I was thinking about suggesting the NATO guys expect to be hit with 'enfiladed' fire, onto our "flank". Shooting in enfilade you don't have to worry 'overshooting'!
Ed, while you are right in the historical context, East is still East. Its use in military terms is precise and accurate, which is a requirement in implementing strategy and tactics.
I always enjoy these reminders when they come around, but allow me to offer a, probably subconscious, reason why Russia can be rationally called a flank, even if there is some hesitation to call the real front a "front." Ask yourself--in up-to-the-minute-headline terms who is likeliest to conquer Western Europe. Russia...no. The real threat (sadly already inside the wire) is from the south. The "elites" are not what you might call awake to the threat--have in fact enabled it--but many people on the ground are waking up to the resurgence of the age-old threat from the south and southeast that is once again pushing up to the gates of Vienna. Charles Martel is spinning.
LABrant53: When you think of NATO as "Western Europe," the threat from the south (MENA; Middle East and North Africa) is real, present, and already inside the wire. Western Europe can be taken down from the inside. Russia can simply sit an watch.
I did say Western Europe, but recently I think more fences and defences have been built in central/eastern Europe on their southern borders than the others.
I have a simpler explanation. Its the "North is up" guys. Just because most maps are oriented with North on the top edge does not make it so in the real world. Sometimes its a good thing to orient in the direction of travel. A lesson I learned navigating through Germany at 20 mph, standing drenched in my cupola, leading a column through very wet forests. Alternately seeing myself as Varus at Teutoburg, or LCdr Erickson, standing on the open bridge of HMS Compass Rose
As aide to the SUSNO (Senior US Naval Officer) on Haig’s staff at the SHAPE (Superior Holidays At Public Expense) mil hq in Mons BE in the late 70’s, it was abundantly clear that the “front “ (think Fulda Gap) was to the East. My 2 star boss had to remind Big Al occasionally that we had 2 deployed Med carriers (!!!) with attack birds ready to join the fray when the ballon went up.
After watching Macron and Starmer kowtow to HAMAS I no longer give a rat’s ass about Europe or NATO.
I would not shed a single tear if Russian tanks went all the way to the channel and Putin occupied Buckingham Palace. And I am an Anglophile Too bad Sir Keir is not.
The sooner America pulls out of the UN, NATO, the World Bank and the IMF the better off we will be.
Europe is on the way down so it is resorting to anti Semitism. An old trick. However it never works and only makes things worse.
Bro, if you considered more fully the implications of the European demography you purport to understand, you would be speaking more to the dismal future of European NATO rather than picking at irrelevancies about its military terminology.
An explicitly Muslim political party has just been born in England. "Your Party" was initially started by Jeremy Corbin (former leader of the leftish Labour party prior to the rise of Keir Starmer, now the current prime minister) along with a modern female Muslim woman (no burka!) and a handful of Muslim men. Corbin thought he'd be heading up a left-leaning alliance with the country's fast-growing Muslim voters.
Alas, once the new party's paperwork had been approved, the Muslim men booted the attractive and well-spoken figurehead lady, then kicked out Corbin, leaving only the hardcore Muslims running the show. And away we go...
The "NATO 360-degree" concept doesn't even make sense. You have Russia in the East and various bad actors in the South. But who are the enemies to the North and West? The polar bears of Svalbard and Dread Cthulhu rising from the Atlantic depths?
Words, even acronyms, have meaning, and power, M. Thompson. I saw "MENA" and immediately thought of Myrna Minkoff. Even had a flashback to the smell of the Canal Street push carts.
Western Europe is just about gone as we know it. Been invaded by savage hoards without firing a shot...facilitated by their own leaders while the people slept. We need allies like this? NATO is a shell of what it once was. We should withdraw and expand and expedite cleaning up our own house and hemisphere. Nothing can be done for a drowning man that is too stupid to grab the life ring.
Perhaps the UN building should be repurposed too...would make a very nice ICE detention center. How fitting would that be.
Sal, a well-thought-out article. I was on staff at USAF Europe and NATO in the 1990s.
Some questions that need to be asked. What strategy did the Eastward expansion of NATO serve? I had the opportunity to work with the Russian military and civilians. Rather than aggression, the Russians sought deeper integration with the collective West, both economically and diplomatically.
Another question is, who among the "Big Brains" thought it was a great idea to ignore Russia's national concern regarding NATO's expansion totally? That's a crucial question, because ignoring those concerns is part of the root causes of the war.
It was very clear that when it came to the invitations to Ukraine and Georgia, "nyet" meant "nyet." However, NATO and the EU continue to claim that Ukraine has a pathway to NATO membership. Proposals for an Article 5-like security guarantee, "reassurance" forces placed in Ukraine (read NATO), and implementation of a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Obviously, no one is paying attention to or understanding the Russian view.
The recent actions may be interpreted as aggressive, or are they responses to the rhetoric from NATO and the EU? Is NATO actually helping or hurting the peace process? Remember that in 2022, the Istanbul Accords could have ended the conflict, yet it was Ukraine that failed to sign, not Russia. Several analysts have alleged that NATO instigated the walkaway.
Finally, how relevant is NATO, given that the EU is striving to achieve strategic autonomy and establish a European Army?
Patton, "If everyone is thinking the same, then someone isn't thinking."
Thinking about it.... I could maybe see an argument that in a medieval-style siege, lines of circumvallation point inwards towards the enemy fortress, and lines of countervallation point outwards towards possible enemy relief forces...
In which case, that would mean that your flanks are... Clockwise and counter-clockwise? Your 'front' is facing inward, your 'rear' is facing outwards, unless and until a relieving enemy actually does arrive, in which case you then have two fronts, one inward and one outward...
But either way, your flanks are your allies on your right and left, wrapping in a circle around the enemy stronghold, which means you KIND of have a 360 degree 'flank', from a certain point of view... depending on where on the circle you stand, you 'flanks' could be any two opposite compass bearings....
And I guess a cavalry charge of horse archers passing in a tangent line relative to the defensive circle is kind of like a flank attack...
So from a really strange point of view, if you defined the fundamental mission of NATO as being 'friendly wargames in Germany', and the fundamental rear area of NATO as being "Southern England", then we could sort of argue that anything that isn't contributing to troop movements between London and Berlin is the 'flank'.....
But that's a really terrifying implication, since it argues that NATO fundamentally doesn't have a mission other than professional development exercises in or around Germany. And therefore basically anything else is just a distraction. Including Russia and basically every other national security priority of every individual member of NATO.
An interesting development: Both Germany and France have announced significant upgrades to their military medical capabilities, including distributed medical facilities and medical transportation methods including hospital trains and aeromedical evac, planning on a 1,000 casualty/day conflict.
My analysis: They're likely underestimating their patient load, with civilian casualties included. Because urban ops don't discriminate between combatants and the poor civilians caught in them.
"Eastern front" is associate with Hitler's liebensraum. We should not go there.... even if it rhymes.
Curse you, Ed!
My comment was going to be: "STEP 1: Get the Germans to call it the Eastern Front. STEP 2: Prevent the Germans from calling for liebensraum."
But no, now I have to put it in a reply to recognize your willingness to go online before coffee. Or perhaps an earlier time zone.
EDT! Second cup out!
I was thinking about suggesting the NATO guys expect to be hit with 'enfiladed' fire, onto our "flank". Shooting in enfilade you don't have to worry 'overshooting'!
Implies a position of weakness.
Fine. I concede I was ... [drum kick] ... outflanked.
I regret nothing!
Liebensraum = love space
Lebensraum = living space
Important difference!
"We should not go there" - well it depends who else is in the Love Space...
Ed, while you are right in the historical context, East is still East. Its use in military terms is precise and accurate, which is a requirement in implementing strategy and tactics.
Don't talk about The War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tms0yk9kqVM
I always enjoy these reminders when they come around, but allow me to offer a, probably subconscious, reason why Russia can be rationally called a flank, even if there is some hesitation to call the real front a "front." Ask yourself--in up-to-the-minute-headline terms who is likeliest to conquer Western Europe. Russia...no. The real threat (sadly already inside the wire) is from the south. The "elites" are not what you might call awake to the threat--have in fact enabled it--but many people on the ground are waking up to the resurgence of the age-old threat from the south and southeast that is once again pushing up to the gates of Vienna. Charles Martel is spinning.
LABrant53: When you think of NATO as "Western Europe," the threat from the south (MENA; Middle East and North Africa) is real, present, and already inside the wire. Western Europe can be taken down from the inside. Russia can simply sit an watch.
I did say Western Europe, but recently I think more fences and defences have been built in central/eastern Europe on their southern borders than the others.
True but the Euros don't seem to understand it and are keen for war with Russia if they can drag us in.
I have a simpler explanation. Its the "North is up" guys. Just because most maps are oriented with North on the top edge does not make it so in the real world. Sometimes its a good thing to orient in the direction of travel. A lesson I learned navigating through Germany at 20 mph, standing drenched in my cupola, leading a column through very wet forests. Alternately seeing myself as Varus at Teutoburg, or LCdr Erickson, standing on the open bridge of HMS Compass Rose
In both of those latter cases, the front was all around.
The Drill SGT: You just took me on a five-minute online exploration of tank cupolas, including the "stroboscopic cupola."
sorry
https://www.pal-item.com/gcdn/presto/2020/07/23/PRIC/ec99cd6a-8279-4b5d-af15-56a9179f9e7d-DSC_5187.JPG
As aide to the SUSNO (Senior US Naval Officer) on Haig’s staff at the SHAPE (Superior Holidays At Public Expense) mil hq in Mons BE in the late 70’s, it was abundantly clear that the “front “ (think Fulda Gap) was to the East. My 2 star boss had to remind Big Al occasionally that we had 2 deployed Med carriers (!!!) with attack birds ready to join the fray when the ballon went up.
Sal,
After watching Macron and Starmer kowtow to HAMAS I no longer give a rat’s ass about Europe or NATO.
I would not shed a single tear if Russian tanks went all the way to the channel and Putin occupied Buckingham Palace. And I am an Anglophile Too bad Sir Keir is not.
The sooner America pulls out of the UN, NATO, the World Bank and the IMF the better off we will be.
Europe is on the way down so it is resorting to anti Semitism. An old trick. However it never works and only makes things worse.
Sal doesn't do demographics. Dunno why not...
Sal is an expert on ships and everything having to do with ships.
Demographics is now a type of asymmetrical warfare.
Dude, just do a word search for demographics here, at my OG Blog and on my X feed. I was talking about demographics before demographics were cool.
Bro, if you considered more fully the implications of the European demography you purport to understand, you would be speaking more to the dismal future of European NATO rather than picking at irrelevancies about its military terminology.
Sal has talked about demographics.
But after watching the riots in Italy it does seem that the bigger enemy is coming from within.
An explicitly Muslim political party has just been born in England. "Your Party" was initially started by Jeremy Corbin (former leader of the leftish Labour party prior to the rise of Keir Starmer, now the current prime minister) along with a modern female Muslim woman (no burka!) and a handful of Muslim men. Corbin thought he'd be heading up a left-leaning alliance with the country's fast-growing Muslim voters.
Alas, once the new party's paperwork had been approved, the Muslim men booted the attractive and well-spoken figurehead lady, then kicked out Corbin, leaving only the hardcore Muslims running the show. And away we go...
Cry Britannia.
Dude, I’ve been writing about demographics of Europe for 20 years. Catch up.
I'd agree except that Eastern Europe is in the way and they will fight with or without the rest of NATO.
Good point. They may have to make some sort of arrangement with Russia because a pledge from England or France is worthless.
The strange fact that might come about is RU saving Europe from Islam LOL.
The "NATO 360-degree" concept doesn't even make sense. You have Russia in the East and various bad actors in the South. But who are the enemies to the North and West? The polar bears of Svalbard and Dread Cthulhu rising from the Atlantic depths?
Go far enough north and RU is there.
The FT today actually called it the Eastern Front. Wonder if the style guide has been updated?
Words have meaning. Let’s use them as intended.
Words, even acronyms, have meaning, and power, M. Thompson. I saw "MENA" and immediately thought of Myrna Minkoff. Even had a flashback to the smell of the Canal Street push carts.
Western Europe is just about gone as we know it. Been invaded by savage hoards without firing a shot...facilitated by their own leaders while the people slept. We need allies like this? NATO is a shell of what it once was. We should withdraw and expand and expedite cleaning up our own house and hemisphere. Nothing can be done for a drowning man that is too stupid to grab the life ring.
Perhaps the UN building should be repurposed too...would make a very nice ICE detention center. How fitting would that be.
O, the bleating of a dead horse
Until you are good and hoarse
A flank's an affront if'n it ain't sideways
Take that to the heart, dammit, always
Flank is cursed Comic Sans, of course.
Sal, a well-thought-out article. I was on staff at USAF Europe and NATO in the 1990s.
Some questions that need to be asked. What strategy did the Eastward expansion of NATO serve? I had the opportunity to work with the Russian military and civilians. Rather than aggression, the Russians sought deeper integration with the collective West, both economically and diplomatically.
Another question is, who among the "Big Brains" thought it was a great idea to ignore Russia's national concern regarding NATO's expansion totally? That's a crucial question, because ignoring those concerns is part of the root causes of the war.
It was very clear that when it came to the invitations to Ukraine and Georgia, "nyet" meant "nyet." However, NATO and the EU continue to claim that Ukraine has a pathway to NATO membership. Proposals for an Article 5-like security guarantee, "reassurance" forces placed in Ukraine (read NATO), and implementation of a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Obviously, no one is paying attention to or understanding the Russian view.
The recent actions may be interpreted as aggressive, or are they responses to the rhetoric from NATO and the EU? Is NATO actually helping or hurting the peace process? Remember that in 2022, the Istanbul Accords could have ended the conflict, yet it was Ukraine that failed to sign, not Russia. Several analysts have alleged that NATO instigated the walkaway.
Finally, how relevant is NATO, given that the EU is striving to achieve strategic autonomy and establish a European Army?
Patton, "If everyone is thinking the same, then someone isn't thinking."
Klink: “Well, we are centrally located.”
Hochstetter: “So is the Russian front, I promise you.”
Dobby, the Shelf Elf, otherwise known as now as CDR Salamander!
Mr NATO, nice to get to this level of honest communication!
Nurse Jane here… waiting my turn in the VAMC Dental Clinic “Chair”!
Dustin Hoffman and that movie! Perish that thought!
I’ll keep reading about our differing opinions!
Front vs. Flank…
NATO is only one version of Alphabet Soup!
Going back to this good read now!
Thinking about it.... I could maybe see an argument that in a medieval-style siege, lines of circumvallation point inwards towards the enemy fortress, and lines of countervallation point outwards towards possible enemy relief forces...
In which case, that would mean that your flanks are... Clockwise and counter-clockwise? Your 'front' is facing inward, your 'rear' is facing outwards, unless and until a relieving enemy actually does arrive, in which case you then have two fronts, one inward and one outward...
But either way, your flanks are your allies on your right and left, wrapping in a circle around the enemy stronghold, which means you KIND of have a 360 degree 'flank', from a certain point of view... depending on where on the circle you stand, you 'flanks' could be any two opposite compass bearings....
And I guess a cavalry charge of horse archers passing in a tangent line relative to the defensive circle is kind of like a flank attack...
So from a really strange point of view, if you defined the fundamental mission of NATO as being 'friendly wargames in Germany', and the fundamental rear area of NATO as being "Southern England", then we could sort of argue that anything that isn't contributing to troop movements between London and Berlin is the 'flank'.....
But that's a really terrifying implication, since it argues that NATO fundamentally doesn't have a mission other than professional development exercises in or around Germany. And therefore basically anything else is just a distraction. Including Russia and basically every other national security priority of every individual member of NATO.
If 360* fronts are all men facing out, then 360* flanks are all men facing in... now it all makes sense...
The Frozen Chosin in the Freezing season, Chesty swapped his rear to a front and UN ASSed the AOE.
An interesting development: Both Germany and France have announced significant upgrades to their military medical capabilities, including distributed medical facilities and medical transportation methods including hospital trains and aeromedical evac, planning on a 1,000 casualty/day conflict.
My analysis: They're likely underestimating their patient load, with civilian casualties included. Because urban ops don't discriminate between combatants and the poor civilians caught in them.
You may be happy to know that if you type on an Apple phone “Russia is on NATO’s eastern” the auto fill option is “front”