Role of the Baltic States

[sburke]

LOL I wouldn't count on that relationship with China.  China sees the world in one way, what makes sense for China.  Russia has some resources China needs and badly needs revenue.  China gets oil on the cheap, China wins.  Russia gets some revenue, but in a bad deal.  China is not going to back Russia beyond that because frankly Russia is bad for business.

 

As to Russia's friends, I wouldn't include Belarus anymore either.  That relationship is fraying.

 

From a long term strategic perspective, Putin is totally destroying Russia's ability to be a world class power. The most important aspect is not your military, it is your economy.  You need to be relevant as a part of the global economy.  Russia's only relevance is as an oil producer.  They have about the same relevance as Saudi Arabia.  The Saudis have made no progress in long term sustainability.  The only thing they export other than oil is Islamic fundamentalists.  They are tolerated for the oil.

 

Russia needed to do something to diversify it's economy, introduce transparency and make themselves a place folks wanted to invest.  Instead they have gone the opposite direction.  Great if you want to be a dictator.  Bad if you want your country to stay in the G8.  Russia was ranked among the world's main powers, primarily to keep them as part of the community.  This helped to reduce conflict and keep everyone is a semi cordial business relationship.  Russia's behavior has gotten so bad however they have been kicked out of the club.  Can't play nice, get out of the sandbox.  That isolation is exactly what Russia does not need, but Putin keeps putting his hold on power against the long term interests of his people.

 

Think about this - compare China's trade relationship with the US and then look at it's relationship to Russia.  Who do you think China is going to pay more attention to when the doors are closed.  Russia ranks 8th or 9th in GDP depending on whose numbers you follow.  Above them are the US, UK, France, Germany and Japan.  Really think China cares that much about Russia compared to the economies of 5 countries it has more important trade relationships with?

[Alexey K]

From a historical point of view, yes. As a current international figure of an important nation on the world stage however we must assess him now and we only have his record thus far to go on. The long term consequences however cannot yet be known.

 

I was talking about historical comparsions since Bismark was mentioned. 

Predicting Putin's next steps is not what I'am specializing about

[Michael Emrys]

This thread may be as good a place as any to bring this up. Two days ago Boris Nemtsov, an opposition politician and critic of Putin, was shot down in Moscow.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Nemtsov

 

Michael

[Alexey K]

This thread may be as good a place as any to bring this up. Two days ago Boris Nemtsov, an opposition politician and critic of Putin, was shot down in Moscow.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Nemtsov

 

Michael

 

Looks like offtopic not only for this thread, but for this forum in general

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Looks like offtopic not only for this thread, but for this forum in general

 

I agree. Although it does show how ruthless Putin is prepared to be.

 

Getting back on to topic the Russian interest in the Baltic states and their strategic location suggests thwe possibility of a Russian offensive once the fighting with NATO starts in Ukraine. NATO reinforcements will have to move to  Ukraine via the Polishh transportation network and a Russian occupation of the Baltic Staes would seriously threaten that as well as posing a direct threat to Warsaw.NATO would have to divert significant forces to oppose that and retake the Baltic States which would assist Russian forces in Ukrainne itself.

[sburke]

Looks like offtopic not only for this thread, but for this forum in general

Maybe, but it does contribute to perception. We do not know who killed him, but the state's labeling of it's opposition as "fifth columnists" was inflammatory at best, at worst an open statement it was okay to eliminate him.

The way this plays out in the west and particularly the Baltic states is there is less and less room to consider diplomatic negotiations with Moscow. The Baltic states,Poland Ukraine and even Belarus are looking to Moscow and perceiving a level of ruthlessness that is changing the geopolitical landscape. Moscow should be less concerned about NATO and more concerned that those nations could form their own defensive treaty bloc. And it isn't even just the Baltic states. Russian aircraft flying without transponders on etc are causing many countries to view Russia now as functioning outside the norms of state relationships. To borrow a much over used expression, Russia is behaving like a rogue state endangering the lives of civilians throughout the area.

So whether this was an FSB hit or not, it adds to the mounting pile of events that has the area looking at Russia as not just bad for business, but as a generally dangerous neighbor that is incapable of conduct befitting a member of a peaceful community.

That in turn does make it on topic regarding the reactions of the Baltic states.

[Alexey K]

...

That in turn does make it on topic regarding the reactions of the Baltic states.

 

I've got your point.

It is true, Russia is seen as more and more aggressive by EU and US. Actually, in Russian official and public opinion reverse is true: western countries behaviour is seen as increasingly aggressive and offensive througout last 15-20 years.

 

That spiral of misunderstanding and escalation is really dangerous.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I've got your point.

It is true, Russia is seen as more and more aggressive by EU and US. Actually, in Russian official and public opinion reverse is true: western countries behaviour is seen as increasingly aggressive and offensive througout last 15-20 years.

 

That spiral of misunderstanding and escalation is really dangerous.

 

In game scenario terms, within the context of the war depicted I think it makes a lot of sense for Russia to invade the Baltic States once fighting with NATO breaks out

 

1 Russia is now at war with NATO or very likely soon will be. The Baltic States are NATO members and Russia has territorial ambitions she could now achieve. A chance that might not come again

 

2 A strike into the Baltic States threatens Poland, a key NATO ally. The Polish road and rail networks will be used by NATO reinforcements going to Ukraine. A Russian occupation of the Baltic States threatens Warsaw. Russian occupation of the Baltic States will therefore divert NATO forces making the job of Russian forces already fighting in Ukraine easier, increasing the chances of a quick Russian military victory which is essential given that NATO reinforcements will eventually turn the tide. Knocking the Baltic States and Poland out of the war fast could b enough to get NATO to agree  a ceasefire. After which Russia has some territorial negotiating chips to play with  a future peace conferance. Russia in this situation might well be able to get NATO to agree to annexation of the Russian speaking parts of the Baltic States and recognition of Russian annexation of Eastern Ukraine. Which would definately be a big poliical vicory for Moscw

 

3 If Russa does not occupy the Baltic Staes NATO might, later in the war, build up large forces there for a counter offensive threatening St Petersburg, Russian supply routes to their forces in Ukraine and of course Moscow. A Russian occupation of the Baltic States would make it hader for NATO to mount a future counter offensive out of the Baltic States.

 

Although this would slightly escalate the conflict by invading NATO countries i would not be too significant in any political sense. And there is a lot of gain fr minimum miliary risk at an early point in the war

[sburke]

Looking at a map, the real issue is what role would Belarus play.  The Baltic States are a lot of ground for a small narrow push into Poland (though it does allow Russia unfettered access to Kaliningrad  Basically a push to the Dvina then a hard left down along the border of Belarus.  I really don't know what Belarus would say to that and if Russia would respect the border.  However at this point we are far afield of the CMBS storyline and into a much broader war between NATO and Russia.  I think perhaps too broad for trying to contribute much to the game concept.  Kind of like the whole Black Sea discussion.  The premise of the storyline is both sides maintain a limited (which in itself is an interesting concept, once one side feels it is losing, what reason is there to keep it limited).

 

Upon seeing the original storyline, I have always wondered more about the role Belarus would play, but that was based on my own perception of Belarus as a solid ally to Russia.  I don't think that is an assumption I would make anymore.

[sburke]

I've got your point.

It is true, Russia is seen as more and more aggressive by EU and US. Actually, in Russian official and public opinion reverse is true: western countries behaviour is seen as increasingly aggressive and offensive througout last 15-20 years.

 

That spiral of misunderstanding and escalation is really dangerous.

Not just by EU and US.  Sweden, Finland and even Belarus are voicing concerns about Russia's behavior.  If it were just EU and US I could understand it to be more just regular rivalry.  Western planes are not flying in civilian airspace with transponders off for example.

[Michael Emrys]

That spiral of misunderstanding and escalation is really dangerous.

 

It sure is. Here in the centennial of the First World War it all seems to be happening again. This would not be a good thing at all even if nuclear stockpiles were not part of the scenery. I think we missed a great opportunity at the end of the Cold War to put this kind of thing behind us. The question that those of us who would like to see the survival of the human race continue must now face is, where do we go from here?

 

Michael

[Alexey K]

Not just by EU and US.  Sweden, Finland and even Belarus are voicing concerns about Russia's behavior.  If it were just EU and US I could understand it to be more just regular rivalry.  Western planes are not flying in civilian airspace with transponders off for example.

You didn'the get my point

Point is that inside Russia these actions are perceived as rightful retaliation for western... misbehavior.

And that is not just "Dr. Evil Putin", it public opinion too. After all he has ~85% approval rating.

[Alexey K]

It sure is. Here in the centennial of the First World War it all seems to be happening again. This would not be a good thing at all even if nuclear stockpiles were not part of the scenery. I think we missed a great opportunity at the end of the Cold War to put this kind of thing behind us. The question that those of us who would like to see the survival of the human race continue must now face is, where do we go from here?

 

Michael

You are right, we'very missed great opportunity. I recall first half on 90s, at that time most of Russians looked up at Western world with admiration. Somehow we've squandered that opportunity. We could be friends, but now we have a new cold war.

[Michael Emrys]

You didn'the get my point

Point is that inside Russia these actions are perceived as rightful retaliation for western... misbehavior.

 

I have to say that I felt uneasy when NATO moved so quickly to admit former WARPAC nations. It wasn't hard to guess how that would be perceived in Moscow. But that, I fear is all water over the dam. Once again, the question is how to get the interested parties to back away from mutually assured destruction. I would be happy to see a treaty that would neutralize the neighbors of Russia with solid guarantees from both the West and Russia, but given the current levels of tension and mistrust, I don't see that happening any time soon. This is not good.

 

Michael

[Alexey K]

I have to say that I felt uneasy when NATO moved so quickly to admit former WARPAC nations. It wasn't hard to guess how that would be perceived in Moscow. But that, I fear is all water over the dam. Once again, the question is how to get the interested parties to back away from mutually assured destruction. I would be happy to see a treaty that would neutralize the neighbors of Russia with solid guarantees from both the West and Russia, but given the current levels of tension and mistrust, I don't see that happening any time soon. This is not good.

 

Michael

 

It's not only NATO expansion it's complex matter.

 

Streak of recent military operations conducted by western countries (Yugoslavia, Iraq 2.0, Afghanistan, Libya) as well as involvement in political events around the world was viewed as unlawful military agression against souvereign countires. US, EU and NATO image has drifted from "peaceful democratic powers that respect international law" to "agressive powers who will bomb and/or invade any country they like for any reason they like". And that powers are coming to Russian border and messing with Russian neightbouring countries internal affairs.

 

P.S. There is no need to go into flame war about this. I didn't try to persuade you that opinion I've described is true. I tried to explain how things are viewed by Russians. This might help to understand logic behind Russian actions.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Looking at a map, the real issue is what role would Belarus play.  The Baltic States are a lot of ground for a small narrow push into Poland (though it does allow Russia unfettered access to Kaliningrad  Basically a push to the Dvina then a hard left down along the border of Belarus.  I really don't know what Belarus would say to that and if Russia would respect the border.  However at this point we are far afield of the CMBS storyline and into a much broader war between NATO and Russia.  I think perhaps too broad for trying to contribute much to the game concept.  Kind of like the whole Black Sea discussion.  The premise of the storyline is both sides maintain a limited (which in itself is an interesting concept, once one side feels it is losing, what reason is there to keep it limited).

 

At n early stage of the war (in June) Russia would have the initiative annd would certainly not be losing at that point. But, to have a chance of winning once the fighting with NATO starts the Russians cannot hang about like Saddam Hussein in 1990. Once comba starts betweeb Russia and NATO the conflict has already escalated beyond the limited war in Ukraine that m,might have been intended by the Kremlin when they went into Ukraine. The magor land fightng will likely stay in Eastern Europe (though a Russian attempt on Iceland might be plausible) Most fighting outside Eastern Europe will be at sea or in theair. However, the US might use the Lehman Doctrine and invade Siberia which suggests some interesting scenario ideas in itself.

 

Moscow has got to take the initiative and use it before NATO can mobilise European and US forces in order to win in Eastern Europe. A drive into the Baltic States would help Russia significantly. Militarily it diverts NATO forces the could have gone to Ukraine. It prevents NATO from using the Baltic States as the springboarrd for a later counter offensive into Russia itself - "Barbarossa II" would be a much feared NATO move. NATO would, for political reasons, need to liberate the Baltic States (that is occupiied NATO territory if the Russians were to invade.

 

Given the weak Baltic States armies and the fact that NATO woulsd still be mobilising Russia has a short window of opportunity to occuy the Baltic States, an operation that might be completed in two or three days before NATO can respond effectively in strength. A the same time Russia will be able to reinforce Kaliningrad, 

 

The role Belarus might play could be interesting. MNost likely they would remain neutral but it would beinteresing to have them side with Moscow. After Russia has occupied theBaltic States Russian and Belorussian forces could mount a flanking offensive threatening the rear of NATO and Ukranian forces along the Dnieper and perhaps secondary offensives into Poland. This, if done quickly could secure Moscow a quick military victory which can be used politically in order t call a ceasefire (perhaps backed by vague hints about nuclear weapons as a tool of blackmail) This is already assumed o be an unpopular war in the West and moscow should use this as a means of eding the war fast on their terms. They will probably offer o return the non Russian speaking areas of Ukraine and Russia in return for gauruntees that Ukraine will never join NATO and the "Finlandization" of the Baltic States

[kuri]

Given the weak Baltic States armies and the fact that NATO woulsd still be mobilising Russia has a short window of opportunity to occuy the Baltic States, an operation that might be completed in two or three days before NATO can respond effectively in strength. A the same time Russia will be able to reinforce Kaliningrad, 

 

Pfft. You don't think NATO would have pre-emptively depolyed more troops in the Baltics in case of an actual shooting war in Ukraine? And we are talking about 2017 here, can't speak for Latvia or Lithuania but for us that means we will have a QRF battalion of mech infantry on CV9035 and a bunch of Javelins in our use, granted it is not much but 2-3 days sounds optimistic to me. There would probably be at least a limited mobilization carried out as well in case of NATO being in an actual shooting war with Russia.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Pfft. You don't think NATO would have pre-emptively depolyed more troops in the Baltics in case of an actual shooting war in Ukraine? And we are talking about 2017 here, can't speak for Latvia or Lithuania but for us that means we will have a QRF battalion of mech infantry on CV9035 and a bunch of Javelins in our use, granted it is not much but 2-3 days sounds optimistic to me. There would probably be at least a limited mobilization carried out as well in case of NATO being in an actual shooting war with Russia.

 

They might deploy some Rapid Reaction troops such as the new Very High Readiness Rapid Response Force but, at most that would initially be a couple of brigades, probably of light infantry types.

 

However. for political reasons (i.e. to avoid provoking Russia) NATO might initially have deployed this force to Poland rather than to the Baltc States. The Baltic States will of course have done some sort of precautionary mobilization. Much depends on how the Ukraine Criss started to develop towards war. Was the decision to go into Ukraine intended to fight a war with Russia or was it ore of a "political" move intended to halt the ERussian invasion for fear of starting a war with NATO. If the latter it turned ino a political blunder when something went wrog and NATO forces clashed with Russian forces and the situation went into an uncontrolled escalation.

 

This "Camlan" scenario (I am thinking here of how the final battle of Arthurian legend started) seems to me to be the most likely way for the 2017 War to get started. Putin intended a limted war against Ukraine not expecting NATO to do anything. Putin is surprised when NATO forces deploy into Ukraine and misunderstands/misinterprets the intent. Russian forces keep advancing and clash with them by mistake thinking them to be Ukranian. NATO commanders thinkRussia has decided to attack them and naturally fight back. Within hours nATO and Russia are effectively at war. In this situatio he ERussian General Staff now find themselves with an unexpected war wth NATO on their hands. As in 1914 commanders open their sealed war plans. Russia very likely has a plan to invade the Baltic States in the event of a war with NATO, much as Germany planned to invade Belgium in the even of war with France.

 

I see the June 2017 scenario as having much in common with August 1914 which makes the Baltic Staes the 21st Century version of Belgium. Effectively the war depicted is World War 3 even thugh most or all of he ground combat will be in Eastern Europe. Naval and air actions elsewhere in the world are highly probable. Magor ground operatios elsewhere in the Russian Far East and Iceland might happen and other countries friendly to Russia (eg Iran. North Korea) could take advnage of the situation or at least be ecouraged to do some magor sabre rattling to help Moscow out All of which is beyond the scope of BS with its' Eastern European setting. We could have scenaris depicting fighting in the Baltic States and perhaps Eastern Poland. Maybe even Roumania and Western Russia. Games could even depict a NATO march on Moscow. YesI know that might end in a nuclwear exchange but that is far beyond tjhe remit of the game We might be able to scrape together scenarios taking place in Iceland using Russian airborne units and US forces attacking the Russin Far East in a 21s Century version of the Lehman Doctrine  but that is as far as we could ever go with this particular game

[Melchior]

Let's all pretend for a moment that economic and social isolation of Russia will somehow fix Russia and its problems. Or compel Russians to somehow stop viewing the west as a major rival to their interests. Just like the Middle East, or Asia. 

 

I mean I don't doubt the direction this is all going. The West Wins. It usually does, everyone else just has to make due with whatever they're left with in the aftermath. Somehow though the antagonism never stops, and the enemies never really disappear. You'd think NATO would've matured into a greater entity than the Triple Entente Part Deux after the wall fell, but I guess we'd all rather relive the tough-guy politics of 1914 that did the world so much good.  

 

Where does the circle break guys? 

Edited March 3, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[sburke]

When we humans stop being such wankers.

Seriously look around the globe. For being the species on the planet that is supposedly self aware and at the apex of the intelligence ladder we are amazingly stupid.

[Alexey K]

Let's all pretend for a moment that economic and social isolation of Russia will somehow fix Russia and its problems. Or compel Russians to somehow stop viewing the west as a major rival to their interests. Just like the Middle East, or Asia. 

 

I mean I don't doubt the direction this is all going. The West Wins. It usually does, everyone else just has to make due with whatever they're left with in the aftermath. Somehow though the antagonism never stops, and the enemies never really disappear. You'd think NATO would've matured into a greater entity than the Triple Entente Part Deux after the wall fell, but I guess we'd all rather relive the tough-guy politics of 1914 that did the world so much good.  

 

Where does the circle break guys? 

 

May be it breaks when people stop thinking, that only OTHER side needs fixing?

[Melchior]

Yeah and the fixin they need just happens to be the one rich, white westerners will deliver right? The 18th century called, they want the White Man's Burden back plz. 

 

 

 

When we humans stop being such wankers. 

Seriously look around the globe. For being the species on the planet that is supposedly self aware and at the apex of the intelligence ladder we are amazingly stupid.

 

That's such a hopeless, and bleak outlook. Especially considering humanity has already survived much worse, during much harsher times. We just need to stop viewing other cultures as aliens living on the planet we happen to be living on too. We in the west have this perception that our culture  is the *default* culture of human civilization. All others are to be judged by our bar. They know it too, that's why a lot of their own leaders have (often foolishly) tried to enforce western standards on non-western cultures in hope of aping the financial and martial success of the west. The alternative is domination either by the gun or the dollar. 

 

Change to all this starts as soon as people accept it needs to change. 

Edited March 3, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Alexey K]

When we humans stop being such wankers.

Seriously look around the globe. For being the species on the planet that is supposedly self aware and at the apex of the intelligence ladder we are amazingly stupid.

 

Errr.... never? I think that humanity can't do much better without chaning it's very nature. So, it will be next sentient species in a line.

[Sgt Joch]

Personally....with nuclear weapons proliferating, runaway population growth, depletion of natural resources, increasing pollution of every corner on earth, I highly doubt we will make it past A.D. 2300.

 

The only question is what will wipe us out.

 

These type of statistics should give every one pause:

 

 

 

From 2010 to 2025, it is estimated by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development that 300 million Chinese now living in rural areas will move into cities. The fast pace of urbanization will create at least 1 trillion yuan in annual investment opportunities in building water supply, waste treatment, heating and other public utilities in the cities.^[5]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China

 

over the next 10 years, the equivalent of the U.S. population will move into chinese cities and each family unti will require jobs, housing, transportation, consumer goods, etc. and that is happening all over the world.

 

Edited March 3, 2015 by Sgt Joch

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Let's all pretend for a moment that economic and social isolation of Russia will somehow fix Russia and its problems. Or compel Russians to somehow stop viewing the west as a major rival to their interests. Just like the Middle East, or Asia. 

 

I mean I don't doubt the direction this is all going. The West Wins. It usually does, everyone else just has to make due with whatever they're left with in the aftermath. Somehow though the antagonism never stops, and the enemies never really disappear. You'd think NATO would've matured into a greater entity than the Triple Entente Part Deux after the wall fell, but I guess we'd all rather relive the tough-guy politics of 1914 that did the world so much good.  

 

Where does the circle break guys? 

 

Maybe I don't have much faith in humanity. Human nature does not change much and it is not just the West or Russia. It is humanity as a whole. We are always going to have some leaders of ;large countries in particular who throw their weight around. Great powers rise and fall, have done so throughout hstory and will continue to do so. Some find it harder to accept decline than others. Russia has had a time as a leading world powerunder the Tsars and then under th Communists. The end of that should have been when the Soviet Union fell. Though Russia was still considered an important country by everyone it was no longer a superpower. Putin wants that superpower role back. Most European countries and the US don't want that.

 

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about he role of the Baltic States in the 2017 conflict. Can weplease get back to that?