LUCASWILLEN05

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.

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.

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 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"

Maybe defence budget costs were also a consideration. As we previously discussed HMMVs lack armored protection which is obviously unhealthy in an armoured conat environmet. Perhaps an air defense version of Stryker might be a better answer now that Heavy Divisions include both Bradleys and Strykers. Probably Stryker is abourt as well armoured as a Bradley anyway so it would meat that criteria and would be able to keep up as the Bradley/Linebacker system could

Looks like a variant on the pre game publication "are we there yet" posts

I often have found them useful for blasting their way into buildings as well as through internal walls. Naturally of course we cannot always expect to have this capability in urbbn scenarios etc They are fairly scarce resource

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.

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//

You have done some research haven't you

Whgen you check your air assets you find out!

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.

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.

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.

Assuming it is actually still in service and has no been cu to make financial savings. Anyway, if not in service i may not be that simple to bring it back quickly if needed. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/44-44/Ch1.htm

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

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?

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

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

Perhaps a week or two to destroy the Russian Black Sea Fleet followed by a few weeks of air and missile bombardment. I see a Marine amphibious landing no earlier than early August. Alternatively the Mariines could do something like what they did in 1991. Make lots of noise about big amphibious assauls on the Southern Crimeat. Meanwhile the Marines use Italian ports and move up by land though Roumania into Southern Ukraine, Sometime in early to mid August the Crimean operation takes place, probably using a combination of land assault and ammphibious cababilities. But the main assault goes in by land from the north

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

Apparently Linebacker was taken out of service in 2006. US AAA certainly seems to be weak and they may suffer for this cut in the event of war with someone with a decent airforce such as Russia - at least until the USAF wins the air war. Which mght be some time into the conflict. In the meantime US ground troops have a problem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2/M3_Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle#M6_Linebacker

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.

Well, he has alienated pretty much every government in the West. However he still seems to have a good relationship with China http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-russias-president-is-putin-the-great-in-china-1412217002 He is probably relying on support from the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. While he has that he has imporrtant and powerful friends.

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.