop cuts in germeny.
> 
> 
> 
> > The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff briefed the President yesterday on plans to redeploy 9,500 troops from Germany. The proposal that was approved not only meets the President’s directive, it will also enhance Russian deterrence, strengthen NATO, reassure Allies, improve U.S. strategic flexibility and U.S. European Command’s operational flexibility, and take care of our service members and their families. Pentagon leaders look forward to briefing this plan to the congressional defense committees in the coming weeks, followed by consultations with NATO allies on the way forward. We will be providing timely updates to potentially affected personnel, their families and communities as planning progresses.



Typically dishonest, politically directed_ bafflegab_ that could have been written just as easily in London or Ottawa.


----------



## stellarpanther (30 Jul 2020)

I know this isn't the site for conspiracy theories but I'm not convinced he isn't a Russian asset who made it to the highest office the country.  I watch a clip yesterday from an interview in which he said, "why is it always Russia, Russia, Russia and never about China" or words to that effect.  He really seems to defend Russia.


----------



## QV (30 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I know this isn't the site for conspiracy theories but I'm not convinced he isn't a Russian asset who made it to the highest office the country.  I watch a clip yesterday from an interview in which he said, "why is it always Russia, Russia, Russia and never about China" or words to that effect.  He really seems to defend Russia.



Omg.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I know this isn't the site for conspiracy theories but I'm not convinced he isn't a Russian asset who made it to the highest office the country.  I watch a clip yesterday from an interview in which he said, "why is it always Russia, Russia, Russia and never about China" or words to that effect.  He really seems to defend Russia.



Perhaps add Russia and Mafia together and you could imagine a relationship that goes back 30 years...and where Trump is a Confidential Informant for the FBI to control the Russian mob in the United States? 

Hmmmm....


----------



## CBH99 (30 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I know this isn't the site for conspiracy theories but I'm not convinced he isn't a Russian asset who made it to the highest office the country.  I watch a clip yesterday from an interview in which he said, "why is it always Russia, Russia, Russia and never about China" or words to that effect.  He really seems to defend Russia.




I'm with you 95% of the time Stellar, but this time I have to humorously disagree.

I do agree with Trump (Probably the only time I'll ever say that)      that the American MSM does focus on Russia a lot more than China, when I think China is SUBSTANTIALLY more aggressive and more dangerous than Russia.


Does Russia mettle in America's internal affairs?  Sure.  Same way America does to Russia. 

But China really is the FAR more dangerous threat to the west in every single way.  Weaponizing and monopolizing telecommunications, electrical companies, food production companies, medical goods, pharmaceuticals, internal influence at universities, cities, towns, regional governments, etc etc.   


I do agree with his sentiment, in this particular case, that the MSM does focus far too much on the wrong enemy.   :2c:


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jul 2020)

Russia is the enemy because Clinton lost what was supposed to be a sure thing, and blame had/has to be laid somewhere.  Remember that right up to the point of election day, the administration was aware of Russian interference and downplayed its importance.


----------



## stellarpanther (30 Jul 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I'm with you 95% of the time Stellar, but this time I have to humorously disagree.
> 
> I do agree with Trump (Probably the only time I'll ever say that)      that the American MSM does focus on Russia a lot more than China, when I think China is SUBSTANTIALLY more aggressive and more dangerous than Russia.
> 
> ...



I agree with you completely.  China by far is the bigger threat and does have ambitions to continue spreading their influence into areas they never used to get involved with.  In the past, they mostly stuck with Asian countries, now however they are spreading into areas such as Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador and now even Cuba.  With Russia, I think Putin does wish the Soviet Union was recreated but whether Canada and others have troops in the Baltic States, I just don't see him going after any NATO country.  Even in the Ukraine, he stopped in Crimea.  He seems to only be interested in the Russian areas of the Ukraine that border Russia.  I doubt he'll go after the entire country and capture Kiev.


----------



## CBH99 (30 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I agree with you completely.  China by far is the bigger threat and does have ambitions to continue spreading their influence into areas they never used to get involved with.  In the past, they mostly stuck with Asian countries, now however they are spreading into areas such as Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador and now even Cuba.  With Russia, I think Putin does wish the Soviet Union was recreated but whether Canada and others have troops in the Baltic States, I just don't see him going after any NATO country.  Even in the Ukraine, he stopped in Crimea.  He seems to only be interested in the Russian areas of the Ukraine that border Russia.  I doubt he'll go after the entire country and capture Kiev.




Agree with you.

While Putin may relish for the glory days of the Soviet Union from a global influence perspective, he's also incredibly smart, and knows that just isn't possible.  Especially not with the Russian economy on a tight leash via sanctions.

I believe you are right, and so does Michael Hayden (former CIA director).  I've watched quite a few of his interviews now that he's retired, and he speaks about other allied intelligence services, and the different general behaviors of 'non-allied' intelligence services such as the Russians and Chinese.


In one of his longer talks, he states that Russia really just wants to control it's neighbors and the events around it's borders.  Hnce, Crimea and a large Russian population in the area that genuinely did not want to be Ukrainian.  Or Georgia.  Or Chechnya.  And keeping a level of influence in the Bering Sea, the Med, Barents Sea, etc etc.

As I've mentioned on this forum before, Putin is probably the smartest politician in the world right now.  Or at least one of.  He isn't going to invade the only source of income he really has right now.  (Which is selling oil & gas to Europe)



China?  Much more dangerous, in far more sinister ways.   :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jul 2020)

When you look at the planning and moves in Crimea that was planned to the minute. I feel though that Donbass was a gamble he took on a hunch based on Obama's weak response. In the end it was a bridge to far and to many variable and actors to control effectively. My guess is he focus on stabilizing the areas they hold and create a legal fiction to support them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jul 2020)

Russia has been the boogyman since September 2, 1945.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2020)

I would just repeat what I have been saying for a long time: 

1. Russia is led by an opportunistic adventurer (or an adventurous opportunist, if you prefer) ~ he's willing to take calculated risks and he is a short-term thinker; but

2. China is led by strategists ~ and it still is a bit of a collective leadership, even though Xi Jinping is "paramount leader" for life.

China's _*aims*_ are much more dangerous than Russia's because they are nothing short of making China the most powerful nation on earth ... like Spain was, like France was, like Britain was, like America is. But China is much less likely to start a war. The Chinese are afraid of a war because while they are a great land power they are weak at sea and global dominance requires a maritime strategy and strategic maritime forces. China has neither: the first is foreign to their thinking ... as it was to Napoleon's, for example; the second is beyond their grasp for at least another generation.

Russia is a decaying power and I fear the "_use it or lose it_" mentality which I suspect dominates Putin's thinking.

Trump is Trump ... he's a bloody fool, but he's convinced he is smart.   :facepalm:


----------



## Lumber (30 Jul 2020)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...strategic maritime forces. China has neither...



Have you seen the size of their navy!?!


----------



## CBH99 (30 Jul 2020)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would just repeat what I have been saying for a long time:
> 
> 1. Russia is led by an opportunistic adventurer (or an adventurous opportunist, if you prefer) ~ he's willing to take calculated risks and he is a short-term thinker; but
> 
> ...




Ooooohhhhhh, I like this.  Two totally different trains of thought here, which compliment each other.


Mr. Campbell,

I do respectfully disagree with your # 2 Point.


Is China a great land power?  Yes.  It has a massive population, large army, strong government, etc etc.  

However, I would not dismiss China as being weak at sea.  

Are they a fairly new player when it comes to large modern navies?  Yes.  As you correctly stated, China has traditionally been a land power.


However, China is pumping a huge number of resources into strengthening, modernizing, and growing it's navy.  It's constructing very capable warships at an astronomical rate.  Not just large destroyers and cruisers, but LHA type ships, ever improving aircraft carriers, and submarines.  Depending on what calculations you use, it arguably has the largest or 2nd largest navy in the world - and their ships are quite modern and capable.

They don't need all the whiz-bang science fiction stuff the USN likes.  They don't need laser weapon, and missiles that can strike a match in space.  They need radars that can lock on, and missiles that can hit their target.  And they have plenty of both.



And it's air force has been modernizing itself fairly quickly also, and focusing those efforts on the units that would be used in operations throughout the SCS.

And, unlike the US, China can focus & concentrate those assets in it's own backyard to achieve it's own short term strategic goals.  (Think Taiwan -- which I digress, but I'm just using that as an example.)  Or, exerting control over it's neighbors and exploiting natural resources in it's own backyard.




Putin is an opportunist in that in one of the ways he keeps Russia as a strong player in the region, is by weakening it's neighbors.  Whether it is through intelligence operations, political pressure, military posturing, etc - Putin wants to control what happens close to his borders, and will pounce on whatever opportunities may present itself in doing so.

I strongly do not believe Mr. Putin would start a war, especially with a NATO or EU member.  His only real source of income is in selling natural resources to EU members.  Without that trade, Russia effectively doesn't have any strong trading relationships to support it's population.  Not only that, but I do believe Putin knows that there is no chance he could ever absorb an additional 350 million EU citizens, or even 38 million Polish citizens for that matter.




China on the other hand, I view as the exact opposite.

I believe it's only a matter of time until we see what some folks in the intelligence & military community have dubbed the upcoming 'Pacific Brawl'.  It may not be a full scale war.  It may be a short burst of hostilities before both sides put the leashes back on their dogs.  But from a trade, political, economic, military posturing, and foreign policy perspective - China is racking up enemies, and fast.  And it seems to do so brazzingly, even referring to Australia as 'gum on the bottom of their boot'.  Or recently admitting that our 2 citizens were arrested and detained as a response to one of their citizens being arrested here.

It may be short, and it may end up being anti-climactic.  But, I do believe that if we end up in any sort of shooting exchange with military forces of a nation state, it will be China before it will be Russia.   :2c:



What happens if rounds get exchanged between Taiwanese forces, and Chinese forces 'conducting drills' around the island?  
Or Vietnamese forces fire warning shots, or actual shots, at a Chinese Coast Guard ship arresting Vietnamese citizens inside Vietnamese waters?  
Or s**t goes down between Japanese fighters & Chinese fighters?  
Or between USN ships conducting their FONOPS all around the SCS, and a Chinese ship that tails too close, or rams them, etc etc?



I always love a good debate.  In this particular scenario, I really do think we have more to worry about from China than Russia.   :2c:


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Have you seen the size of their navy!?!



They have a large tactical navy. They can attack point targets, they can interdict shipping lanes, thry can defend airspace, they can show a lot of flags... But they cannot sustain power projection beyond their land based air cover. They cannot dominate a large swath of ocean against the US. They can’t go to a different part of the world with their navy and make important enemy assets go away, or provide expeditionary air cover to troops on the ground. Their ability to deliver nuclear missiles by surprise from submarines is too limited to assure mutual destruction- though they still have somewhat of a nuclear deterrent.

They want to change these things, but particularly naval aviation is a generational venture.


----------



## CBH99 (31 Jul 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> They have a large tactical navy. They can attack point targets, they can interdict shipping lanes, thry can defend airspace, they can show a lot of flags... But they cannot sustain power projection beyond their land based air cover. They cannot dominate a large swath of ocean against the US. They can’t go to a different part of the world with their navy and make important enemy assets go away, or provide expeditionary air cover to troops on the ground. Their ability to deliver nuclear missiles by surprise from submarines is too limited to assure mutual destruction- though they still have somewhat of a nuclear deterrent.
> 
> They want to change these things, but particularly naval aviation is a generational venture.




I totally agree.  (Although they have started to spread their wings sort of speak, and started to base aircraft on the little islands they made throughout the SCS.)  Overall, agree with you 100%


My question here though, is -- do they need to be able to do all of what you mentioned?

In the long term, to harness the type of global influence they want, yes.  They will need to be able to do those things.



In the short term, however, do they need to be able to do all of those things in order to dominate the SCS?  I would argue no. 

They are able to concentrate their naval and air assets in a fairly small-ish geographical area.  They can layer those assets with long range AA missiles, and thousands of land based cruise/ballistic missiles.  


I would suggest they don't need to be able to do everything the USN can do, in order to beat the USN in terms of their regional goals.  All they need to do be able to do, is make a shooting exchange an EXTREMELY costly option that nobody wants to choose.  And in that case, I would argue their position in the SCS in terms of concentration of assets, and being able to use those assets towards their shorter-term regional goals, puts them at a distinct advantage.


Naval aviation truly is a generational venture, and nobody remotely comes close to the USN's fine tuned machine of naval aviation dominance.  I agree with you 100% on that.  

Within the geography of the SCS, however, I would suggest they don't need to be able to match the USN in terms of naval aviation.  Taiwan is close enough to the mainland, as well as Japan, that mainland based aircraft would probably be just fine for their goals.


 :2c:


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Jul 2020)

Most of the waters the Chinese navy can operate in within range of its land-based air forces are also in range of other countries' land-based air forces, or air forces that could be based in those countries.


----------

