NATO AND THE FEARS IN UKRAINE

• World News
• June 28, 2022

NATO AND THE FEARS IN UKRAINE

NATO to drastically increase forces on high alert to over 300, 000 from 40,000 amid Russia.

Units deployed across eight eastern and southeastern NATO countries to deter Russia hostilities will rise in size from 1,000-strong battlegroups to brigades, which comprise around 3,000-5,000 troops with more war-fighting equipment in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The recent outlook shows that the consequences of this war may not just be the global economic brink but a possible 3rd world war. And that's where we begin the full briefings of Undaunted tonight. And Star Smart is always a great teammate.

Like you just mentioned, NATO will significantly increase the number of forces on high alert to over 300,000 from 40,000 as part of the biggest overhaul of the alliance's defences since the Cold War. With Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine changing the security environment across Europe, the head of the alliance also confirmed that allies will expand troop deployments in NATO countries that sit closest to Russia.

The bad news this evening is not the effect this war may just be economical, we may just be close to deadly world war 3. Here is the paradox as well, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. The decisions by NATO will be set out at a landmark summit this week in Madrid. Together, this constitutes the biggest overhaul of our collective deterrence and defence since the Cold War," Jens Stoltenberg said, in a briefing at NATO headquarters in Brussels earlier today.

He said the 30-member alliance is expected to consider Russia to be "the most significant and direct threat to our security". Allies had already hardened their defences following Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine in February, but the latest steps are by far the most significant "We will transform the NATO Response Force and increase the number of our high readiness forces to well over 300,000," the NATO chief said.

The NATO Response Force - which are kept at varying degrees of readiness to mobilise, from two days' notice to six months - is currently around 40,000 soldiers, sailors and air personnel. Sky News was first to report the increase in forces last week before specific numbers were known.

Mr Stoltenberg also confirmed the strengthening of units deployed across eight eastern and southeastern NATO countries to deter Russia hostilities. They will rise in size from 1,000-strong battlegroups to brigades, which comprise around 3,000-5,000 troops. More war-fighting equipment will be stationed in states such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which are among those that feel most at risk from the Kremlin.

The desire is for NATO to have sufficient forces on the ground to defeat any attempt at an invasion. This is a fundamental shift from a policy known as a "tripwire" that was adopted after Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, with the annexation of Crimea. Back then, allies agreed to set up four missions in the Baltic states and Poland, each with around 1,000 troops. If Russia chose to invade, these battlegroups would not be able to stop the attack but would trigger a "tripwire", prompting reinforcements to rush in.

However, the events in Ukraine, where Russian forces have wreaked carnage in areas they have occupied, means allies believe they need to deny any invading force from having the ability to take any ground from day one of an attack. One defence minister has said that there cannot be a "Bucha on NATO soil" - a reference to the town of Bucha, outside Kyiv, where Russian forces are accused of mass murder, torture and rape of Ukrainian civilians.

Several long-planned NATO exercises involving member countries including the UK, and partners, have been taking place over the last few months in many of the nations where troops are to be boosted.

As part of the upgraded defence plans, military personnel tasked with defending specific NATO allies will not all need to be stationed on the ground, but could be based in their home country and only deploy forward when needed. "These troops will exercise together with home defence forces," Mr Stoltenberg said. "And they will become familiar with local terrain, facilities, and our new pre-positioned stocks. So that they can respond smoothly and swiftly to any emergency." The changes will need increased investment, with allies increasing defence spending for the eighth consecutive year - an increase of $350bn since 2014.

As reported by Sky News last week, the NATO chief outlined new support that allies will collectively pledge to give Ukraine, including anti-drone systems and providing Ukrainian forces with secure communication.

In a disappointment for most allies, though, there has been no breakthrough yet on overcoming opposition from Turkey to a historic bid by previously neutral Sweden and Finland to join NATO - in the ultimate snub to Mr Putin and win for the allies. The NATO chief said he would be talking to the Turkish prime minister and had already spoken with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He said allies "aim to make progress on Finland and Sweden's historic applications for NATO membership, while ensuring the security concerns of all allies are addressed".

The Ukrainian president urged Western leaders to "do everything" they can to bring the conflict to an end as he called for increased economic and military support. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he wants the war in Ukraine to be over by the start of winter, as he urged Western leaders to send anti-aircraft systems and increase sanctions on Russia. Addressing the G7 summit by videolink, Zelenskyy said battle conditions would make it tougher for his troops as they mount their fightback, and urged the G7 leaders to do the maximum to end the war by year's end, a source told AFP. The Ukrainian leader asked the assembled heads of state to "do everything" they can, according to German newspaper Welt.

Speaking to the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States on Monday, he asked for a broad range of military, economic and diplomatic support. Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz, acting as G7 president, reaffirmed the group's support for Ukraine. He tweeted: "We will continue to increase pressure on Putin. This war has to come to an end." You know what I think Onyee, it is not about what Zelenskyy wants here. It is about arriving at agreement with all parties involved. The actions of Putin are quite telling. It is evident that the war and its consequences may be far ranging.

NATO and the Ministry of Defence will be studying the battlefields of Ukraine closely to work out what it would mean if British forces ever became involved in a fight with the Russians. These are among the lessons they will have learned so far. But this something I would like us to obverse: Throughout the Cold War, Britain's military planners thought long and hard about what was needed to beat the Soviets if World War Three ever broke out. Assuming both sides weren't annihilated by nuclear weapons, they assumed a Soviet invasion would lead to a war in western Europe, and trained and equipped UK forces would need to counter that threat. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was believed that the threat was no longer there, and came from other places.

But the invasion of Ukraine has changed all of that. While analysts say a direct conflict between NATO and Russia is unlikely, it is possible - particularly in the Baltic states, or Finland. The Ukraine war is providing a golden opportunity for British and NATO military planners to observe Russia fighting on the battlefield and to plan accordingly. Here, according to former Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) head Professor Michael Clarke and retired Air Vice Marshal Sean Bell, are a few of the lessons the MoD will be taking on board.

The MoD as follows:

1. The days of purely expeditionary conflicts are over

For years, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the belief was that Western armed forces would only ever have to take part in what was known as 'expeditionary' wars. These are conflicts involving a strong military force going into a situation in which it has superiority, so it can win easily - for example the Gulf and Iraq wars and conflicts in Sierra Leone and Kosovo.

Now, the threat of an encounter with Russia - regarded as a military peer - is very present and it is arguable the British and other allied forces are not yet equipped for that. Prof Clarke, former director of the RUSI and a fellow of Kings College London, told Sky News: "With British military planners … the idea of having to go all-out to fight a proper big war was 'we'll only do it with the US and certainly won't be doing it for, let's say, the next 10 years'. "24 February showed that… Russia is now a manifest threat and will be for as long as Putin is in power and probably his successor as well. It is THE problem of European stability and security."

2. Russian tactics haven't changed in decades

In the Ukraine invasion, Russia initially tried to use blitzkrieg tactics, learned from the Germans in WW2, by attempting to sweep down from the border with Belarus and take Kyiv within days, as Hitler had done in Poland in the late 1930s. Military analysts believed that if the Soviets had become involved in a war with the West in the 1960s, '70s or '80s, they would have tried the same approach, moving their heavy armour rapidly across Europe.

Prof Clarke, who was involved in planning to combat the Soviet threat in the 1980s, said NATO thinking in the late 20th century was that the Soviets realised they would ultimately fail if they tried a blitzkrieg in Europe, but it didn't stop planning for such a scenario. In Ukraine, they appeared to try any way and the tactic failed. In 1990s Chechnya, Russian tactics were to bludgeon their opponents so effectively, they could not fight back. That is now being seen in the east of Ukraine. Prof Clarke says: "The ground tactics are the same now as they were then, which is reduce everything to rubble and then walk over the rubble. Heavy use of artillery and then, when everyone's dead, you walk in."

3. Poor Russian planning meant the blitzkrieg approach was destined not to succeed In Ukraine, the reliance was on tanks, heavily armoured personnel carriers and support trucks. Unfortunately for the Russians, it was clear they hadn't planned sufficiently well to undertake an effective invasion, and the forces operating their equipment were not well enough trained to adapt when things went wrong. Prof Clarke says: "In the battle of Kiev… against this long column… people said… there are these tanks sitting there, why didn't [the Ukrainians] attack them? Well, they didn't need to because the tanks were out of fuel. And the Russians seem to have used up almost all their initial allocation of ammunition in the first three days. "We have been surprised at how lacking in innovation they have been and how foolish their tactics have been in sending tanks [in] unsupported."