Nato spearhead force ‘too vulnerable’ to be deployed in war with Russia

[Euri]

https://next.ft.com/content/7ac5075c-1a96-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122

"Russia’s decision to dramatically build up its forces in Kaliningrad — the Baltic enclave between Poland and Lithuania — and substantial military assets in its border territories mean the VJTF would be at risk of being overrun before it was even ready to fight if it tried to set up “east of the Oder [the line of Germany’s eastern border]”, says one of the generals"

[Vanir Ausf B]

One of the important measures being considered is the basing of four battalions, each contributed by a single Nato member, in the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as Poland. According to one senior Polish diplomat, the measure is the “absolute minimum” that is needed.

The US is also considering the permenent return of one armored brigade combat team to Europe, which is in addition to the ABCT rotating through as part of the European Assurance Initiative and the prepositioned equipment for a 3rd ABCT that could be put into action within 10 days notice. In other words, while the article's headline is true it probably won't be within 2-3 years.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Sounds like someone wants more money, of course there's usually a grain of truth in stuff like this as well.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Preventing a Russian takeover of the Baltic states is something that is difficult simply because as the invader Russia holds the initiative.  It can mass as many green men as it cares to, and whatever reinforcement NATO sends will have to play catch up, or be stationed there full time at the expense of readiness elsewhere.  

However the real question is in the event of a Russian takeover, could it be sustained?  And the answer is no.  Russian commitments to the Baltics would overwhelm its ability to keep the country and Russian interest reasonably safe, but whatever "Baltic People's Free Democratic Republic of Soviets" government would require that degree of commitment to not simply be rolled up.  A Russian conquered Baltic region is not an outcome supported by the rest of the world, or one that there is any sympathy for.  

Placing more forces is just a way to reassure the locals, and to dissuade Russian attempts to politically isolate its neighbors.  Long term Russian aims revolve around being able to manipulate and engage with Europe as individual states vs NATO or the EU in the hopes of being able to play off those independent actors against each other to bolster their own position.

This is historically how Russian foreign policy has operated.  I don't think it's going to get much traction however given the lack of coherent anti-EU/NATO/Western narrative beyond Slavic-Russian nationalism.  

[VladimirTarasov]

To be fair, Russia can invade the Baltics and hold it in a limited time scenario. But in a long term scenario NATO would with Air power be able to crack Russian air defenses in the Baltics. But the good news is Russia has no interests in the Baltics. Win win for everyone, but a lose to NATO taxpayers because Russia is now considered a threat and NATO will deploy a whole bunch of stuff to counter our threat. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

That NATO could eventually muster sufficient firepower to retake the Baltics is not in question. What is in question is if there would be political will to do so. The Baltic states are not comparable in importance to West Germany, Belgium, France ect. in coldly-calculated strategic terms and it's debatable if NATO would collectively be willing to risk nuclear escalation in the same way they were during the Cold War. And Russia could be punished in non-military ways. But I agree that this is more about reassurance of nervous eastern NATO members than any belief that Russia is really going to invade (the US portion of the build-up is actually called the European Assurance Initiative).

Edited May 15, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[VladimirTarasov]

3 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That NATO could eventually muster sufficient firepower to retake the Baltics is not in question. What is in question is if there would be political will to do so. The Baltic states are not comparable in importance to West Germany, Belgium, France ect. in coldly-calculated strategic terms and it's debatable if NATO would collectively be willing to risk nuclear escalation in the same way they were during the Cold War. And Russia could be punished in non-military ways. But I agree that this is more about reassurance of nervous eastern NATO members than any belief that Russia is really going to invade (the US portion of the build-up is actually called the European Assurance Initiative).

NATO would indeed respond to a full out invasion of the Baltics, although any threats posed to Russian territories (Like Kaliningrad) will meet the threat of tactical nukes being used against military infrastructure of NATO. Which is indeed a bargaining chip against NATO superiority, as you mentioned it would make NATO think its plan through due to nuclear escalation. 

Everything aside, I really hope hope these tensions are swept aside as all these new military build ups do not show a great future ahead.

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

43 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

NATO would indeed respond to a full out invasion of the Baltics, although any threats posed to Russian territories (Like Kaliningrad) will meet the threat of tactical nukes being used against military infrastructure of NATO. Which is indeed a bargaining chip against NATO superiority, as you mentioned it would make NATO think its plan through due to nuclear escalation. 

Everything aside, I really hope hope these tensions are swept aside as all these new military build ups do not show a great future ahead.

 

Of course, the interesting caveat no one seems to ever talk about is the "what next?" after nuclear escalation is employed.  

[Michael Emrys]

3 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Of course, the interesting caveat no one seems to ever talk about is the "what next?" after nuclear escalation is employed.  

What's next would probably entail large swaths of the planet being uninhabitable for long periods of time. Of course, there would also be fewer people, but I am not sure I see that as a net gain.

Michael

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Just now, Michael Emrys said:

What's next would probably entail large swaths of the planet being uninhabitable for long periods of time. Of course, there would also be fewer people, but I am not sure I see that as a net gain.

Michael

Wrong direction.  Russia threatens total nuclear war in the event of Kalingrad being hit/THE BALTICS ARE NOW RUSSIA AND IF NATO TROOPS TOUCH NUKES FLY.

What are the consequences of this?  I don't think NATO will spin up and risk nuclear retaliation.  I do think the second and third order effects of that sort of Russian action will be as disastrous as a losing war with NATO.  

[Michael Emrys]

6 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

What are the consequences of this?  I don't think NATO will spin up and risk nuclear retaliation.  I do think the second and third order effects of that sort of Russian action will be as disastrous as a losing war with NATO.  

Good point. That might be by far the best way to play it, but it would take patience on the part of the West at exactly the time when patience is running thin in Washington, depending on who wins the election this year.

Michael

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

Good point. That might be by far the best way to play it, but it would take patience on the part of the West at exactly the time when patience is running thin in Washington, depending on who wins the election this year.

Michael

Oh totally.  It's a lot more complicated than I'd dare to actually give much of a estimate on.  It's just the Russian narrative usually ends with discussing their nuclear deterrent in regards to off setting NATO's ability to do harm.  I don't think many folks who ascribe much power to that position go the second step and visualize a world in which Latvia has been annexed at nuclear gunpoint and what that does to Russia's place in the world. 

[Michael Emrys]

20 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

...what that does to Russia's place in the world. 

Might make it hard for them to get new Mercedes for a while.

Michael

[LUCASWILLEN05]

On 5/16/2016 at 2:45 AM, Michael Emrys said:

What's next would probably entail large swaths of the planet being uninhabitable for long periods of time. Of course, there would also be fewer people, but I am not sure I see that as a net gain.

Michael

Watch the Day After and/or Threads and you will probably get the idea. Alternatively, as WOPR concluded "How about a nice game of Chess :-)

Edited May 17, 2016 by LUCASWILLEN05

[LUCASWILLEN05]

On 5/16/2016 at 2:49 AM, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Wrong direction.  Russia threatens total nuclear war in the event of Kalingrad being hit/THE BALTICS ARE NOW RUSSIA AND IF NATO TROOPS TOUCH NUKES FLY.

What are the consequences of this?  I don't think NATO will spin up and risk nuclear retaliation.  I do think the second and third order effects of that sort of Russian action will be as disastrous as a losing war with NATO.  

It may depend on whichever NATO leader is LEAST stable. Is this a good time to mention Donald Trump? :-)

[Kinophile]

Panzer,  interesting question. 

Post Nuke,  I'd imagine US would quickly  pile a lot more ABM systems into Europe, primarily naval. I don't kmow if the US would go nuclear also -  they have a lot if conventional toys to play with before that threshold. That lack of abundance is exactly why Russia talks nuclear so early. 

If Putin or his successor is bananas enough to nuke then I imagine an incessant,  deep strike decapitation campaign against him and his circle would kick in,  massively. NATO doesn't  need to fight a positional,  thousand Mike front war these days, and its forces are still perfectly capable of fighting through a nuclear environment,  probably far more so than Russia. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by kinophile

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

On 5/16/2016 at 6:57 PM, Michael Emrys said:

Good point. That might be by far the best way to play it, but it would take patience on the part of the West at exactly the time when patience is running thin in Washington, depending on who wins the election this year.

Michael

Oh totally.  It's a lot more complicated than I'd dare to actually give much of a estimate on.  It's just the Russian narrative usually ends with discussing their nuclear deterrent in regards to off setting NATO's ability to do harm.  I don't think many folks who ascribe much power to that position go the second step and visualize a world in which Latvia has been annexed at nuclear gunpoint and what that does to Russia's place in the world. 

 

 

4 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

It may depend on whichever NATO leader is LEAST stable. Is this a good time to mention Donald Trump? :-)

Which then puts the ball back in the court of the Russians, does NovolithaniaRuss people's republic merit starting world war three?  And looking at how the Donbass has been supported, I'd contend the nuclear element might be a bluff that gets called.  If Russia genuinely was to try to accomplish what it has been attempting to do in Eastern Ukraine, regardless of international attention, pressure, or response, we'd have seen a full scale overt invasion.  

On the other hand if Russia fails to launch when it threatens to launch, it no longer has a credible nuclear threat.  

What is more likely is Russia threatens "severe retaliation" leaving it as an implied nuclear threat.  If the bluff is called then a non-nuclear response of some kind is done, as the value of nuclear deterrance being seen as still functional is way higher to Russia than likely all of the Ukraine and Poland, with Paris on the side.  

 

4 hours ago, kinophile said:

Panzer,  interesting question. 

Post Nuke,  I'd imagine US would quickly  pile a lot more ABM systems into Europe, primarily naval. I don't kmow if the US would go nuclear also -  they have a lot if conventional toys to play with before that threshold. That lack of abundance is exactly why Russia talks nuclear so early. 

If Putin or his successor is bananas enough to nuke then I imagine an incessant,  deep strike decapitation campaign against him and his circle would kick in,  massively. NATO doesn't  need to fight a positional,  thousand Mike front war these days, and its forces are still perfectly capable of fighting through a nuclear environment,  probably far more so than Russia. 

I don't think people are understanding me.  I'm not arguing a post nuclear strike, I'm arguing what happens when Russia threatens a nuclear strike.  At this point there are two likely outcomes:

1. NATO backs down.  

2. NATO calls the bluff.

Both are lose-lose for Russia.  Two has been discussed in depth and detail.  It either results in a mutually destructive nuclear war that vastly outweighs whatever Russia might have gained by offensive action, or in totally discrediting nuclear deterrence on Russia's part, which undermines the entire Russian defense plan and policy.  One while at face value is a victory for Russia and undermines NATO to some extent, it does paint Russia squarely into a corner in which the rest of the world at large will endeavor to keep it locked up in, and modern Russia could not survive that sort of real isolation.  

So in that, again I've seen a lot of "and then Strategic Forces...." stuff around the web, without really looking at the what next.  It's almost like it's being treated as the old "ENDEX" radio call in which the exercise is now over and everything is back to normal.  There would be very real, very bad consequences of even threatening nuclear weapons release in support of limited war and they should be discussed.

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 

On the other hand if Russia fails to launch when it threatens to launch, it no longer has a credible nuclear threat.  

 

Which,  if it did back off initially, could make it much more likely to actually fire the next time,  or that on a follow situation  it jumps too quickly to escalation., to recover credibility. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Hopefully we never get to find out but what is intended as a limited exchange could well escalate out f control. There ghas never been a war between two nuclear powers. My personal view is that the leaders of the two sides will be too scared of the consequences ever to uncork the nuclear genie and the conflict will remain a conventional one. possibly one extended through months and possibly even years.

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Going back to the original issue of a Russian occupation of the Baltic States. This would probably start a war between Russia and NATO (the North Atlantis Treaty provision coming into play) the question  is how many NATO nations would be prepared to risk a full scale conventional war with Russia, a nuclear power, and therefore  a possible escalation to  nuclear exchange as we have discussed. On the other hand it could be both sides are too scared to go nuclear in which case you get he bloody conventional conflict portrayed in CMBS

There is however a third possibility which is NATO decides to do nothing. In this case Russia gets away with occupying and annexing a three small NATO states. In this case NATO would be a dead letter and indeed might not survive as a security organisation. Furthermore Putin would be emboldened to attack Ukraine and possibly Poland and/or Romania assuming NATO broke up after the Baltic States strategic disaster. To avoid such a nightmare scenario NATO  would have to defend the Baltic States

[Battlefront.com]

I personally don't see a situation where the Baltics are attacked and NATO sits by due to political disagreements.  Maybe if Russia had Green Man'd them 5 years ago, but not now.  Green Men have been declared Article 5 material and NATO is putting even more "trigger forces" into the Baltics.  Which means if Russia were to attack they would be killing US, British, German, Polish, and other forces as well as Baltic.  Can anybody show me a single instance of US military forces being attacked by a nation state NOT being dealt with militarily?  Never.  Having seen how quickly the American population went from placid to war mongering after 9/11, I think it is utterly stupid to presume that the US would not retaliate in a MAJOR way if Russia killed even 1 US service member.  And if the US is going to go to war with Russia, so are a lot of other nations even if they don't really want to.  And since the US has enough military force to affect a major defeat upon Russia even without any European help, even if countries like Germany balk on their NATO treaty obligations and sensible self interests, Russia would be in big trouble.

However, this is not really all that should be considered.  If Russia were to take the Baltics, killing NATO forces in the process, the gloves would come off.  Ukraine would be fully armed and would go on the offensive with NATO forces (i.e. the Black Sea game scenario), which would quickly result in a crushing defeat for Russia without a doubt.  The Caucuses would likely pick up where they left off after the 2nd Chechen War and NATO would be not-very-covertly helping with money and weapons.  Transnistria would be returned to Moldovan government control.  Georgia would have a chance to take back its territory with direct NATO assistance.  Economically, Russia would be banned from SWIFT and a full trade embargo and asset freeze.  Any nation that so much as hesitated to be on board with that would face immediate wrath of the US economic leverage points.  China would be pressured to shut Russia out of trade, or at least make it much more costly.  The "Stan" republics would be incentivized (by money, weapons, trade deals) to deny Russia what it currently gets from the region.  The Black Sea fleet would have to stay in port.  Electronic warfare would be waged, which might not be so good for the West, but definitely would heap more problems onto Russia's plate as well. More than likely there would be at least one coup attempt, perhaps by forces even dumber than whomever thought taking the Baltics was a good idea.

The list goes on and on.  But notice what I've not mentioned; attacks on soil that Russians unequivocally view as their own.  I even removed the possibility of direct NATO on Russian Federation force conflict, such as trying to retake the Baltics.  Why risk a nuclear response when it's absolutely unnecessary?

This is why I don't think Russia will invade the Baltics.  It's not only a losing proposition in terms of the short term, it's suicidal as a nation state.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

33 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I personally don't see a situation where the Baltics are attacked and NATO sits by due to political disagreements.  Maybe if Russia had Green Man'd them 5 years ago, but not now.  Green Men have been declared Article 5 material and NATO is putting even more "trigger forces" into the Baltics.  Which means if Russia were to attack they would be killing US, British, German, Polish, and other forces as well as Baltic.  Can anybody show me a single instance of US military forces being attacked by a nation state NOT being dealt with militarily?  Never.  Having seen how quickly the American population went from placid to war mongering after 9/11, I think it is utterly stupid to presume that the US would not retaliate in a MAJOR way if Russia killed even 1 US service member.  And if the US is going to go to war with Russia, so are a lot of other nations even if they don't really want to.  And since the US has enough military force to affect a major defeat upon Russia even without any European help, even if countries like Germany balk on their NATO treaty obligations and sensible self interests, Russia would be in big trouble.

However, this is not really all that should be considered.  If Russia were to take the Baltics, killing NATO forces in the process, the gloves would come off.  Ukraine would be fully armed and would go on the offensive with NATO forces (i.e. the Black Sea game scenario), which would quickly result in a crushing defeat for Russia without a doubt.  The Caucuses would likely pick up where they left off after the 2nd Chechen War and NATO would be not-very-covertly helping with money and weapons.  Transnistria would be returned to Moldovan government control.  Georgia would have a chance to take back its territory with direct NATO assistance.  Economically, Russia would be banned from SWIFT and a full trade embargo and asset freeze.  Any nation that so much as hesitated to be on board with that would face immediate wrath of the US economic leverage points.  China would be pressured to shut Russia out of trade, or at least make it much more costly.  The "Stan" republics would be incentivized (by money, weapons, trade deals) to deny Russia what it currently gets from the region.  The Black Sea fleet would have to stay in port.  Electronic warfare would be waged, which might not be so good for the West, but definitely would heap more problems onto Russia's plate as well. More than likely there would be at least one coup attempt, perhaps by forces even dumber than whomever thought taking the Baltics was a good idea.

The list goes on and on.  But notice what I've not mentioned; attacks on soil that Russians unequivocally view as their own.  I even removed the possibility of direct NATO on Russian Federation force conflict, such as trying to retake the Baltics.  Why risk a nuclear response when it's absolutely unnecessary?

This is why I don't think Russia will invade the Baltics.  It's not only a losing proposition in terms of the short term, it's suicidal as a nation state.

Steve

I think NATO would have to act in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States or the very good reason that, if it did not, it would be seen as ineffective. However, in the CMBS scenario during which some NATO states ave joined an intervention in Ukraine (let's say the US, UK and Poland) but other NATO nations stay out and then Russia invades the Baltic States then the situation may be less clear. Then the Russian move into the Baltic States could be portrayed as something else such as relieving the Kaliningrad Oblast from the threat of a NATO attack. The question then is whether currently neutral NATO powers (say France, the Benelux nations, Denmark, Norway etc) would see this as an Article 5 issue or as part of a conflict begun by the US decision to intervene in Ukraine. In this situation a NATO split may be a possibility.

 

This does not mean that the US could not defeat Russia. It could but if other NaTO nations closed their territory to Us logistics and troop movements if the Russian navy  were able to interdict, if only for a short time he Russian army would have a chance o win the war before US reinforcements could deploy.This window would not be open long, a few days, perhaps a couple of weeks. Within that time Russia would aim for a battlefield military victory big enough to  seek a favorable political solution perhaps with the threat of nuclear blackmail. I  think Putin could be ruthless enough to try this strategy but what happens if his bluff is called. Does he back dow and look like a loser. Or does he try a demonstrtyion attack?

There has never been a war between two nuclear powers. We don't know how such a scenario would play out - and we only get one run of the experiment....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HVlxmBIB6M&list=PL8CFF702EE534FE81

 

[Battlefront.com]

Poland would not only open it's territory to US forces, it would probably go into large scale mobilization. 

1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

I think NATO would have to act in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States or the very good reason that, if it did not, it would be seen as ineffective. However, in the CMBS scenario during which some NATO states ave joined an intervention in Ukraine (let's say the US, UK and Poland) but other NATO nations stay out and then Russia invades the Baltic States then the situation may be less clear. Then the Russian move into the Baltic States could be portrayed as something else such as relieving the Kaliningrad Oblast from the threat of a NATO attack. The question then is whether currently neutral NATO powers (say France, the Benelux nations, Denmark, Norway etc) would see this as an Article 5 issue or as part of a conflict begun by the US decision to intervene in Ukraine. In this situation a NATO split may be a possibility.

Fact... the Baltics are a part of NATO.  Fact... if Russia invaded it would be Article 5.  Fact... non-Baltic forces would be killed in any such invasion.  There is absolutely no wiggle room for Article 5 if the Baltic states aren't involved in Ukraine since the only "out" is if a nation goes rouge.  And even if the Baltic countries were involved in Ukraine, under the Black Sea story the action there is NATO sanctioned which, therefore, negates the "out" clause.

Quote

This does not mean that the US could not defeat Russia. It could but if other NaTO nations closed their territory to Us logistics and troop movements

Any NATO nation that closed its space to the US would be in for a very, very, very long term rough ride with the biggest military and economic power in the world.  One that has shown every indication that it will hold "friends" accountable for not living up to their obligations.  Some nations might be reluctant to do commit their military forces, but defy an enraged US which is, ultimately, protecting Europe's long term interests?  Oh, I don't think so. Even the biggest weasels in politics understand the first rule of political survival is to pick the winning side and do nothing to piss it off.  Russia has no chance of winning, and not much chance of surviving, so I don't think you'd see many burning their bridges with the US (and others) and being left on the wrong side of the river.

Again, there is no scenario for Russia invading the Baltics that doesn't included significant dead service personnel from non-Baltic NATO countries.  If 9/11 showed us anything it is how quickly the typical laid back American attitude can switch to "you're either with us or against us" mentality.  I think you'd see the same thing in Britain and probably some other countries.  Whatever ambiguity and dithering that is normal in Brussels would go away within an hour.  Dithering and wiggling out of things would only come later after, possibly.

One only has to look at the recent events.  What has NATO's reaction been to increased Russian aggression?  Building up its capabilities and challenging Russian "probes".  Politically Putin hasn't been able to divide the EU on sanctions either.  An overt Russian war of aggression into the Baltics would see even more resolve, not less.  I admit I wasn't so sure back in 2014 how things would go, but so far I think NATO is doing pretty well.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

21 hours ago, kinophile said:

Which,  if it did back off initially, could make it much more likely to actually fire the next time,  or that on a follow situation  it jumps too quickly to escalation., to recover credibility. 

The only winning move in nuclear weapons is not to play.  The key to MAD type strategy however is setting conditions that force you to play, or giving your enemy the impression you are crazy enough to play.  The US does this by setting nuclear release conditions intended to make it risky to fire off ANY nuclear weapons anywhere (or even Chemical or Biological) because the US policy is not to recognize a difference between a tactical, strategic, or other nuclear device, they all will be replied to with our strategic arms.  The Russians do it by ending wargames with nuking Warsaw to save the motherland from defending Polish forces.  

It's all about keeping the risk perception high enough to make crossing certain lines too dangerous.  If you set the lines too low they're going to get crossed, and you're going to lose credibility as in the end I doubt anyone is itching for a nuclear war.

 

 

3 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Blerp Blerp

 

Here's a few rapid points in passing as we've danced this dance before:

1. Russian forces in the Baltics would trigger a full NATO response.  It's simple as that.  By policy, and national interest no NATO powers have any desire to see Russia expanding West, and sitting out a Baltic war is effectively supporting just that.  They may not throw all in, or waffle on what part of the bill they'll foot, but frankly it'd absurd to imagine NATO fracturing in the face of effectively naked Russian aggression.  

2. Putin is ruthless and an opportunist.  He is also not an idiot.  Russia is not strong enough reasonably take on the west, and even if it "won" it wouldn't survive such a victory for long.

[VladimirTarasov]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I personally don't see a situation where the Baltics are attacked and NATO sits by due to political disagreements.  Maybe if Russia had Green Man'd them 5 years ago, but not now.  Green Men have been declared Article 5 material and NATO is putting even more "trigger forces" into the Baltics.  Which means if Russia were to attack they would be killing US, British, German, Polish, and other forces as well as Baltic.  Can anybody show me a single instance of US military forces being attacked by a nation state NOT being dealt with militarily?  Never.  Having seen how quickly the American population went from placid to war mongering after 9/11, I think it is utterly stupid to presume that the US would not retaliate in a MAJOR way if Russia killed even 1 US service member.  And if the US is going to go to war with Russia, so are a lot of other nations even if they don't really want to.  And since the US has enough military force to affect a major defeat upon Russia even without any European help, even if countries like Germany balk on their NATO treaty obligations and sensible self interests, Russia would be in big trouble.

However, this is not really all that should be considered.  If Russia were to take the Baltics, killing NATO forces in the process, the gloves would come off.  Ukraine would be fully armed and would go on the offensive with NATO forces (i.e. the Black Sea game scenario), which would quickly result in a crushing defeat for Russia without a doubt.  The Caucuses would likely pick up where they left off after the 2nd Chechen War and NATO would be not-very-covertly helping with money and weapons.  Transnistria would be returned to Moldovan government control.  Georgia would have a chance to take back its territory with direct NATO assistance.  Economically, Russia would be banned from SWIFT and a full trade embargo and asset freeze.  Any nation that so much as hesitated to be on board with that would face immediate wrath of the US economic leverage points.  China would be pressured to shut Russia out of trade, or at least make it much more costly.  The "Stan" republics would be incentivized (by money, weapons, trade deals) to deny Russia what it currently gets from the region.  The Black Sea fleet would have to stay in port.  Electronic warfare would be waged, which might not be so good for the West, but definitely would heap more problems onto Russia's plate as well. More than likely there would be at least one coup attempt, perhaps by forces even dumber than whomever thought taking the Baltics was a good idea.

The list goes on and on.  But notice what I've not mentioned; attacks on soil that Russians unequivocally view as their own.  I even removed the possibility of direct NATO on Russian Federation force conflict, such as trying to retake the Baltics.  Why risk a nuclear response when it's absolutely unnecessary?

This is why I don't think Russia will invade the Baltics.  It's not only a losing proposition in terms of the short term, it's suicidal as a nation state.

Steve

The Caucuses will not lift off from the 2nd war, as the people of Chechnya are now getting perfectly along with us and we won the 2nd Chechen war. Sure a small insurgency why not, there's one currently(Terrorist cells instead of a rebellion mind you). Georgia cannot take any territories back without being tactically bombed on their military infrastructure. In 2008 we beat Georgians with a way less technologically capable force, and with less numbers. Georgia has upgraded its forces from back then, but Russia has too. (and our larger forces are right next door)

As for Ukraine, NATO countries trained them during the war and Russian backed DPR and LPR had successes against them. What can NATO provide that can change the outcome? If Ukraine were to invade with NATO towards Russia you can expect the whole country to be mobilized (including me so I'd rather not a war to start  ) I agree with you that the surface vessels of the Black Sea fleet(All Russian fleets) would have to stay in port (50 KMs out at most) NATO is just superior in terms of air power (numbers alone) mind you I'm not saying that Russia would be able to beat NATO on a full scale invasion on our territories but you can expect tactical nukes to fly on NATO bases, just as how NATO would send tactical nukes onto our bases. (Which is enough to shut both sides off from a war like this and as you have stated Steve, NATO would win based on embargos alone. Not counting militarily.)

China has a very big gas deal with us, If they were to trade us in for America (highly doubted as Russia is now buying a bunch of stuff from China) they have a thing to worry about. Plus Russia isn't denying Chinese claims in their seas, with military tension. 

What will harm Russia the most is economical sanctions, it'd be very bad to say the least. So sure we are pretty scared to invade the Baltics.