2008. Russia did not accept the U.S. military’s offer of help in providing security during the winter Olympic Games in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. However, the U.S. says it was going ahead with plans to send two Navy ships to the Black Sea in the coming days.
military
US military’s chemical warfare post-Assad contingency plans
2013. Al Jazeera’s James Bays with the latest details on the world’s contingency plans for a post-Assad Syria. The UN is not alone in planning, Bays has spoken with at least 20 high-ranking officials from NATO and non-NATO countries about possible interventions should Assad fall.
“Plans are useless, but ….”
As the supreme allied commander of allied forces in Europe during the Normandy invasion in World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower explained the importance of military planning when he said, “In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable.”
Leaked German military documents
The Guardian. 2017. A leaked defence document has revealed the country’s worries about the breakup of the global order – a scenario with serious consequences for post-Brexit Britain.
The German defence ministry set out its worst-case scenario for the year 2040 in a secret document that was leaked to Der Spiegel last week: “EU enlargement has been largely abandoned, and more states have left the community … the increasingly disorderly, sometimes chaotic and conflict-prone, world has dramatically changed the security environment.”
The 120-page-long paper, entitled Strategic Perspective 2040, is a federal government policy document – and the scenarios it imagines are grimly realistic: an east-west conflict in which some EU states join the Russian side or a “multipolar” Europe, where some states adopt the Russian economic and political model in defiance of the Lisbon treaty.
U.S. Army War College
Contingency Plans
Contingency plans are developed by Combatant Commanders (CCDR) and Joint Force Commanders in anticipation of a potential crisis outside of crisis conditions. These plans are either directed by the classified Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) or Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF), or may address scenarios internal to the CCDR’s theater.
Level 1 Planning Detail – Commander’s Estimate.
This level of planning involves the least amount of detail and focuses on producing multiple courses of action (COA) to address a contingency. The product for this level can be a COA briefing, command directive, commander’s estimate, or a memorandum.
Level 2 Planning Detail – Base Plan (BPLAN).
A BPLAN describes the concept of operations (CONOPS), major forces, concepts of support, and anticipated timelines for completing the mission. It normally does not include annexes or time-phased force and deployment data (TPFDD).
Level 3 Planning Detail – Concept Plan (CONPLAN).
A CONPLAN is an operational plan in an abbreviated format that may require considerable expansion or alteration to convert it into an OPLAN or operations order. It may also produce a TPFDD if applicable.
Level 4 Planning Detail – Operations Plan (OPLAN).
An OPLAN is a complete and detailed joint plan containing a full description of the CONOPS, all annexes applicable to the plan, and a TPFDD. It identifies the specific forces, functional support, and resources required to execute the plan and provide closure estimates for their flow into the theater.
Why the Schlieffen Plan failed
The Schlieffen Plan was the blueprint for Germany’s army to avoid a two-front war with Russia and France. It was supposed to be the solution for a quick victory against arch enemy France by invading Belgium and the Netherlands to circumvent French defenses.
Helmut von Moltke adapted the original plan by Alfred von Schlieffen and ultimately failed when the Germans were beaten at the Battle of the Marne. The video explains the numerous reasons why the Schlieffen Plan was doomed to fail.
German WWI planning
The outbreak of World War I demonstrated changes in warfare and warplans of both sides were thrown into disarray. This video looks on a strategic level how Germany attempted to find its path to victory in this new situation.
Otto von Bismarck is supposed to have said to Germans: “The biggest wisdom in the war is to know when to stop when you are succesful.”
Mike Tyson definitely said: “You can have all the plans in the world till you get punched in the face.”
How will Germany spend €100 billion?
Deutsche Welle: Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced a historic increase in military spending. It included a one-time sum of 100 billion Euros to swiftly upgrade the armed forces, and a pledge to spend at least 2 percent of Germany’s economic output on defense every year.
So what exactly is Germany planning to buy with these billions? Germany’s government has just announced it’s activating its early warning plan in anticipation of possible shortages of gas supplies from Russia.
Economy Minister Robert Habeck stressed that there are currently no shortages, but that the government would be establishing a crisis team to monitor the situation more closely. The move follows Russia’s demand for gas payments in rubles, which Germany and other western nations have rejected.
The Schlieffen Plan
The Schlieffen plan of attack used by the German armies at the outbreak of World War I. It was named after its developer, Count Alfred von Schlieffen (1833–1913), former chief of the German general staff.
To meet the possibility of Germany’s facing a war against France in the west and Russia in the east, Schlieffen proposed that, instead of aiming the first strike against Russia, Germany should aim a rapid, decisive blow with a large force at France’s flank through Belgium, then sweep around and crush the French armies against a smaller German force in the south.
Part 1
Part 2
Treaty of Versailles (1919)
After World War I, Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed heavy reparations and territorial losses. Despite being in a weakened position, German negotiators insisted on a detailed, point-by-point examination of each clause, challenging the fairness of the reparations. They employed a structured, fact-based approach, attempting to justify why certain demands were excessive. The treaty’s severe terms were perceived as a violation of the principle of fairness in agreements – a lasting grievance in the German psyche.