Role of the Baltic States

[Apocal]

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.

 

?

 

Did you read what I wrote? Because it seems like you're replying to someone else here.

[Melchior]

Look if you're only interested in comparing events in history by body count, than you're missing some much bigger than Operation Barbarossa. Try the Russian Civil War and subsequent famine. Events which were indeed big setbacks but in the overall context of Russian history, were eclipsed by the gradual rise and successes of later decades. Don't try to be smug and assume i'm downplaying the horrible loss of life that accompanied these events. That's not what i'm saying. What i'm saying is that Russian society succeeded and grew in spite of these horrors. Why do you think? 

 

Their is a big picture here. 

Edited March 5, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

What i'm saying is that Russian society succeeded and grew in spite of these horrors.

 

And Rome weathered some pretty major storms.  Past survival is no indication of future prospects if simply taken in a vacuum.  I don't doubt we'll have a Russia for some time to come, however the key factors of relevancy in the modern world are not things Russia has well exploited.  This Ukrainian thing is rather a model of continuing to drift towards being a pariah, which is, given the state of both Russia and its economy pretty unhealthy in the long run.  

[Vet 0369]

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.

You missed the Archangel invasion by the joint British and U.S. In (I believe) 1919 to defeat the Bolsheviks. The area seems well justified in its fear of invasion by outside powers.

[Melchior]

And Rome weathered some pretty major storms.  Past survival is no indication of future prospects if simply taken in a vacuum.  I don't doubt we'll have a Russia for some time to come, however the key factors of relevancy in the modern world are not things Russia has well exploited.  This Ukrainian thing is rather a model of continuing to drift towards being a pariah, which is, given the state of both Russia and its economy pretty unhealthy in the long run.  

 

The thing is I agree with that completely. We are taking events out of their proper context. Russia and the Eastern Bloc is in decline, with implications that Slavs could be paying a much greater price in the future than they've ever paid before. Thing is, Russians are acutely aware of this, but certainly do not and probably will not ever believe their leaders were more to blame for this than the west was. When we haw haw Putin and Russians in this thread (or the media) for attempting to preserve the power that has, historically, kept them safe from the west "LOL THAT'S WHAT YOU GET", I don't think we're disproving anything be it myth or fact. 

Edited March 5, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Vet 0369]

Look if you're only interested in comparing events in history by body count, than you're missing some much bigger than Operation Barbarossa. Try the Russian Civil War and subsequent famine. Events which were indeed big setbacks but in the overall context of Russian history, were eclipsed by the gradual rise and successes of later decades. Don't try to be smug and assume i'm downplaying the horrible loss of life that accompanied these events. That's not what i'm saying. What i'm saying is that Russian society succeeded and grew in spite of these horrors. Why do you think?

Their is a big picture here.

Is the famine to which you refer the "Bitter Harvest" when Stalin forced the Ukranian farmers to become collectives by causing 25 million Ukranians to starve to death? Edited March 5, 2015 by Vet 0369

[Apocal]

Don't try to be smug and assume i'm downplaying the horrible loss of life that accompanied these events. That's not what i'm saying.

 

That is exactly what you're saying, in essence: "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 disagreed. You said you weren't convinced that seven or eight years of depression were worse than five four years of total war, over twenty million dead and, oh yeah, a economic depression.

 

Why do you think? 

 

I think that even at the height of the Soviet Union's power and prestige, the west had ten times the GDP and only Soviet nuclear arms kept us from pressing that advantage. Nuclear weapons, I'll note, that Russia still possesses and have been rattling whenever anyone in the west suggests substantial intervention in the Ukraine...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

The thing is I agree with that completely. We are taking events out of their proper context. Russia and the Eastern Bloc is in decline, with implications that Slavs could be paying a much greater price in the future than they've ever paid before. Thing is, Russians are acutely aware of this, but certainly do not and probably will not ever believe their leaders were more to blame for this than the west was. When we haw haw Putin and Russians in this thread (or the media) for attempting to preserve the power that has, historically, kept them safe from the west "LOL THAT'S WHAT YOU GET", I don't think we're disproving anything be it myth or fact. 

 

But it is what they get.  And even further from that there's the denial and ignorance of historical context.  Eastern Europe doesn't align with Russia because of historically terrible Russian treatment of same, it aligns with the west because of American machinations and CIA agents.  The Russian economy isn't doing poorly because of mismanagement and corruption, it's HATO economic warfare.  Etc, etc.

 

And it makes it much to the end of why we're loling.  It's rarely an argument against a reality based situation.  It's we're arguing about Russian troops in the Ukraine, and then suddenly "well how do you explain these AR-15s and this one guy who might be speaking english in this video?????" 

 

It's irrelevant to the fact there's T-72B3s chugging out in the open for the world to see, BUT HERE IT NATO'S HIDDEN HAND LOOK AT IT!

 

Which just makes it comical.  Laughable.  A coo-coo land fed by Russia today, and watered with a world view in that everything that isn't Russia is out to get Russia because Russia is so cool.  It's like those Americans convinced every Muslim is a secret terrorist because all Islam is terrorists and the only focus of Islam is to terrorize Americans!  It's not a strongly rational position, and honestly after the 40th time this discussion has occurred, it stops being "here is a rational explanation and an illustration of my objection to Russian forces in the Ukraine" and starts becoming "so did you hear the whole conflict is over a bear that spurned Putin's sexual advances?" 

[Apocal]

 The Russian economy isn't doing poorly because of mismanagement and corruption, it's HATO economic warfare.  Etc, etc.

 

The sanctions are wrecking shop on their economy though, along with low oil prices. That much isn't really in dispute.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Oh totally, but those are a direct reaction to Russian aggression.  I'm speaking to the historical 1991-2012 sort of timeframe.  

[sburke]

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 Russia 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 into Poland even if that is just a spoiling attack?

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

5 How does this impact on the main theater of war in Ukraine?

 

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

At the risk of getting this discussion back on track

 

Before any of this can be looked at you'd probably need to answer a few questions.

What is the NATO position at this time, have the NATO countries increased their military readiness prior to the beginning of hostilities (I am thinking here of Germany for example, would they have put there army in a better state in the few years preceding events, not just have they mobilized)

What is Russia's position, have the force modernizations taken place as planned, have they had manpower shortages, has the economic situation affected armaments programs

How much of both sides first line forces are committed in Ukraine, what forces does Russia have available to open a second front in the Baltics?

How much of the preparation for a push into the Baltics is spotted?

Does Poland move forces into the Baltics as a NATO ally before Russia can launch an attack.

[Mr0Buggy]

Didn't Russia made a clear intent and plans to place Air Force base(s) on the Belorussian soil ? They were pretty (relatively) close to Polish borders too, that is until American Senate greenlit the JASSM deal for Poland. That made Russians revise their plans and then they moved them back outside potential JASSM range.

[Alexey K]

Is the famine to which you refer the "Bitter Harvest" when Stalin forced the Ukranian farmers to become collectives by causing 25 million Ukranians to starve to death?

 

25 millions? o_O

 

Census data on Ukranian SSR population: 

1926 - 23 millions

1937 - 29 millions.

 

But between 1926 and 1937.... somehow.... 25 millions were dead due to starvation.

[Alexey K]

Oh totally, but those are a direct reaction to Russian aggression.  I'm speaking to the historical 1991-2012 sort of timeframe.  

 

Surely there was a lot of mismanagement and corruption in that timeframe Especially in 90s.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

You missed the Archangel invasion by the joint British and U.S. In (I believe) 1919 to defeat the Bolsheviks. The area seems well justified in its fear of invasion by outside powers.

 

 

You missed the Archangel invasion by the joint British and U.S. In (I believe) 1919 to defeat the Bolsheviks. The area seems well justified in its fear of invasion by outside powers.

 

I wasa just giving some examples, not an exhaustive or complte list. my pont was both sides are paranoid. I could also have mentioned the Russian invasion of Finland. hhe Soviet -Ukranian War, the Ukranian Famine of the 1930s, the 1920 Soviet invasion of Poland, the Partitions of Poland, the 1830 qand 1864 Polish risihgs, the Crimean War, the various Russo Turkish Wars and he 19th Century "Great Game"

[LUCASWILLEN05]

25 millions? o_O

 

Census data on Ukranian SSR population: 

1926 - 23 millions

1937 - 29 millions.

 

But between 1926 and 1937.... somehow.... 25 millions were dead due to starvation.

 

Sounds like the same thing/leksey I am not sure if you are Russian (I think that might be the case from revious conversations we have had) or Ukranian or even from the Baltic States or Belorussia.

[Alexey K]

Sounds like the same thing/leksey I am not sure if you are Russian (I think that might be the case from revious conversations we have had) or Ukranian or even from the Baltic States or Belorussia.

 

I'am from Moscow

[kuri]

25 millions? o_O

 

Census data on Ukranian SSR population: 

1926 - 23 millions

1937 - 29 millions.

 

But between 1926 and 1937.... somehow.... 25 millions were dead due to starvation.

Yeah... i've seen a similar argument with census data from Holocaust deniers.

 

And the bit about being inherently suspicious/afraid of "the West" due to some historical invasions, well that is just a convenient excuse, by that logic i suppose i should fear the Germans, Poles, Swedes, Danes, Russians... But interestingly only one of those countries gives cause for concern.

Edited March 5, 2015 by kuri

[Alexey K]

Yeah... i've seen a similar arguments with census data from Holocaust deniers.

 

And the bit about being inherently suspicious/afraid of "the West" due to some historical invasions, well that is just a convenient excuse, by that logic i suppose i should fear the Germans, Poles, Swedes, Danish, Russians... But interestingly only one of those countries gives cause for concern.

 

1. I don't deny USSR famine of 1932-1933 years and "Holodomor" that was part of it.

2. Ukranian court has labelled that famine as "act of genicide", but prvided wildly different figures - 3.9 millions. Where "25 millons" came from?

3. I have nothing to do with "inherent fears" and other blame games here

[LUCASWILLEN05]

At the risk of getting this discussion back on track

 

Before any of this can be looked at you'd probably need to answer a few questions.

What is the NATO position at this time, have the NATO countries increased their military readiness prior to the beginning of hostilities (I am thinking here of Germany for example, would they have put there army in a better state in the few years preceding events, not just have they mobilized)

What is Russia's position, have the force modernizations taken place as planned, have they had manpower shortages, has the economic situation affected armaments programs

How much of both sides first line forces are committed in Ukraine, what forces does Russia have available to open a second front in the Baltics?

How much of the preparation for a push into the Baltics is spotted?

Does Poland move forces into the Baltics as a NATO ally before Russia can launch an attack.

 

 

Vased on current trends we will assume a limited NATO increase in military preperadness. The High Readiness Rapid Reaction Force is opeational and was deployed to Eastyrn Poand as a precautionary measure when the Russian nvasion of Ukraine began together with limited NAO heavy forces (the atter moved into Ukraine. The Rapd Reaction Force was held in reserve in Eastern Poland. NATO started a serious mobilzation when fighting broke out with Russia but his began only a mtter of hours, perhaps a dy before this next decisions are made by each side,.Polish forces have not moved into the Baltic States as yet (NATO did not move additional forces in to avoid provoking te Russians. That situation hasjust changed and orders are just about to go ot for a deployment of availavl;e NATO troops, initially the Rapid Reaction force. Baltic States armies have mobilised and are moving into war positions.

 

Russian military reforms prior to 2017 hve led to as high state of military rediness. Forces, though slimmed down are competent and well equipped. For theBaltic operation the main force will be Russian 6th Army based aroundSt Petersburg

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Russian_Ground_Forces.png

 

Some or all of 20th Army will bwe available as well but may haveo be diverted from Ukraine. One or more of the airborne brigades may bemade available as well.

 

TheRussians willneed to move very quickly, ideally starting the operation within 24 hours. At most the operation must begin no later than 2 or 3 days after the first battles in Ukrainebetween NATO and Russian forcees. the longer the Russians wait he more NATO forces will deploy into the Baltic States. Which is why this attack may be from a standing start. Theremay have been some measures taken as a precaution when fighting broke out between Ukraine and Russi increasing the readiness of the Western and Central Military Districty (the Southern Military District is assumed to be primariy responsibl ffr combat in Uraine. We will assume Cntral Miltary Disricty units move up s reserves. Apart from airborne units Easterm Military Disrict will nt be employed.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1. I don't deny USSR famine of 1932-1933 years and "Holodomor" that was part of it.

2. Ukranian court has labelled that famine as "act of genicide", but prvided wildly different figures - 3.9 millions. Where "25 millons" came from?

3. I have nothing to do with "inherent fears" and other blame games here

Maybe it does for the Ukranians ad maybe they do see it as an act of genocide. There is also the matter of the Ukranian-Sovet War, the 1950s insurgency. We nee try t undersand everybody's views and history here, try to overcome our national and personal biases and try t see the full picture here. Every state concerned has a legacy of fear and distrust. resulted in il judged actions and responses. That goes for NATO, Ukraine and Russia as well.. Aportioning blamwe as Alexey says is counter productive.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Yeah... i've seen a similar arguments with census data from Holocaust deniers.

 

And the bit about being inherently suspicious/afraid of "the West" due to some historical invasions, well that is just a convenient excuse, by that logic i suppose i should fear the Germans, Poles, Swedes, Danish, Russians... But interestingly only one of those countries gives cause for concern.

Kuri I am guessing you might be Ukranian? I m British/Swis dual nationality by the way

[kuri]

No i am Estonian.

[Melchior]

Yeah... i've seen a similar arguments with census data from Holocaust deniers.

 

And the bit about being inherently suspicious/afraid of "the West" due to some historical invasions, well that is just a convenient excuse, by that logic i suppose i should fear the Germans, Poles, Swedes, Danish, Russians... But interestingly only one of those countries gives cause for concern.

 

 

 

No i am Estonian.

 

By your history their are two countries on that list that should concern you. However, it's understandable and completely believable to me that their are people in the East who are attracted to the west and want to distance themselves from the Russians. 

 

 Every time someone here in America points out Russia's moves in Ukraine as unlawful acts of wanton aggression I almost want to start laughing. We have short-term memory in this country it seems. On top of that the perspective is just wrong. Russia does not view Ukraine as a legitimate sovereign nation anymore than the Union saw the Confederacy as one. If Texas left the US right now, how would Americans feel about that? How would they feel if other powers demanded they leave Texas alone?

Edited March 5, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Alexey K]

Maybe it does for the Ukranians ad maybe they do see it as an act of genocide. There is also the matter of the Ukranian-Sovet War, the 1950s insurgency. We nee try t undersand everybody's views and history here, try to overcome our national and personal biases and try t see the full picture here. Every state concerned has a legacy of fear and distrust. resulted in il judged actions and responses. That goes for NATO, Ukraine and Russia as well.. Aportioning blamwe as Alexey says is counter productive.

 

They can call it whatever they want

 

Actually I was suprised by the numbers.

25 millions sounds like nonsense