Serbia vs Nato

mick72

As we know Kosovo will probably proclaim independence on Sunday.

Serbian leaders ruled out a military response; however, would Serbian Army be capable of removing some 16,000 Nato troops on the ground? It occurs to me that the region will remain unstable since Serbia will never give up Kosovo (their heartland), and in the future, they will probably use their army to recover Kosovo. They still have a strong army since they inherited most of the former Yugoslav army weapons.

How will Serbs in Bosnia react when Kosovo proclaims indpendence, since everything points that they want the same?

bartholomewbinn

They would be well capable of removing the NATO troops, if they got a hand from their natural allies, the Russians. On their own? No chance.

helimachoptor

TBH I can't see them doing anything. Ok they've probably got a lot of weapons but old weapons. Their economy cannot take another war and they would be excluded from the EU for a long long time if they did go down a military road.

On the other hand you have a lot of pussy whipped countries there, i.e. France and Italy. I'd rather replace them with the German/Scandinavian soldiers and of the course the Irish boys who would no doubt turn into McGyver and win the day and do the country proud with what Bertie has given them.

Maybe the might see that the US/UK is largely tied up with the war on terror and as Serbia has the backing of Russia they might just decide to go for it.

I think if any military intervention occurs it will be to secure the norther areas of Kosovo where the Serbs still live.

Just my humble opinion though, I am not an expert.

mike65

Serbs lost 3 wars in 10 years I don't think they'll risk another (the rump states economy is far weaker now than in 1990 before it all kicked-off).

Mike.

OS119

on paper - and i suppose on the fantasists 'war game table' - the Serbs military could push the NATO presence from Kosovo, why? because the Serb military is an 'all-round' force with mobility, artillery, armour, and all the things that differentiate an army from a mass of infantrymen stood in a field.

the NATO force in Kosovo however isn't an army, its lots of troops by and large without any of their heavy equipment and armour, crew-served weapons (ATGW, HMG, MANPADS and mortars) attack helicopters, artillery, air support on tap and the vast qualities of fuel and ammunition that an army on offensive operations uses that a division of light troops on a permisive peacekeeping operation doesn't have a need for.

thats not to say that Serbia could hold Kosovo against the airpower that NATO could throw at it, or the economic/political consequences of such action.

and for the comment about the French being 'pussywhipped' while Irish troops are the mutts nuts. bollocks, French troops are militarily efficient in half a dozen conflicts around the world in a manner that would make the Irish Armys' collective arsehole shoot a foot into its belly.

their combat record in Afghanstan, Chad, Ivory Coast, Bosnia, Kosovo and a dozen other places is remarkable, the Irish Army's doesn't exist.

i'm not pissing on the Irish Army, but moronic statements from those with no knowledge whatsoever - or worse, get their opinions from Faux News, the Sun or FreakRepublic - get right on my tits.

bartholomewbinn

OS119 wrote: »

on paper - and i suppose on the fantasists 'war game table' - the Serbs military could push the NATO presence from Kosovo, why? because the Serb military is an 'all-round' force with mobility, artillery, armour, and all the things that differentiate an army from a mass of infantrymen stood in a field.

the NATO force in Kosovo however isn't an army, its lots of troops by and large without any of their heavy equipment and armour, crew-served weapons (ATGW, HMG, MANPADS and mortars) attack helicopters, artillery, air support on tap and the vast qualities of fuel and ammunition that an army on offensive operations uses that a division of light troops on a permisive peacekeeping operation doesn't have a need for.

thats not to say that Serbia could hold Kosovo against the airpower that NATO could throw at it, or the economic/political consequences of such action.

and for the comment about the French being 'pussywhipped' while Irish troops are the mutts nuts. bollocks, French troops are militarily efficient in half a dozen conflicts around the world in a manner that would make the Irish Armys' collective arsehole shoot a foot into its belly.

their combat record in Afghanstan, Chad, Ivory Coast, Bosnia, Kosovo and a dozen other places is remarkable, the Irish Army's doesn't exist.

i'm not pissing on the Irish Army, but moronic statements from those with no knowledge whatsoever - or worse, get their opinions from Faux News, the Sun or FreakRepublic - get right on my tits.

Your absolutely right of course, the Irish army have never fought a war so cannot have a combat record. Anyway the Irish army is very tiny and you really could not compare them to a huge military like the French.

mick72

Say, on the assumption that Putin promises Serbia protection in the event of th eventual NATO air raids, do you think Serbia would opt for a military solution?

Former Yugoslavia had a fourth largest European army at the time, and most sophisticated weapons had been moved to Serbia prior to wars in the 90s. Someone said that Serbs lost 3 wars; I agree, but let's be honest Serbia never engaged its army on a larger scale neither in Bosnia nor Croatia. It was mostly local Serbs fighting with support from Serbia.

As I said if Russia was to offer them protection, do you think the Irish, and many others would not just leave since this EU mission seems quite controversial?

OS119

i have no doubt that in the circumstances described Ireland wouldn't want to get involved, it would, after all be a hot war between four nuclear states. its abilty to assist, even if it wanted to, is about zero. its contribution to a NATO/Serba/Russia confrontation would extend to the use of Shannon as a FOB for NATO AWACS, Maritime Patrol aircraft and Fighters keeping the western approaches open and free from Russian naval and aviation activity

it won't happen of course, for two reasons: firstly Russian promises of 'military protection' for the Serbs while, effectively, they go to war with NATO, mean diddly squat because they can't deliver. Russia, despite its recent spending, can't do expeditionary warfare - and they certainly can't do it through NATO states. they can throw tantrums from Moscow, but not one single NATO bombing mission over Serbia would be affected by anything the Russians tried to do.

secondly, any confrontation between NATO and Russia relies at its core on the spectre of Nuclear force, and regardless of Putins' ego and rampant nationalism he's not going to go down a road that risks playing a game where the losing side gets to glow in the dark for 10,000 years.

if Russia started playing really hardball over Kosovo then Germany would be a nuclear state in six months and its defence spending would go through the roof, Ukraine would be in NATO in a heartbeat and every NATO country would be looking to change its energy supply situation by the end of the week. Europe is vunerable to Russia turning of the gas taps, but Russia is equally vunerable to the bank accounts running dry, so despite the hoo-ha coming out of Moscow - entirely for internal political consumption - no one wants to get into a position where they are forced by public opinion to pull levers from which they is little retreat.

interestingly, there are dark rumours of a hardening of the NATO presence in Kosovo, just a coincidence of course....

Riddle101

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Your absolutely right of course, the Irish army have never fought a war so cannot have a combat record. Anyway the Irish army is very tiny and you really could not compare them to a huge military like the French.

France hasn't fought in a war in over 50 years, are you trying to tell me that France still has the experineces of WW1 and 2 or Vietnam. Ireland i agree hasn't been in a war but that dosen't mean we should put them down any differently, the Irish have been known to be great fighters and since the PDF and ARW are trained in modern warfare i wouldn't put the idea of Irish troops being bad down. Nor am i saying that Irish troops are better then French but i'm just saying if Ireland and most of the NATO counties went into Kosovo then i'd say the Irish troops would do pretty well

bartholomewbinn

Riddle101 wrote: »

France hasn't fought in a war in over 50 years, are you trying to tell me that France still has the experineces of WW1 and 2 or Vietnam. Ireland i agree hasn't been in a war but that dosen't mean we should put them down any differently, the Irish have been known to be great fighters and since the PDF and ARW are trained in modern warfare i wouldn't put the idea of Irish troops being bad down. Nor am i saying that Irish troops are better then French but i'm just saying if Ireland and most of the NATO counties went into Kosovo then i'd say the Irish troops would do pretty well

I am not putting the Irish army down. All I am stating is that they never fought a war and so have no combat record. It may be a long time since Vietnam and WW1 but the French military have a combat record from both conflicts. I am sure that the Irish army would not be found wanting if they became involved in a conflict, but they would be so small in numbers that they really wouldn’t make a difference. The Irish army was primarily formed to secure the security of the state from traitors from within our own borders. They were very successful at this.

Cato

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

traitors

care to elaborate?

bartholomewbinn

Cato wrote: »

care to elaborate?

No elaboration needed, IRA, illegal army. Traitors to our rebublic.

Cato

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

No elaboration needed, IRA, illegal army. Traitors to our rebublic.

oh rite just thought you were talking about the freestate army in your original post my bad, sorry for OT

helimachoptor

OS119 wrote: »

on paper - and i suppose on the fantasists 'war game table' - the Serbs military could push the NATO presence from Kosovo, why? because the Serb military is an 'all-round' force with mobility, artillery, armour, and all the things that differentiate an army from a mass of infantrymen stood in a field.

the NATO force in Kosovo however isn't an army, its lots of troops by and large without any of their heavy equipment and armour, crew-served weapons (ATGW, HMG, MANPADS and mortars) attack helicopters, artillery, air support on tap and the vast qualities of fuel and ammunition that an army on offensive operations uses that a division of light troops on a permisive peacekeeping operation doesn't have a need for.

thats not to say that Serbia could hold Kosovo against the airpower that NATO could throw at it, or the economic/political consequences of such action.

and for the comment about the French being 'pussywhipped' while Irish troops are the mutts nuts. bollocks, French troops are militarily efficient in half a dozen conflicts around the world in a manner that would make the Irish Armys' collective arsehole shoot a foot into its belly.

their combat record in Afghanstan, Chad, Ivory Coast, Bosnia, Kosovo and a dozen other places is remarkable, the Irish Army's doesn't exist.

i'm not pissing on the Irish Army, but moronic statements from those with no knowledge whatsoever - or worse, get their opinions from Faux News, the Sun or FreakRepublic - get right on my tits.

Sorry what I meant is, I;'m trying to find a link as we speak, but during the balkan war where the french stood by and let serbs do some ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. I was saying that maybe they'll just sit on their hands if it does all kick off. While the irish of course than have the combat experience of the french would i'm sure make the msot of what they have.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/12/21/balkans/print.html

Not exactly what i am looking for but will do for now.

twinytwo

mick72 wrote: »

As we know Kosovo will probably proclaim independence on Sunday.

Serbian leaders ruled out a military response; however, would Serbian Army be capable of removing some 16,000 Nato troops on the ground? It occurs to me that the region will remain unstable since Serbia will never give up Kosovo (their heartland), and in the future, they will probably use their army to recover Kosovo. They still have a strong army since they inherited most of the former Yugoslav army weapons.

How will Serbs in Bosnia react when Kosovo proclaims indpendence, since everything points that they want the same?

ye seem to forget that there was never a place called Kosovo or even an idea of the place until the americans got mixed up in it....

twinytwo

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

No elaboration needed, IRA, illegal army. Traitors to our rebublic.

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

bartholomewbinn

twinytwo wrote: »

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

Right, so the people that murdered a garda and a soldier in Ballinamore in December 1983 are freedom fighters?

cp251

twinytwo wrote: »

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

Hard to believe there are still believe the Provisional IRA were/are 'freedom fighters'.

Victor

Explain to me losing 3 wars.

cp251

despite the hoo-ha coming out of Moscow - entirely for internal political consumption - no one wants to get into a position where they are forced by public opinion to pull levers from which they is little retreat.

That's the truth of it. You can't entirely ignore Putins posturing but it is largely for internal political consumption. He is trying to re-invent Russia as a superpower. But's it's all smoke and mirrors mainly to try and get the Russian population to take pride in their country and to re-indoctrinate them with the fantasy that the west has designs on Russia just like in the cold war. In many countries the perceived external threat is used keep the population onside. Another country which does that is the USA. All that flag waving and patriotic fervour is used to misdirect potential unrest about the actual management of the country.
Our own fair land is another good example. For years, the chronic mismanagement of this country and the lack of freedom we 'enjoyed' was ignored because the perception that it was all the fault of the British. This kept kept potential revolutionaries off the streets of Dublin and up at the border.

As for Kosovo, the Serbs won't invade. Times have changed. They have one eye on joining the EU. That won't happen if they go to war with the EU. What might well happen is 'spontaneous' guerrilla campaign in Serb dominated parts of Kosovo. It could easily be like our own Northern Ireland situation.
Besides, it's all about the air war these days. A conventional invasion would result in a massacre of the Serbian army. The lessons of 1999 won't be lost on them.

Oh, as for the French. Lay off the slagging. This is an Irish forum. not a right wing American forum, full of good ol' boys annoyed that the French wouldn't join in their misadventure in Iraq. The French have fought a few small wars, rarely in the gaze of CNN and Sky News. Our troops are about to serve alongside them in Darfur. The French and the Irish have a long history together.

duggie-89

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

No elaboration needed, IRA, illegal army. Traitors to our rebublic.

even thought the a huge majority of the founding irish army came from your precieved "illegal army". also i would agree with your point "traitors to our Republic" it is your republic and not the peoples republic IMO

but back on topic serbia could possible take action with kosovo but politics would not allow for such a thought to take heed.

war is easy, peace is hard.

helimachoptor

cp251 wrote: »

Oh, as for the French. Lay off the slagging. This is an Irish forum. not a right wing American forum, full of good ol' boys annoyed that the French wouldn't join in their misadventure in Iraq. The French have fought a few small wars, rarely in the gaze of CNN and Sky News. Our troops are about to serve alongside them in Darfur. The French and the Irish have a long history together.

No one saif it was. The americans have enough of their own faults.

duggie-89

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Right, so the people that murdered a garda and a soldier in Ballinamore in December 1983 are freedom fighters?

well clearly you dont think so but you must understand that not everyone agrees with your point.

bartholomewbinn

duggie-89 wrote: »

even thought the a huge majority of the founding irish army came from your precieved "illegal army". also i would agree with your point "traitors to our Republic" it is your republic and not the peoples republic IMO

but back on topic serbia could possible take action with kosovo but politics would not allow for such a thought to take heed.

war is easy, peace is hard.

The IRA is not a perceived illegal army; it is an absolute illegal army and its members are not soldiers, they are criminals. There is only one legal army in the Irish republic. The Irish defence forces. This is their mission statement.
The Defence Forces mission is: "To contribute to the security of the State by providing for the military defence of its territorial integrity and to fulfil all roles assigned by Government, through the deployment of well-motivated and effective Defence Forces."
I realise I am off topic, so this is my last word on this subject.

twinytwo

cp251 wrote: »

Hard to believe there are still believe the Provisional IRA were/are 'freedom fighters'.

you forget that back inthe day they did it for the cause but as the old guys got pushed out the newer leaders were just in it to make money

twinytwo

duggie-89 wrote: »

war is easy, peace is hard.

war and peace are both easier if people wernt so gready.. with the bigger always trying to surpress the smaller.. because they are frightned by things they cant control