Role of the Baltic States

[LUCASWILLEN05]

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

 

Both sides have to be able to back off together. It takes a change of mindset by leaders such as Reagan and Gorbachev

[Sgt Joch]

Both sides have to be able to back off together. It takes a change of mindset by leaders such as Reagan and Gorbachev

 

good luck, the days when leaders would take bold actions are long gone:

 

[Alexey K]

Both sides have to be able to back off together. It takes a change of mindset by leaders such as Reagan and Gorbachev

 

Hmm.... Gorbachev is one of most hated persons in Russia, as well as Yeltsin :-)

 

EDIT:

It is instance of Russian/Western misunderstating.

In the West Gorbachev and Yeltsin are praised for what they've did.

In Russia, however, most of people passionately hate them

Edited March 3, 2015 by Alexey K

[Melchior]

Hmm.... Gorbachev is one of most hated persons in Russia, as well as Yeltsin :-)

 

EDIT:

It is instance of Russian/Western misunderstating.

In the West Gorbachev and Yeltsin are praised for what they've did.

In Russia, however, most of people passionately hate them

 

I feel bad for Gorbachev. The seeds for the eastern blocs' fall were laid long before he became Premier and their wasn't much he could do to stop it. Brezhnev really could've confronted the problems that were eating away at the Soviet Union's core but chose stability so as to avoid "rocking the boat". The price he paid for a few more years of stability were the biggest setback in Russian history arguably since the Mongols conquered The Rus'. 

 

Yeltsin well, I know enough about him to know that he was a huge thug. "Shock Therapy" didn't do any good for Russians but it did a lot of good for his pockets and the pockets his cronies. 

 

 

 

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.

 

And the West will be one those falling powers if it continues to base politics and thinking around multiplying enemies rather than ending the antagonism. 

 

 

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.

 

What he wants to avoid is the death-by-slow bleed the west has subjected every one of its enemies to historically. The Turks, the Chinese, Africa, the Native Americans, etc. The west hasn't conquered its enemies through war that often, but they have very frequently conquered them through economics. The writing is on the wall. 

 

Most European countries and the US don't want that.

 

Of course they don't. Western dominion is at stake. 

[sburke]

Look we can spend this whole thread trashing the west and blaming Russia's woes on them, but sorry Russia entirely owns it's own dismal state.  NATO and the EU had actually expressed little interest in the Ukraine because it was such an abysmal corrupt mess.  The attempt by Ukraine to fix it's endemic corruption, which necessarily meant leaning to the West as Russia is if anything even more corrupt than Ukraine sparked Russia's response.

 

Russia is the one assassinating it's own political dissidents

Russia is the one flexing it's muscle globally and making threats about Nuclear retaliation and first strike capability

Russia is the one threatening civilian safety by flying it's fighters without transponders near civilian aircraft.

 

I am perfectly willing to accept the blame for the things my country has done wrong, and they have been/are many.  However Russia's mess is not one you can leave at our doorstep.  Russian owns it's own corrupt, dictatorial state and all the baggage that goes with it.

 

The time when the EU and US are no longer leading world powers may come, but that day has already come for Russia.  They just haven't faced up to it yet.

 

Ask the peoples of Eastern Europe what they think of the fall of the Soviet Union.  If Russians are looking back longingly for the pre Gorbachev days, it shows how clearly disconnected they are from the mindset of those nations who suffered under that regime and goes a long way towards explaining why folks are more worried about Russia than NATO.  NATO didn't build a wall to prevent people from leaving at such a rate that the East German state was facing collapse. That was all Russia.

[Apocal]

I feel bad for Gorbachev. The seeds for the eastern blocs' fall were laid long before he became Premier and their wasn't much he could do to stop it. Brezhnev really could've confronted the problems that were eating away at the Soviet Union's core but chose stability so as to avoid "rocking the boat". The price he paid for a few more years of stability were the biggest setback in Russian history arguably since the Mongols conquered The Rus'.

 

I believe there was a certain German summertime party crash that was just a wee bit more a setback than the nineties were...

Edited March 4, 2015 by Apocal

[Alexey K]

Look we can spend this whole thread trashing the west and blaming Russia's woes on them,

Err... who is blaming and thrashing west here?

EDIT: There is one of best practices I'am using in my work. When something goes FUBAR people usually start blaming each other for their perceived fails. I stop these wars and ask mmyself and each of my men what he could do to prevent it and why he didn't. That helps, blaming - doesn't.

There is huge amount of blaming going around in diplomacy and Internet flame wars.

Do wee really need some more?

Edited March 4, 2015 by Alexey K

[Alexey K]

I feel bad for Gorbachev. The seeds for the eastern blocs' fall were laid long before he became Premier and their wasn't much he could do to stop it. Brezhnev really could've confronted the problems that were eating away at the Soviet Union's core but chose stability so as to avoid "rocking the boat". The price he paid for a few more years of stability were the biggest setback in Russian history arguably since the Mongols conquered The Rus'.

It is true, Gorbachev got hard legacy from it's predecessors. He was in fact crisis manager and he failed to do his job. But you know... people in general do not go deep into analysis when they want to blame someone.

[sburke]

Err... who is blaming and thrashing west here?

EDIT: There is one of best practices I'am using in my work. When something goes FUBAR people usually start blaming each other for their perceived fails. I stop these wars and ask mmyself and each of my men what he could do to prevent it and why he didn't. That helps, blaming - doesn't.

There is huge amount of blaming going around in diplomacy and Internet flame wars.

Do wee really need some more?

That was what I perceived this comment to be..

 

"What he wants to avoid is the death-by-slow bleed the west has subjected every one of its enemies to historically. The Turks, the Chinese, Africa, the Native Americans, etc. The west hasn't conquered its enemies through war that often, but they have very frequently conquered them through economics. The writing is on the wall."

 

It wasn't yours.

[Alexey K]

That was what I perceived this comment to be..

 

"What he wants to avoid is the death-by-slow bleed the west has subjected every one of its enemies to historically. The Turks, the Chinese, Africa, the Native Americans, etc. The west hasn't conquered its enemies through war that often, but they have very frequently conquered them through economics. The writing is on the wall."

 

It wasn't yours.

 

Oh, I see

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Hmm.... Gorbachev is one of most hated persons in Russia, as well as Yeltsin :-)

 

EDIT:

It is instance of Russian/Western misunderstating.

In the West Gorbachev and Yeltsin are praised for what they've did.

In Russia, however, most of people passionately hate them

 

On the other had what was the alternative. By he late 1980s the old Soviet system was dying on its' feet and was locked into the Cold War which, on several occasions threatened to become a very real hot war that in turn might jhave become a civilzation endng nuclear exchange. Since Brezhnev the Soviet Union had a succession ofgeriatricleaders (Andropov, Chernenko) Clearly that siuation could not continue. As wee see it in the West Gorbachev took a series of measures through the glasnost and perestroika policies. 

 

He probably realised that the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact were likely to collapse soon and tried to mange the declne to give he softest landing possible. In many ways he was successful. Just consider what could have happened in the late 1980s. A Third World War beaking out as the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Or a Second Russian Civil War following the August 1991 coup. With military units in Moscow there might easiy have been a situation where Red Army troops supporting the two different sides began firing on each other - and that could havebeen the first battle of a Second Russian Civil War. It is fortunate that events in August 1991 turned out in the way that they did

 

Maybe there are thngs that could have been done bwetter under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. However, like Britain and many other European nations after WW2 Russia in 1991 had to accept the end of empire. I don;t think Russians have managed to accept tha even now. Much like Germans after 1918 failed to accept the end of their Second Reich. The result of that was Hitler, the 3rd Reich and World War 2 in which Russia herself suffered terribly. I think Russians would do well to accept that they won't be a Superpower gain. But they can remain a Great Power among equals and be respected for making positive contributions on the international stage.

 

Peter the Great wanted his "Window on the West" o learn from the rest of Europe and for Russia to become more like Western European nations. Obviously the road hs been longer and harder than your great Tsar could have ever imagined. But, if Russia chooses the right path, that of peaceful diplomacy respecting the rights of neighbours and of trade Russia can still do very well for herswelf. She has an abundance of natural resources and an educated population for a start so she can be a prosperous and well respected counry. The route that Russia is going down now under Ptin can only end in disaster.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Oh, and Aleksey we understand that russia fears the West having been invaded by Poland during the 17th Century, by Swedan in the early 18th century, by Napoleon in 1812 and twice be Germany in the first half f the 20th Century. On the other hand Russia hhas not been kind to her neighbours either. Hence their is fear and suspicion on both sides. Russia needs to understand how shhe makes others feel.

[Baneman]

It is true, Gorbachev got hard legacy from it's predecessors. He was in fact crisis manager and he failed to do his job. ...

 

Respectfully, I disagree - he managed the crisis to a relatively soft landing compared with far worse scenarios ( expressed in more detail above by Lucaswillenos ). Not really his fault that those who came after him decided to take advantage of the situation for their own benefit rather than the peoples' benefit.

 

A small scale parallel is De Klerk in South Africa who presided over the end of apartheid - he saw that it had become untenable, but he could have gone all hardline and dug in and seen the situation devolve into civil war. Similarly, although Mandela came after him, since Mandela's time, there's been a helluva lot of corruption and not much government for the people's benefit.

[Alexey K]

He probably realised that the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact were likely to collapse soon and tried to mange the declne to give he softest landing possible. In many ways he was successful. Just consider what could have happened in the late 1980s. A Third World War beaking out as the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Or a Second Russian Civil War following the August 1991 coup. With military units in Moscow there might easiy have been a situation where Red Army troops supporting the two different sides began firing on each other - and that could havebeen the first battle of a Second Russian Civil War. It is fortunate that events in August 1991 turned out in the way that they did

 

Maybe there are thngs that could have been done bwetter under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. However, like Britain and many other European nations after WW2 Russia in 1991 had to accept the end of empire. I don;t think Russians have managed to accept tha even now. Much like Germans after 1918 failed to accept the end of their Second Reich. The result of that was Hitler, the 3rd Reich and World War 2 in which Russia herself suffered terribly. I think Russians would do well to accept that they won't be a Superpower gain. But they can remain a Great Power among equals and be respected for making positive contributions on the international stage.

 

He-he, once again we are viewing same things differently.

 

What you've written about "graceful collapse" of Warsaw pact and USSR is very true and I don't argue with that. But inside Russia people tend to focus on different things. Gorbachev's and especially Yeltsin's era was marked with social and economic disruption. It was time when Russian society was engulfed with crime, povetry, social inequality and disruption of social security. It was time when through shady schemes much of national wealth was taken over by newly appeared class of oligarchs.  Thats facts are mainly forming public opinion about these two figures. 

 

There is one more point I would like to mention. At that very time Western politicians has openly supported new Russian goverment as "democratic one". This caused deep rooted distrust to West and anything lablelled "democratic" among Russians. It might surprise you, but Russian public opiniton has turned from West in absense of any state-sponsored anti-Western propaganda. When that propaganda emerged indeed, it was very much welcomed.

 

Speaking of Putin. Yes, Putin tries to reestablish Russia as major political power but it is not what he got his 85% approval ratings for. He managed to stop and reverse process of decay of Russian state. Yes, now Russian govertment is criticised for whole range of intrernal problems but it is nothing compared to 90s. For people who managed to survive 90s Putin is a hero who basicly restored "normal life".

 

This is, BTW, a reason why external pressure in form of sanctions do not harm his ratings  

[LUCASWILLEN05]

He-he, once again we are viewing same things differently.

 

What you've written about "graceful collapse" of Warsaw pact and USSR is very true and I don't argue with that. But inside Russia people tend to focus on different things. Gorbachev's and especially Yeltsin's era was marked with social and economic disruption. It was time when Russian society was engulfed with crime, povetry, social inequality and disruption of social security. It was time when through shady schemes much of national wealth was taken over by newly appeared class of oligarchs.  Thats facts are mainly forming public opinion about these two figures. 

 

There is one more point I would like to mention. At that very time Western politicians has openly supported new Russian goverment as "democratic one". This caused deep rooted distrust to West and anything lablelled "democratic" among Russians. It might surprise you, but Russian public opiniton has turned from West in absense of any state-sponsored anti-Western propaganda. When that propaganda emerged indeed, it was very much welcomed.

 

Speaking of Putin. Yes, Putin tries to reestablish Russia as major political power but it is not what he got his 85% approval ratings for. He managed to stop and reverse process of decay of Russian state. Yes, now Russian govertment is criticised for whole range of intrernal problems but it is nothing compared to 90s. For people who managed to survive 90s Putin is a hero who basicly restored "normal life".

 

This is, BTW, a reason why external pressure in form of sanctions do not harm his ratings  

 

It is inevitable that we would view the same events differently. While studyying for my History and Politics degree many years ago one of the things I learned about was nationalistic bias in the use of source material, interprettion of events, motives etc.  The same applies in ou interpretation of Gorbachev.

 

Yeltsin on he other hand is a different matter. To be fair to him he had a difficult situation from the legacy of the Soviet era, the Gorbacjecv years and the dissolution of he Sviet Unn. Yeltsin, to be fair, might not have been the best mn to deal with those issues (and didn't he have a drinking problem)

 

To be fair to Putin, yes he does seem to have tightened up considerably on the socal and corruption issues whicgh were widely reported in the West. The difficulties with the West arose only with his foregn policy. Obviously a number of Easterm European countries wanted to join the EU and NATO. Which is the right of any independent European nation that meets the membership criteria. Arguably Ukraine and even Russia one day might join either or both international organisations.

 

However, Russia, perhaps due to historical reasons (previous invasions eg by Germany, Napoleleonic France and Swedan) was fearful and paranoid about these developmens. A fear of being surrounded and in the future being attacked in some kind of Barbarrossa II. Given the history and the great price paid by Russia one can understand such fears but we also knowhat those who invade Russia don' tend to fare too well. And it is most unlikely that the democratic nations of NATO would attack Russia as Hitler did. Certainly not without some very great provocation. Something like the plot of Eric L Harry's novel Arc Light.

[Melchior]

I believe there was a certain German summertime party crash that was just a wee bit more a setback than the nineties were...

 

Barbarossa failed. It killed many Slavs, but did not destroy the Russian state or the Soviet Union. 

 

 

 

Given the history and the great price paid by Russia one can understand such fears but we also knowhat those who invade Russia don' tend to fare too well.

 

No, but they usually do quite a bit of damage before they leave. (Let's also not forget the time in 1917 a western invasion of Russia succeeded.) Russians know that the greatest threat to their existence is in the west, regardless of what western media blathers on about Putin being a bad man and an oppressor. The fact is many Russians see him much more favorably than they see the west. Because Europe has done a bang up job establishing a history of treachery and violence towards Slavs.

 

It'd be nice if we could finally break that chain peacefully, but i'm worried that's going to be very hard now too. Because yet again the west has established a history of using peaceful relations to carry out financial invasions via corporate interest. This is a big reason why Yeltsin was so despised in Russia and it actually marks some of Putin's legacy too. Though Putin has done a much better job re-asserting Russian influence in Russian interests. Their are many, many less fortunate powers in South America and Africa that have traded the boot of Empire for the debt of De Beers, Goodyear, and ExxonMobil. At least they massacre fewer villages. 

Edited March 4, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Alexey K]

However, Russia, perhaps due to historical reasons (previous invasions eg by Germany, Napoleleonic France and Swedan) was fearful and paranoid about these developmens. A fear of being surrounded and in the future being attacked in some kind of Barbarrossa II. Given the history and the great price paid by Russia one can understand such fears but we also knowhat those who invade Russia don' tend to fare too well. And it is most unlikely that the democratic nations of NATO would attack Russia as Hitler did. Certainly not without some very great provocation. Something like the plot of Eric L Harry's novel Arc Light.

 

For you it might be unlikely, for Russians it is not. Military campaigns in Yugoslavia, Iraq 2.0, Afghanistan and Libya are viewed in Russia as unlawful military agression by US and/or NATO against weaker independent countries. These wars have actually reinforced traditional Russian fears of foreign agression. If they can invade Iraq, what can stop them from invading Russia apart from it's military power and WMD deterrent? 

[Melchior]

"Stop being violent!" Said the most violent people on Earth. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Getting back to the role of the Baltic States during the 2017 war. Let us assume for the sake of discussion that, once fighting breaks out between NATO and Russa in early June in Ukraine the Russian General Staff do decide to adopt the Baltic Variant. We will assume that the Very High Readiness Force was deployed to Poland for political reasons (to .avoid  provoking Moscow) The order to invade the Baltic States goes out within  hours of the first battles in Ukraine between NATO and Russia.

 

1 Do the Russians quickly overwhelm the Baltic States armies before they can be reinforced by NATO forces including heavy armour

2 How fast will NATO be able to reinforce the Baltic States and will hat be enough to prevent all three states from being wholly overrun by Russian forces?

3 If Russia does succeed in overrunning the Baltic States will they push on ito Poland even if that is jus a spoilig attack?

4 Does NATO later mount a n offensive to retake the Baltic States?.

5 How does this mpact on the main theate of war in Ukraine?

 

I see lots of potential scenarios based around this sector. More of course if Belorussia allies with Russia//

Edited March 4, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Apocal]

Barbarossa failed. It killed many Slavs, but did not destroy the Russian state or the Soviet Union. 

 

I didn't say it destroyed Russia. I said it was -- objectively, provably, -- a bigger setback by an order of magnitude compared to the nineties.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I didn't say it destroyed Russia. I said it was -- objectively, provably, -- a bigger setback by an order of magnitude compared to the nineties.

 

50 million Soviet Union dead and massive destruction. A large part of that in Ukraine and the Baltic States alhough also a not inconsiderable mount of fighting in Russia. I think everyone who has read a decent amount about the Russian Front understands something of the effect on Russian pstche. Barbarossa is seen as a stab in the back by Hitler. But NATO and the West are not Nazi Germany and some kind of Barbarrossa II isn't going to hppen. Which might be harder for Russians parnoid about the West to accept. Having said that the West lived for 45 years with the percieved threat of  Soviet incasion of Western Europe so maybe we are a little paranoid about Russia too.

 

For all his faults Gorbachev was statesman enough to understand this. Unfortuneatly somewhere along the line we lost an opportunity to better reldtions and both Russia and the West must take their share of the blame. Maybe ne good thing about BS is that it gets peple with commin interests talking and that migh help reduce the possibility of something like the war depictedi the game actually happening for real. And perhaps what we see in the game warns us what such a war might cost. If t does that then BF have done their job.

[Melchior]

I didn't say it destroyed Russia. I said it was -- objectively, provably, -- a bigger setback by an order of magnitude compared to the nineties.

 

I'm not convinced. Their was much death but Russia emerged from WW2 with a bright future as a preeminent global superpower. Today? The East is in inexorable decline, with its condition being aggravated by the manipulations and machinations of the west. Who's right and who's wrong matters a lot less to me than who is getting hurt and who isn't. If you ask me, we're all going to pay for the forced breakup of the Slavic states. Just like we're paying today for 100 year old breakup of the Ottoman Turks. The exchange of prosperity, the cycle of rich and poor, it just goes back and forth. It never solves anything. 

 

 

50 million Soviet Union dead and massive destruction. A large part of that in Ukraine and the Baltic States alhough also a not inconsiderable mount of fighting in Russia. I think everyone who has read a decent amount about the Russian Front understands something of the effect on Russian pstche. Barbarossa is seen as a stab in the back by Hitler. But NATO and the West are not Nazi Germany and some kind of Barbarrossa II isn't going to hppen. Which might be harder for Russians parnoid about the West to accept. Having said that the West lived for 45 years with the percieved threat of  Soviet incasion of Western Europe so maybe we are a little paranoid about Russia too.

 

For all his faults Gorbachev was statesman enough to understand this. Unfortuneatly somewhere along the line we lost an opportunity to better reldtions and both Russia and the West must take their share of the blame. Maybe ne good thing about BS is that it gets peple with commin interests talking and that migh help reduce the possibility of something like the war depictedi the game actually happening for real. And perhaps what we see in the game warns us what such a war might cost. If t does that then BF have done their job.

 

Indeed. It's not accurate to hold the west 100% accountable for everyone's problems, just that it understands it has been a contributor too often. Far more success has been had in history by promoting the melding of cultures and peoples, but not by force or greed. We just need to overcome social stigmas and perceptions towards other peoples. We also need to stop acting as if international politics is a Game of Thrones episode or a Hearts of Iron campaign. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

The East is in inexorable decline, with its condition being aggravated by the manipulations and machinations of the west

 

Har.  Whatever hole Russia is sitting in is one that it dug for itself with Polish-Ukrainian-etc slave labor.  The key to success post Cold War has been globalization, and that isn't a "manipulation" it's just a practical reality of the world at large at this point (and it has certainly done its fair share of harm and benefit everywhere).  The Russian state from Czar to Putin has uniquely established itself as quite possibly the least reliable, most exploitative partner you can select in international affairs, and that is really a matter of history.  The fact that now in a world of fairly open trade and a declining set of "poles" countries can now choose where and how they align means Russia is bereft of friends through its historical behavior, and now must endeavor to create "friends" out of ethnic Russian parts of other countries.  

[Apocal]

I'm not convinced. Their was much death but Russia emerged from WW2 with a bright future as a preeminent global superpower.

 

If you aren't convinced that over twenty million dead and a wrecked country are worse than an economic depression, I don't know what to say.

[Melchior]

Har.  Whatever hole Russia is sitting in is one that it dug for itself with Polish-Ukrainian-etc slave labor.  The key to success post Cold War has been globalization, and that isn't a "manipulation" it's just a practical reality of the world at large at this point (and it has certainly done its fair share of harm and benefit everywhere).  The Russian state from Czar to Putin has uniquely established itself as quite possibly the least reliable, most exploitative partner you can select in international affairs, and that is really a matter of history.  The fact that now in a world of fairly open trade and a declining set of "poles" countries can now choose where and how they align means Russia is bereft of friends through its historical behavior, and now must endeavor to create "friends" out of ethnic Russian parts of other countries.  

 

Yeah you're a real appointee of the people's opinions worldwide. This "practical reality" you speak of is a very frightening concept to very many people who aren't American or European. Russia's problems in administration and its relationship with its former states are an internal affair, read: none of our damn business. Maybe now you'll explain to me how globalization hasn't been a sham deal with obvious beneficiaries and even more obvious losers. Shame really. Much like communism, sounds great on paper, doesn't do so well in practice. 

 

If you aren't convinced that over twenty million dead and a wrecked country are worse than an economic depression, I don't know what to say.

 

If you think either one of those issues were/are as simple as you make them out to be, I don't know what to say. Well actually, I do. It's that precedent is in place for this sort of dilemma to turn out very badly for Slavs, and the west has frequently proven itself to be instrumental in the decline of its rivals. What it hasn't proven, at any point in history ever, is how this has been good for them and everyone else too.