Army photo

US 173rd Airborne soldiers arrive in Lviv to train the Ukrainian National Guard.

PENTAGON: What would World War III look like? Ask a Ukrainian.

In their war against Russia, Ukrainian troops have endured artillery bombardments like nothing Americans have seen since World War II. Russian electronic attacks against radio communications are like nothing the US has seen — ever. So even as Washington debates further training — and perhaps arming — the Ukrainians, the top Army commander in Europe said today, they have important lessons to teach us. Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges was too polite to say it out loud, but Ukraine is teaching us what it takes to fight the Russians — or anyone else well-armed — in a large-scale ground war.

“All of these guys are veterans,” said Hodges, speaking of the Ukrainian National Guard troops now being trained by the American 173rd Airborne Brigade. “In fact,” Hodges told reporters here today, “I was talking to [US] noncommissioned officers who’ve been with the Ukrainians, and they were like, ‘wow, these guys, they’ve done stuff we’ve never seen, [never] been exposed to that level of violence.’ So we’ve actually learned a lot from them.”

What we’re learning about is the nature of the next war. Russia’s implausibly deniable operations in Ukraine — where it insists only a few good-hearted volunteers are helping local separatists against Kiev — are often cited as a case of “hybrid war,” blending conventional and guerrilla strategies. Russia certainly has used irregular warfare, arming local proxies and sending special forces without insignia, the “Little Green Men,” to seize Crimea. But equally important to the mix are high-intensity tactics like massed artillery, jamming, and tanks, which US forces haven’t had to face for years.

It’s the threat of Russian armored vehicles, in particular, that lead many in Congress to argue the Ukrainians need American anti-tank weapons, such as the Javelin missile.

Hodges demurred when asked whether the US should provide “lethal aid” to the Ukrainians. The chairman-designate of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joseph Dunford, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that arming Ukraine would be “reasonable.” And he made it clear it would necessary for the Ukrainians to stop the Russians. “Frankly,” the Marine Corps four-star said, “without that kind of support, they are not going to be able to defend themselves against Russian aggression.”

 

Marine Corps photo

A Marine fires a Javelin anti-tank missile.

The Next Big Push?

Hodges does not expect a major Russian offensive in the near future, though he hedged quite a bit. About nine to 12 “battalion tactical groups” remain near the border city of Rostov at any given time, he said, and they could move west at will. Those forces have been in place for months, he said, and there’s no sign they’re about to  move.

Hodges downplayed the idea of another major offensive on the southern front, against Marioupol. That strategic port blocks the land route between Russia proper and occupied Crimea. Given the degree of Ukrainian resistance the last time, he said, the Russians would have to pour so much professional military firepower into the fight — including airstrikes — that their last shred of deniability would be gone.

“That would be such a huge fight that it would be impossible for the rebels to do by themselves,” Hodges said. “That would remove any facade of ‘there’s no Russian participation.'”

So at the moment, the violence is low-level — though no less lethal for those in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Ukrainians report two to five dead every day, Hodges said, from small arms, artillery rockets, and “everything in between.” The Russian-backed separatists have also started planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in civilian areas, the general added, openly puzzled at the strategic logic.

“What would be the point of doing that?” Hodges asked. “Why would you leave things like this around schools?”

Experts have long expected IEDs to proliferate around the world, given their effectiveness against US troops. Iraqi and Afghan insurgents started using roadside bombs in place of conventional artillery, which they lacked. That’s not the Russian-backed separatists’ problem.

The supply convoys moving across the Russo-Ukrainian border, Hodges said, are carrying “tons and tons of rocket artillery ammunition. I mean, it’s massive amounts — not something that was captured from the Ukrainians or being manufactured in basements,” as the Russians like to claim.

One of the most valuable items of equipment the US has provided Ukraine is a counter-mortar radar, designed to detect incoming rounds and calculate where they’re coming from. While Hodges carefully declined to discuss Ukrainian tactics, he said they have used the radars in ways that the Americans hadn’t realized was possible. It’s so successful that the Russians have made a major effort to destroy them.

Massed artillery has been a Russian tradition since World War II. During the Cold War, they added expertise in electronic warfare: jamming, intercepting, and deceiving radio and radars. US Army electronic warfare remains limited to short-range jammers to deactivate roadside bombs, with drone-mounted EW envisioned for the future. The Russians, however, have an array of ” vehicle-based systems and other platforms that can either jam or disrupt or intercept,” which they employed in Crimea, Hodges said. “We’re learning from that, we’re watching how the Ukrainians have responded.”

 

russian-troops-parade-in-st-petersburg

The West’s Next Steps

Operating under electronic attack is also part of the training program the 173rd Airborne is teaching to Ukrainian troops outside Lviv — on the far side of Ukraine from the fighting. Currently, just over 300 US Airborne soldiers are teaching a like number of Ukrainian National Guard soldiers. The first of these Interior Ministry-controlled battalions has already finished the program, a second is in progress, and a third will be completed by November 15.

At that point, the US may start training Ukrainian regular army soldiers and commandos, which fall under the Ministry of Defense. “A final decision has not been made on that,” said Hodges. “We probably are getting close to the time where a decision would have to be made” to continue the training without interruption in November.

Pressed to share his recommendation, Hodges said only that “I think the training is a very effective way to help them …. that doesn’t require necessarily providing weapons. But again, I can understand why there are different views.”

What’s crucial is to keep the NATO alliance and the European Union united, Hodges emphasized repeatedly. (In other words, that means going slowly on any measures, such as arming Ukraine, which might unnerve the more pacifistic nations). There needs to be consensus, Hodges said, on “What is the strategy? What’s the end state that we want to get to?” — and when.

“Some nations in Europe have a very long-term view,” Hodges said. “They’ll talk about, ‘well, you know, Germany was divided for 50 years before it came back together.’ I don’t know that this [Ukraine] is the same kind of thing.”

Comments

  • Curtis Conway

    “What would be the point of doing that?” Hodges asked. “Why would you leave things like this around schools?”

    How many schools have been destroyed by artillery fire, some complete with children in attendance, or evacuated there for safety?

    “….. Hodges said only that “I think the training is a very effective way to help them …. that doesn’t require necessarily providing weapons. But again, I can understand why there are different views.”

    This is the answer by a quintessential politician, not a man of principle. There is NEVER a good reason to place IEDs near a school . . . unless your a Radical Islamic or a Russian, as has been demonstrated multiple times a day.

    Either we stand with the Democratic Republic, or we don’t. Why would we stand by, and let Tyranny reign. I guess for the same reason we let peoples heads get cut off in the Middle East.

    • Mixed News

      Your head is full of shit. “Stand against tyrrany”, shure. You are tyrrany. You have raped Iraq and now it essentailly disintegrated and that is exact reason of ISIS rising. You keep bombing Afghanistan by drones, where people mostly unaware why have you invaded there. But you did. You are invaders. Occupants. You bombed prosper Lybia to stone age and now hordes of lybians tryin to sneak to EU. Everything you reach is becoming chaos.

      • Dick Steele

        Not sure what version of recent history you’re reading, pal, but it’s far from accurate. It’s easy to sit back and lecture the U.S. when you’re a pussy or from a pussy country that exists only because we protect it; it’s a lot harder to actually *respond* to aggression because, well, that takes balls and you seem to lack them.

        Damn straight we invaded Afghanistan; the piece of shit Taliban government there was housing an enemy who attacked us. WTF would YOU have done – shit your pants and hide? Eff that. I spent a year there and my only regret is that we didn’t kill ENOUGH of them.

        Iraq is a bit more complicated, but the FACT is when we withdrew our forces, we were essentially TOLD to do so by the then-functioning Iraqi government we left behind. The fact that the Iraqi army WE trained were pussies who would rather get their heads lopped off than fight is not an American problem, it’s an IRAQI problem, a balls problem, a guts problem. Either fight for what you believe in or die like a dog in your own country.

        It is ISIS that is raping Iraq, you asshole – fucking see it every day on TV – not the United States.

        Dipshit.

        • Vincent J.

          You’re mostly correct about Afghanistan. Given that the errors in Mixed News’ post mark him as a paid Russian troll, he could be jealous, because the Afghans made the Russian occupation too expensive to maintain, so the Russians pulled out. We stayed to do the job until a confused, feckless president pulled our troops out.

          You’re wrong about Iraq. George W. Bush used the presence of American troops to pressure the Iraqi government, which is dominated by Shia, to allow Sunnis to have some important posts in the government. That mollified the Sunnis enough for them to stop their rebellion against the Iraqi government. The Iraqi army had many Sunni officers, because they have traditionally been the best (compared to Shia) for centuries. The U.S. trained that army to the point that they could defend themselves against all local players. When Obama pulled out all of our troops, he took all pressure off the Iraqi government, and left a power vacuum, which was easily filled by Iran. Al Maliki, the leader of the Iraqi government, could see that he had to come to some sort of agreement with the Iranians, so started kissing up the them while dissing America. He fired all of the Sunnis who occupied positions in the Iraqi government, and more importantly, he fired all of the Sunni army officers, who had been trained by the U.S. Army, and then Maliki replaced those competent Sunni army officers with incompetent, untrained Shia political appointees. (A common practice in the mid-east.) When ISIS attacked, all of those political appointees deserted from their units and ran back to Baghdad. When the Iraqi troops saw their officers run, they ran, too. In summary, if Obama had continued Bush’s policy of maintaining troops in Iraq (the Iraqis could have protested, but they could not have forced out U.S. troops), Maliki never would have weakened the Iraqi army, and never would have angered the Sunnis by firing Sunni government officers. ISIS would never have dared attack, when U.S. troops were there In other words, it’s Obama’s fault, pure and simple.

        • http://www.sodahead.com/user/profile/912621/marty9957/ Domingo N Martinez

          They will re-write history if we stand idly by and let them. You are absolutely correct, Iraq was won. The previous administration had even negotiated the withdrawal of American forces in their SOFA Agreement. The only item left pending was a new follow on Agreement with the new administration and the Iraqi government on the size of the contingent force left behind the to train the remaining police and military units and track down the remaining remnants of the bad guys..Obama was determined to pull out completely even after many people of experience advised against it. That led in part to the current situation.

          The other contributing factor was the arming of the Syrian rebels in their fight against the Syrian government. Those same Rebels morphed into what he now calls ISIL known to everyone else as ISIS. They are just as well equipped and well trained as our guys. That’s because Obama had them trained and equipped. Now they just take what the the home team leaves behind when they take their uniforms off and run

        • Jawaralal_Schwartz

          Read the papers, er, Dick. The first few months in Afgh were warranted and righteous. We could even say we won, that is, we shut down the bases that prepared the bombers of Sept. 11. But then we’ thought we’d stay awhile, ya know, do a little Nation Building, establish the economy, build some schools, pave some roads, Train The Troops (still going on, as per usual). We failed at all of this, especially the military and economy-building part. And Most Afghanis would like us out, somewhat like they wanted the Russians gone, even if the reasons are somewhat different. Big success, eh? Iraq was a different story, but it was voluntary, and a crashing failure in almost every way from the start. Republicans admit that, if not in public and even after trying to blame the current president for this mess. And, surprise, the Iraqis threw us out. We must protect United States interests in the Middle East, but Bush hardly defined them or acted by them, and he mismanaged not only the military but also the political and societal dimensions of things. President Obama did what he could to fix that, but, no surprise, we got thrown out. And we still seem to be paying, with hard cash, the Anbar sheikhs who killed a thousand US Marines before we paid them enough to work with us, not against us. The lesson is: we should be uncertain about our ability to manage these situations. It is not a positive set of stories. We need a strategy, and we need better leadership in order to win. The last crew of officials managing national security were not stellar, and neither are the present crew. But they are the ones we have, as Donald Rumsfeld would have said.

          • http://www.sodahead.com/user/profile/912621/marty9957/ Domingo N Martinez

            Obviously you haven’t read my comment further up. The Iraqi war was won until Obama screwed it up.

        • Jawaralal_Schwartz

          Hey, Dick: some get the feeling that you are primping to be a National Security Adviser to Donald Trump. Am I right, eh?

      • Vincent J.

        In the study of logic, what you have presented is what is known as a tu quoque attack, a variation on the ad hominem attack. Saying that the other guy is a hypocrite may or may not be correct, but the moral state of one who debates does not affect the validity of his arguments.

        Nice try, Russian troll.

        • Jawaralal_Schwartz

          You are rather the Troll Analyst, eh? But getting to cases, are you ready to suit up and go fight the good fight? Send your kids? Send your wife? Send your grandkids? That would be the good test of whether the cause is good enough. There are other means to resolve such problems than sending weapons and troops.

          • Vincent J.

            The Russians are the aggressors. They are not pushing aggressive diplomatic initiatives. They are killing people, and taking territory which is not theirs. The occupants of that territory do not wish to live under Russian dominion. It is worth some danger and some bloodshed to repel the Russian invaders. I did twenty years in the U.S. Navy, and I am willing to go back into uniform, if they want my arthritic old body back on active duty. Both of my sons did time in the military, and both of them would return to active duty, if called. Yes, the cause is good enough.

            I must admit that you Russians have an excellent leader in Putin. He plays a less than perfect hand very well. I wish we had such a leader in the White House instead of our confused and feckless community organizer.

            I’m curious. After Putin rebuilds Russia to its glory days by annexing Ukraine, Belorussia, etc., then what? Start putting some muscle on the Siberian border with China to stop the slow Chinese absorbtion of Siberia?

          • Jawaralal_Schwartz

            You are entitled to your views. However, you are in a small minority of US public opinion–rich and poor, young and old, Dem and Repub.–and everything in between. As a Nation, we are not spoiling for a fight, which is what you seem to want. And we have proven over many decades now by the mismanagement of our National Security in many respects, that we are Not the Greatest Generation. We don’t have the skill and capability to manage these situations, and more importantly, there is a lack of will to sacrifice. In WWII, we lost an average of 6,000 KIA per month (yes, every 30 days). That’s as much as we have lost in the entire Iraq war–and with double the population. We don’t have the will to make such sacrifices now. And there is a lot of good in that. A lot of good.

          • Vincent J.

            ” … you are in a small minority of US public opinion ….” That’s unlikely. The left likes to believe such things, because they’re herd animals; they want to believe that they are with the vast majority, and those who disagree with them are far from the herd. There’s no reason to believe that the herd has any special wisdom or insight. (mooooo!)

            We haven’t mismanaged our national security institutions. The left-leaning news media has inflamed the passions of the herd to believe that the national security institutions were doing something which they weren’t doing, or that what they were doing was bad. The left has no clarity of vision, so they lack good judgment in these matters or any other matters.

            Well done, Russian troll. You may collect your daily allotment of Rubles and relax for the rest of the day.

          • Secundius

            @ Vincent J.

            The problem is, Putin’s playing Chess. While Obama’s playing Vegas Poker. Roughly Equivalent to saying “Nuts” to the Nazi’s in the Battle of the Bulge…

          • Vincent J.

            You’re giving Obama too much credit, imho. O is playing tick tack toe.

          • sandy miller

            Please tell us what they are. It seems everyone has tried everything. Onlything left is for allow Putin to take over Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics, Sweden, Denmark. Where does he stop. He wants to recreate soviet illusion of the tsarist empire.

  • ShootMe/ShootYou

    Ukraine CAN teach the world how to bring an end to civilisation.
    On 23rd June 2015, the Pentagon proudly announced plans to send ‘heavy weapons’ to the Baltic states just within spitting distance of Russia’s Kaliningrad.
    On 8th July 2015, the USAF declared that Russia posed the ‘biggest threat’ to the security of the U.S.
    Shades of the 1940s. When hitler transferred advance military units to the Eastern Front while murmuring that his country faced a grave threat from ‘Asiatic hordes.’
    Now, it is clear Turkey-based Islamist fighters are already in Ukraine especially around Mariupol.
    It is very inconceivable that the U.S. is not aware of these facts mentioned above.
    It is clear to us that U.S. intentions in Ukraine are not honorable to say the least.

    • ыыка

      kgb agent

    • Vincent J.

      You’re clearly a higher-quality Russian troll. I commend you, sir.

      When Hitler attacked, his forces found that the Russian troops were in offensive positions, not defensive positions. The Russians were preparing to attack Germany within days, if not hours.

      U.S. intentions in Ukraine may or may not be honorable, but Russia is already at war with the Ukrainians. Invading, burning, destroying, and killing as the Russians are doing is certainly much worse than having dishonorable intentions.

      Nice try, troll.

      • ycplum

        I have to respectfully disagree with your application of “higher-quality”.

        • Vincent J.

          Mea culpa.

  • Supernova1987

    Giving ATGMs to the Ukrainians would give the opportunity to test them against russian tanks equipped with defensive systems.

    • Chris Makey

      Good thinking.

    • ycplum

      Land mines would be more effective. No land mine ever walked across a border to attack a tank, giving the other side justification for an invasion.

  • originalone

    Training the troops. A far cry from actual combat. What has been the success rate so far, for the U.S. trained foreign troops, regardless of the arms they have? Country after country, has been like the never ending money pit, with no end in sight. The U.S.Military certainly has its strengths, along with the latest toys-at least from what we are told, but the results for all this advantage remains nothing to write home about. When do we say enough, after WW 3 has blown up half the world? Basing the future on the past, sure appears to be the dumbest thinking the politicians/military strategists have come up with to date.

    • Vincent J.

      I must admonish you. Clearly, you’re a liberal, and liberals are supposed to work in the word “quagmire,” which you failed to do. Shame on you.

      • Jawaralal_Schwartz

        Yes, both Iraq and Afgh. are quagmires, custom-made by Bush originally, but now owned by President Obama, who has contributed his own mistakes because he has been snookered by his military and his political advisers. He has been hamstrung by poor intelligence and less than good faith and leadership skill by legions of flags and other careerists. Despite the abysmal failure in “troop training,” all those officers got Big Promos and other awards for…wait for it…training the troops. Well done, all around.

        • Vincent J.

          Heh, heh. “Quagmire” is a word used by those who are confused and can’t see any course of action. No doubt, that’s why liberals are so fond of that word; it reflects their normal state of mind.

          George W. Bush had clarity of vision, and laid out a plan. When Obama took office, things in Iraq were more or less stable, with waning rebel attacks. Obama withdrew troops, which destabilized Iraq. Obama undid the good work of U.S. troops. Al Maliki undid the work of those who trained the Iraqi army, because he no longer had any reason to lead an inclusive government as the U.S. had demanded.

          • John King

            Let’s see. Clarity of vision. Invade a country for no good reason other than because they tried to kill my daddy? Humm,…

          • Vincent J.

            Straw man. The fact that an unproven supposition is often repeated among the lefties doesn’t make it fact.

            What you’re using is the tu quoque argument, however, even if what you’ve suggested is true, that doesn’t affect the validity of what I said.

          • ycplum

            If a vision is not clear or does not exist, create your own parallel intelligence office to manufacture intel to make it clear.

          • Jawaralal_Schwartz

            If GW Bush is your hero, and you think obviously he was a brilliant mil and political strategist (in foreign affairs), you are probably one out of , say, every 5,000 in the US population. As for training the Iraq Army, Bremer set the tone for failure and stupidity, and then we spent many billions over a decade”training the Iraq Army.” Many colonels and flags were promoted for this feat, and many contractors got rich. It was all phony and ineffective. It diid not happen. But there was no victory in Iraq; the “surge” was a sham stunt. There was nothing for Maliki to “undo.” The “trained” Iraqi forces just sold our stuff, did not maintain it or train with it, and they just ran away. Another major accomplishment (“Mission Accomplished”) by your hero. Well done, Vinny.

          • Vincent J.

            “If GW Bush is your hero, and you think obviously he was a brilliant mil and political strategist (in foreign affairs) ….” Nice straw man! I commend you.

            “… you are probably one out of , say, every 5,000 in the US population.” It’s unlikely that this is true, but you can believe it if it makes you feel good.

            Now that you’ve vented, you’d do well to read a variety of different news sources instead of getting everything which you think you know from liberal bumper stickers.

          • JJSchwartz

            So if someone disagrees with you or others with similar thoughts they are automatically labeled as liberals? When Colin Powell said, “if you break it you own it” (paraphrased) you’d label him a liberal?

          • Vincent J.

            No, when I see people expressing liberal thoughts, then I consider them liberals. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.

            I commend you. You asked rather than assuming that you know what I’m thinking.

          • JJSchwartz

            I rather pride myself in being fairly balanced in my politics; an independent I’m liberal on some issues and moderately conservative on other issues. If I happen to mention a ‘liberal idea’ that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am a blanket come hell or high water liberal. It just means that on that one issue I *can* perhaps be perceived as being liberal.

          • Vincent J.

            Oh, ok.

      • originalone

        Surely you jest. Clearly, you haven’t the foggiest idea what my political beliefs are, though perhaps there is a smattering of liberalism among them.

    • JJSchwartz

      A problem that the US has faced in training recent foreign fighters is a lack of will on the part of the trainees. This lack of will, at least in part, is due to the central government’s corruption or backing of a different faction within the army rather than the part of the army that is being trained. Heck, why should I risk my life for a corrupt government or if my people/religion/tribe are demeaned and disrespected by the central government?

      • ycplum

        I would disagree. I would argue that the problem is the inability of the US to train high level commanders (colonels and generals) due to political sensitivity. The absence of response when the ISIL steamrolled through Iraq was primarily due to corruption and incompetence (often goes hand in hand) of the leadership. Some of the Iraqi troops simply were paper troops, but most fought, but were then forced to retreat when they ran out of ammo and water. Vehicles were abandoned when they ran out of fuel. Logistics is a higher level command responsibility. The collapse at Ramadi was also due the leadership who ordered a withdrawal, bewildering the front lines troops who wanted to continue fighting.

  • styopa

    While I wouldn’t doubt the horrific level of violence that Ukrainian soldiers have faced, nor disagree with the assessment that it’s an order of magnitude more active than US “combat” against insurgents whose main threat is a roadside bomb, it’s fairly ridiculous to assert that this is in any way a template or foretaste of what peer-to-peer open warfare will be like.

    This is a first-world-funded military with one hand tied behind its back (self-inflicted, in order to maintain the absurd fiction that it’s not “really” Russian forces) going against a second-world military. HOWEVER: the level of violence and activity by the Russians is prompted only by the impunity with which they operate.

    Ukraine has essentially NO air force. Given the international community’s lack of response to the shooting of MH17 (it shows a rather breathtaking level of insouciance to fly a passenger liner over an active war zone where MANPADs are deployed and used), Ukraine can’t really risk the what, 200 remaining planes it has?

    Artillery fire? Classically Russian, certainly, but unlikely in any combat that is fought in a modern context. Unless you have – I and don’t really believe Russia does – extraordinarily capable soldiers and equipment for immediate shoot’n’scoot, against a peer-level opponent you’d have incoming annihilatory missiles by the fourth round out of the tube, much less “hours of bombardment” that the Ukrainians see.

    Convoys of ammunition? Ukraine can’t do crap about it; US forces would be *delighted* if an opponent so conveniently and carelessly moved their resupply.

    No, this is a lopsided contest, and pretty nearly no comparison to the intensity and pace of a real clash of first-world armies, assuming of course you could keep tacnukes out of the equation.

    • http://defense.aol.com/ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

      You’re entirely right that the Ukraine conflict is much less intense than a clash between the US and Russia would be. (The lack of an air war is the most obvious difference). But there are also important elements of a major clash — massed artillery, electronic warfare — that we see in Ukraine and that US forces have not experienced in at least a generation.

      • styopa

        Fair point, if the assertion is “this is a level of combat to which US forces haven’t been accustomed, despite their decade-plus of combat experience” indeed. I don’t think that’s even debatable at all.
        “Preview” of WW3 as the OP was titled? Not even close.

        EDIT: FWIW, as much as US forces haven’t experienced this intensity of combat, I daresay that Russian forces are even more likely to misinterpret this combat and their hardly-even-second-rate opponent as “the real deal”. That’s a dangerous miscalculation as well.

  • SS BdM Fuhress ‘Savannah

    Think you have to get a few nukes to go off in the Ukraine before you can make any equal assessment of WW3!

    • GrahamSeibert

      Never happen. There is nothing worth nuking in Ukraine. Thank God! Even the Russians are smart enough to direct nuclear weapons at nuclear threats, which Ukraine is not.

  • Curtis Conway

    I hope the Old Crows read this in detail. Electronic Warfare Command (EWCOM) is needed!

    • Michael Rich

      Totally agree with you there, the United States severely lacks in EW.

      • Vincent J.

        What? Ya mean the venerable SLQ-32 can’t hack it?

      • Curtis Conway

        The USAF needs to get back in that business with something other than Heavies. I recall USAF strike packages pairing up with USN strike packages coming off the tanker track so they could be in the EA-6B coverage as far in country as possible. If they could marry up on the egress they would push to do it, and that’s when the Ardvarks were flying!

        • Michael Rich

          If they ever reopened the F-22 lines, I would think they could develop an EF-22 fitted with the next generation jammer.

  • Matt

    Talk of ending sanctions is crazy.

  • Ronsoppinion

    Through propaganda Russia and China have brainwashed almost all the population that the West ( the evil empire ) want’s to invade and overthrow their countries ( as if that were possible ), well with the massive build-up in aircraft and tank’s hovercraft you name it, do you not think it’s wise to have our own defensive weapons poised just in case Mr Putin is crazy enough to have a go.

    • Chris Makey

      Russia is closest to a Fascist state then we have seen in decades.

      • Ronsoppinion

        Great minds think alike, when Russia gave the impression the Cold War was over they were in fact milking the West of it’s Military know-how, Russia and China have both been involve in espionage, take a look at the two stealth fighters from China and Russia the J-31 and the T-50 almost exact copies of the F22 and F35,

    • CPT

      What is your source of information genius ? You are a victim of propaganda and you are irresponsibly repeating what you read and hear in the MSM…

  • Real Talk

    Who did not see this coming?

    Real Talk a year ago

    I will bet dollars to doughnuts that whatever Edward Snowden had on that UBS disk got this whole thing rolling…..

    1 EditView in discussion

    Real Talk a year ago

    Mar 27, 2014
    The U.S. Army and the Marine Corps could fight a war with
    North Korea, but not without exhausting their combined ground forces
    leaving nothing in reserve, senior Army and Marine officials told
    Congress Wednesday.

    With the threat of more sequestration cuts in 2016, service leaders
    have been warning Congress that the U.S. military — particularly the
    Army — will become too small to handle a combined fight like Iraq and
    Afghanistan in the future.

    The Pentagon’s fiscal 2015 defense budget will reduce the active
    force from 490,000 to a force size of 440,000 to 450,000 by 2019.

    But sequestration cuts scheduled to occur in 2016 will likely force the Army to reduce the active end strength to 420,000.

    Lawmakers pressed senior leaders to elaborate on the risks of those
    cuts at a Wednesday hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee’s
    Readiness and Management Support subcommittee.

    EditView in discussion

    Real Talk a year ago

    About 75 percent of America’s 17- to 24-year-olds
    are ineligible for military service due to lack of education, obesity
    and other physical problems, or criminal history, according to a report issued by the Mission: Readiness group.

    Just Not Smart Enough

    In its report Ready, Willing and Unable to Serve,
    Mission: Readiness – a group of retired military and civilian-military
    leaders – found that one in four young people between 17 and 24 does not
    have a high school diploma. About 30 percent of those who do, states
    the report, still fail the Armed Forces Qualification Test,
    the entrance test required to join the US military. Another one in ten
    young people cannot serve because of past convictions for felonies or
    serious misdemeanors, states the report.

    Obesity and Other Health Problems Wash Many Out

    A full 27 percent of young Americans are simply too overweight to join
    the military, says Mission: Readiness. “Many are turned away by
    recruiters and others never try to join. Of those who attempt to join,
    however, roughly 15,000 young potential recruits fail their entrance
    physicals every year because they are too heavy.”

    Nearly 32 percent have other disqualifying health problems, including
    asthma, eyesight or hearing problems, mental health issues, or recent
    treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

    Due to all of the above and other assorted problems, only about two out
    of 10 American young people are fully eligible to join the military
    without special waivers, according to the report.

    “Imagine ten young people walking into a recruiter’s office and seven of
    them getting turned away,” said former Under Secretary of the Army Joe
    Reeder in a press release. “We cannot allow today’s dropout crisis to
    become a national security crisis.

    EditView in discussion

    Real Talk Lori a year ago

    A realist.

    EditView in discussion

    Real Talk Lilac a year ago

    More than likely will fight in a long and protracted Pacific war

    EditView in discussion

    Real Talk a year ago

    Humanity has begun the final march into a dystopian future. My “opinion” is based on thepast performance of the human animal and currant events. The Ukrainian
    Nation has been destabilized to the point of no return, it will never be
    the same again, so goes Ukraine, so goes the World. Russia will advance
    into the Ukraine, it will shut off energy supplies to Europe, it will
    begin to mobilize its entire Army. World markets will start to crash.
    Emboldened by Russia and a “weak” Western response , China and North
    Korea will embark on a series of campaigns. Israel will attack Iran on
    its own, spiking oil and giving the World markets its death blow.
    N.A.T.O. will begin to mobilize. The Ukrainian military will use
    advanced weapons already smuggled into the country, shooting down
    several Russian jets and destroying many tanks. Russia knowing these
    weapons are of Western origin, and humiliated by their losses, will
    begin a large land/air/sea invasion into former Soviet bloc countries.
    America will call up its reserves and possibly start a draft. The Middle
    East will explode, with several countries attacking each other,
    chemical and bio weapons are used. All the worlds food supply chains
    will be irretrievably disrupted causing internal riots everywhere. Japan
    will begin to militarize. What comes next is DYSTOPIA. Please prepare
    accordingly.

    1 EditView in discussion

    Discussion on CNN 9427 comments

    Russia: Troops near Ukraine’s border are ‘no reason for concern’

    Real Talk blackarrow125 a year ago

    It might be enjoyed in Belize or Uruguay, possibly Canada. For the first time in my life I am really considering a move to another Country. It is a proven fact, statistically, people who move out out of a war zone have a 95% survival rate, those who stay less than 5%, and please before I get bashed for not being a “patriot’ I am a vet and have served, my family is my duty now.

    1 EditView in discussion

    Real Talk a year ago

    I think this is just the start of a world full of coming conflicts. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran will all be making significant moves within the coming year. The United States will be unwilling or unable to handle them all. Most of the above named countries will drop the use of the “petrodollar” for a start, wreaking the U.S. economy, and lets face it, if Russia goes into the Ukraine we will do nothing, if China takes back just Taiwan, again nothing. Slow small steps economically at first, then larger territorial claims and grabs. We will draw the line at Japan, Poland, and South Korea, but other than that Russia and China know they will be able to expand unchecked until it is to late. A new world is coming, and soon.

    4 EditView in discussion

    Discussion on CNN 35296 comments

    Armed men tried to seize arms depot in Ukraine’s Crimea

    Real Talk a year ago

    Looks like Chicken Kiev is back on the menu……what next Polish pierogi’s ????

    EditView in discussion

    Discussion on CNN 37804 comments

    Ukraine mobilizes troops amid crisis with Russia

    Real Talk a year ago

    Hi, I’m your waiter Obama, what can I get for you tonight Mr. Putin? (Mr. Putin) I will have the UN special please, Chicken Kiev………

    • Krom

      I think its all smoke and mirrors. Russia and the US are working together! Russia gets to cut out its middle man (Ukraine) The US gets to cause chaos in the Middle East. This new Cold War is to keep the EU ignorant, and its also good for business especially for us Americans….

  • http://www.sodahead.com/user/profile/912621/marty9957/ Domingo N Martinez

    This administration moth balled the A-10s, why not train their pilots in their use and give them to the Ukrainians. This would be strictly for defensive purposes and would be to defend against armored attacks. When I retired, the most advanced anti-tank weapon was the TOW. We also still carried Laws. I read an article not long ago which was on the 90 MM Recoilless Rifle. It said that there was a possibility that it might get reintroduced into service. These weapons are all effective close quarters combat. Some surface to air missiles. Anything to help them fight their own war against the second most advanced and powerful military at the present time.

    If we want to put Putin in check, we’re going to have to see to it that he gets a bloody nose. If we don’t, the advances made by the Reagan administration will have been wasted. Putin senses a weak leader in Obama and sees that those Red Lines mean nothing. That is why he keeps pushing the envelope.

    What do you folks in the military think about a President Cruz or a Trump?

    • Michael Rich

      The administration did not mothball the A-10, the air force has been trying to force it out of service.

      • Jeepslave

        The Administration needs to get rid of the A-10 because it doesn’t have the money to support the aging airframe and needs the money for the F-35.
        I think as most would agree that putting all your ground support eggs in one basket is a mistake.
        That being said I agree with Domingo on his point and much of what he said.
        P.S. As of July, The A-10 has been moved into Poland
        http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/09/us-a-10s-return-in-poland/

        • Jeepslave
        • http://www.sodahead.com/user/profile/912621/marty9957/ Domingo N Martinez

          They probably need to get rid of it because the kick backs are better on an experimental model than they would be on a fully developed and already implemented system with little if any flaws. They know they can’t improve on it’s tank destructive ability.

    • http://popularsovranty.org/ Malcolm Kantzler

      The Air Force has been behind plans to retire the A-10 in order to provide maintenance crews for the F-35, but those plans have been put on hold because of very strong opposition from many credible sources.

      The A-10 is the most effective and devastating close-support aircraft any nation has ever put into service, and to replace it with the F-35 would be a grave mistake, one which would result in ground casualties and tactical ground-mission failures.

      The Air Force’s argument is a prime example of how costs and military-industrial-complex (MIC) objectives can grow to overshadow tactical mission priorities. That turn of thinking is the ultimate threat of MIC dominance, the kind of which WWII Allied commander and former president Eisenhower warned of in the speech he delivered when he left office. His warning has not been heeded, and it should be.

      • Dirk Pitt

        I am in total agreement. The F-35 is currently grounded, again, for the 13th time since 2007, and I don’t think that counts the grounding at the 2015 Paris Air Show for an engine fire.

        http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

        It is no where near combat ready, a lot more software has to be written and tested.
        Lockheed-Martin needs to try different engines like the GE F-136.

        By the time the F-35 is combat ready, it may be obsolete.

        I don’t know who is going to ruin this country first; the Military/Industrial complex, or the Social Services/Entitlement crowd.

        • Chris Makey

          Actually, how can the entire fleet be grounded when they just finished their Ordnance testing? Get your information correct pal.

          • Dirk Pitt

            Click the link and read before you respond.

        • http://www.sodahead.com/user/profile/912621/marty9957/ Domingo N Martinez

          The way things are progressing in this administration, it will most likely be the Social Services/Entitlement crowd. This I just read about today….. Obama says that this group is entitled to subsidized high speed Internet. Funny, while I was growing up, if we couldn’t afford it we didn’t get it. That is why people learn that they must work and advance if they want to enjoy all the niceties other people enjoy. everyone should pay their own way.

        • http://www.livingwithtn.org Red Lawhern

          The F-35 is already obsolete. High technology renders it so expensive that it cannot be manufactured in the numbers needed to make a difference on the battlefield, even if its reliability could be improved. Despite the failure of nearly half of all large systems acquisitions since 1990 to translate into production, our DoD has resolutely refused to learn the lesson that high technology and systems complexity are NOT the friends of combat soldiers.

    • Dirk Pitt

      Partially correct. Total built – 716
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

      Current Service: Active Air Force – 187, AF reserve – 49, Air National Guard – 107
      http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx

      Those are as close as I can get to accurate numbers which leaves us with 373 in storage. I hope somebody is keeping an eye on time to air combat readiness/certification just in case we need them to go tear up some armor.

    • Artur Obrzut

      Not the UN. that was Russia, USA and Great Britain. All these countries signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
      From now on, all of the treaties signed by these countries are not worth the paper, on which they are printed.

    • Secundius

      @ Domingo N Martinez.

      What A-10 Moth Balling would that be, Sir. The A-10 Retirement date has be extended to at least 2028 with a ~$4.2-Billion USD Upgrade…

      • http://www.sodahead.com/user/profile/912621/marty9957/ Domingo N Martinez

        That’s great news to me. I know that if I were still active, I would really appreciate the decision made. There is no better close in ground air support for an armored attack. I stand corrected.

    • Mark

      Yes, I remembered this badly-flawed treaty very well. When I first heard of it, I told myself, “That’s going to make Ukraine mad at the United States and the United Nations in the future.” If Ukraine had kept those nuclear weapons, then that’d make the Russians think twice about invading them in March 2014. Also, I didn’t vote for Obama because I knew he wouldn’t be a good leader when it comes to confronting Russia and her allies.

  • Marcus Aurelius

    Warmongers marching, planned Russian invasion of USA.
    Welcome to Jade Helm 15 !
    My friend is a disabled Vietnam vet.He said:
    ” In my opinion America is a warmongering country. The biggest culprits are Zionists and greed. We kill people so that a person can drive an 8 mpg hummer to the grocery store to buy crap.”

  • ycplum

    The electronic jamming reminds me of a story from a West Pointer who was engaged with a friend of mine back in the early, mid-80s. During one of their wargames (which involved having unit commanders in separate classrooms with maps and radios to communicate with each), an armored brigade commander had just effected a breakthrough when a “ref” walked in and removed the batteries to his radio to simulate enemy jamming. And that is why everyone should have contingency plans.

  • damik

    It looks like that Putin’s Fascism will be stopped in Ukraine. It looks like the Little Dwarf’s Leningrad …

  • Brainiac3397

    One thing to keep a note of is that anything we give Ukraine to use against Russia would also allow the Russians to determine vulnerabilities in their own defenses and weapon systems, and upgrade them as necessary.

    Of course we’ll also obtain our own information regarding ways to improve our systems, but the question that needs to be answered is whether what we learn will be more beneficial than what they learn?

  • Martin Alfven Haider

    40 million foreign nationals have been allowed to invade our formerly peaceful country. The single most important border in the world for the US military to guard stands defenseless, as our boys and girls protect borders all over the world. Makes absolutely no sense.

  • CPT

    Anyone who believes this Freedberg Zionist Jewish propaganda rhetoric should think again…the way it is written is so irresponsible and designed to justify a WW3 which the Zionist Jews want so badly…every human being on this planet has a responsibility to search for the truth otherwise not to do so and to just believe blindly what idiots like Freedberg are writing are just as bad as him and his like…

  • Don MacQuarrie

    Next up will be the autonomous tank borne NED. Can’t wait to see all of you assholes on both sides burn in the nuclear fires of hell. Coming soon to a theatre near you.
    All you need is a tiny little push to send you over the edge now.