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

[Vanir Ausf B]

From a wargaming perspective a full-on Russian invasion of the Baltics is a lot of fun but in reality is one of the least likely conflict scenarios. A more probable (albeit still remote) scenario would be Russia seizing a small chunk of land bloodlessly, thereby presenting NATO with the politically uncomfortable proposition of shooting first followed by the militarily difficult task of fighting Russia on Russia's own border. Again, not likely to happen but a less stupid way for Russia to challenge NATO's legitimacy than sending 30 battalion tactical groups hurling towards Poland.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1. Chechnya is most certainly no terribly happy with being in Russia judging from Russia external sources.  Continued terror operations from the Chechens, and counter-terrorism operations by the Russians seem to indicate an insurgency that is either in remission, or biding its time vs a resolved situation.  Large scale military operations against NATO would provide an opportunity for Chechens to again visit their grievances writ large.  

2. Georgia as part of a larger war would be fun times for Russia, simply because it'd either obligate forces away from the decisive theater to preclude NATO/Georgian attack (and rest assured, tactically bombed would end with a lot of dead Russian pilots and very little else if NATO is in play, whatever Russian air efforts succeed are reliant on massing forces, distributing them across theaters would simply allow them to be killed piecemeal), or invite an undoing of Russia's regional goals.  

3. If NATO supported the Ukrainians like Russia supports the insurgents, Donbass would be securely in the hands of the Ukrainians, and the DPR and LPR leadership would be in jail or swinging from lampposts depending on how merciful the Ukrainians are feeling.  With a large amount of highly illegal support the insurgents are only holding the Ukrainians at bay.  If this support had to go elsewhere, the Ukrainian situation would be settled quite quickly.  

4. The only folks who are seriously considering tactical nuclear weapons would be the Russians.  Which would certainly end very well for the Russians and I am sure will have no lasting repercussions the next time Russia needs food.  

5. China is not Russia's friend.  You were traded a long time ago, and the amount of trade that China does with the western powers makes Russia's look like chump change.  China's interest in Russia is making money off of you.  Once you're not a worthwhile investment (at war with NATO), they'll declare neutrality, implore a return to peace by all sides, stop taking the Russian ambassador's phonecalls, contact the US/UK/etc to reassure them they're sitting this one out, and to offer reduced prices on electronics for customer loyalty or something.  

Russia would lose in every way possible in the event it provokes a conventional war.  I think the interesting what if is if it'd be a civil war or just a failed state that would result.   

Edited May 19, 2016 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

7 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

From a wargaming perspective a full-on Russian invasion of the Baltics is a lot of fun but in reality is one of the least likely conflict scenarios. A more probable (albeit still remote) scenario would be Russia seizing a small chunk of land bloodlessly, thereby presenting NATO with the politically uncomfortable proposition of shooting first followed by the militarily difficult task of fighting Russia on Russia's own border. Again, not likely to happen but a less stupid way for Russia to challenge NATO's legitimacy than sending 30 battalion tactical groups hurling towards Poland.

Perhaps, but that's why NATO is pushing for light rapidly deployable forces.  Russia has to seriously commit to rolling up a Battalion of NATO troops in the attack, which really rather complicates the whole mess quite quickly.  

It's all about denying the easy grab and forcing Russia to either prepare for a war it will lose, or reconsider its actions.  Which gets to the heart of why NATO really exists, viable deterrence of Russian aggression.  

[VladimirTarasov]

31 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. Chechnya is most certainly no terribly happy with being in Russia judging from Russia external sources.  Continued terror operations from the Chechens, and counter-terrorism operations by the Russians seem to indicate an insurgency that is either in remission, or biding its time vs a resolved situation.  Large scale military operations against NATO would provide an opportunity for Chechens to again visit their grievances writ large.  

2. Georgia as part of a larger war would be fun times for Russia, simply because it'd either obligate forces away from the decisive theater to preclude NATO/Georgian attack (and rest assured, tactically bombed would end with a lot of dead Russian pilots and very little else if NATO is in play, whatever Russian air efforts succeed are reliant on massing forces, distributing them across theaters would simply allow them to be killed piecemeal).  

3. If NATO supported the Ukrainians like Russia supports the insurgents, Donbass would be securely in the hands of the Ukrainains, and the DPR and LPR leadership would be in jail or swinging from lampposts depending on how merciful the Ukrainians are feeling.  With a large amount of highly illegal support the insurgents are only holding the Ukrainians at bay.  If this support had to go elsewhere, the Ukrainian situation would be settled quite quickly.  

4. The only folks who are seriously considering tactical nuclear weapons would be the Russians.  Which would certainly end very well for the Russians and I am sure will have no lasting repercussions the next time Russia needs food.  

5. China is not Russia's friend.  You were traded a long time ago, and the amount of trade that China does with the western powers makes Russia's look like chump change.  China's interest in Russia is making money off of you.  Once you're not a worthwhile investment (at war with NATO), they'll declare neutrality, implore a return to peace by all sides, stop taking the Russian ambassador's phonecalls, contact the US/UK/etc to reassure them they're sitting this one out, and to offer reduced prices on electronics for customer loyalty or something.  

Russia would lose in every way possible in the event it provokes a conventional war.  I think the interesting what if is if it'd be a civil war or just a failed state that would result.   

Sure buddy  you gave me alot to write back on, I'm gonna write back to you later.

Edited May 19, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

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.

Oh, here we go again. Duchess, where are you?  

[VladimirTarasov]

Ok 

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. Chechnya is most certainly no terribly happy with being in Russia judging from Russia external sources.  Continued terror operations from the Chechens, and counter-terrorism operations by the Russians seem to indicate an insurgency that is either in remission, or biding its time vs a resolved situation.  Large scale military operations against NATO would provide an opportunity for Chechens to again visit their grievances writ large.  

2. Georgia as part of a larger war would be fun times for Russia, simply because it'd either obligate forces away from the decisive theater to preclude NATO/Georgian attack (and rest assured, tactically bombed would end with a lot of dead Russian pilots and very little else if NATO is in play, whatever Russian air efforts succeed are reliant on massing forces, distributing them across theaters would simply allow them to be killed piecemeal), or invite an undoing of Russia's regional goals.  

3. If NATO supported the Ukrainians like Russia supports the insurgents, Donbass would be securely in the hands of the Ukrainians, and the DPR and LPR leadership would be in jail or swinging from lampposts depending on how merciful the Ukrainians are feeling.  With a large amount of highly illegal support the insurgents are only holding the Ukrainians at bay.  If this support had to go elsewhere, the Ukrainian situation would be settled quite quickly.  

4. The only folks who are seriously considering tactical nuclear weapons would be the Russians.  Which would certainly end very well for the Russians and I am sure will have no lasting repercussions the next time Russia needs food.  

5. China is not Russia's friend.  You were traded a long time ago, and the amount of trade that China does with the western powers makes Russia's look like chump change.  China's interest in Russia is making money off of you.  Once you're not a worthwhile investment (at war with NATO), they'll declare neutrality, implore a return to peace by all sides, stop taking the Russian ambassador's phonecalls, contact the US/UK/etc to reassure them they're sitting this one out, and to offer reduced prices on electronics for customer loyalty or something.  

Russia would lose in every way possible in the event it provokes a conventional war.  I think the interesting what if is if it'd be a civil war or just a failed state that would result.   

1. A rebellion is looked down upon by a great majority of Chechens as they have their own republic. Grozny is among the happiest cities in Russia, check it out. And BTW I have talked to Chechens in Grozny. I've been there 2 times. 

2. Perhaps tactically bombed would end a disaster if NATO had AA asystems that can hit planes that launch KH-55 missiles 2,500 KM away? (TU-22s TU-95s TU-160 can drop these in a bunch of numbers) Georgian military bases would be flattened in a day if they are looking for full scale war.

3. If NATO supported the Ukrainians like Russia supports the insurgents, There would be an active Russian military presence (in other terms official battalions worth of units) deployed to counter set that.

4. Sure that is maybe why US has active tactical nuclear weapons in quite a few NATO airbases? If we starve fighting a war so be it.

5. China is Russia's friend, but I'm not saying China will fight NATO for Russia that is silly. They wont sell their selves to the US against Russia either. That is a sign of weakness.

Russia is not as weak as you make it to be. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Perhaps, but that's why NATO is pushing for light rapidly deployable forces.  Russia has to seriously commit to rolling up a Battalion of NATO troops in the attack, which really rather complicates the whole mess quite quickly.  

It's all about denying the easy grab and forcing Russia to either prepare for a war it will lose, or reconsider its actions.  Which gets to the heart of why NATO really exists, viable deterrence of Russian aggression.  

Yes, but the thing is these forces are not deployed along the Russian border. The portion of the ERI ABCT in the Baltics is based in Lithuania. By the sounds of it NATO wants to add another battalion in the Baltics but you can bet it will also be in Lithuania to avoid creating a security dilemma.

[Codename Duchess]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Oh, here we go again. Duchess, where are you?  

Don't worry, I saw that.  I figured I'd let it fizzle unless it blew up again.  I am prepared to make more bingo cards.

 

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

2. Perhaps tactically bombed would end a disaster if NATO had AA asystems that can hit planes that launch KH-55 missiles 2,500 KM away? (TU-22s TU-95s TU-160 can drop these in a bunch of numbers) Georgian military bases would be flattened in a day if they are looking for full scale war.

Thing is you don't have a lot of those missiles or bombers to spare so using them on Georgia seems like a waste (although a safe one).  Plus cruise missiles can be shot down easily enough, especially if you know they're coming (it's hard to hide bomber sorties in the age of the internet).

[HUSKER2142]

Why Russia to capture the Baltic countries? She has the Kaliningrad region, which is an excellent military region. Kaliningrad region as a pain in the back at NATO. Here NATO have to worry anymore.

 

^{"Зачем России захватывать Балтийские страны ? У неё есть Калининградская область , которая является великолепным военным регионом . Калининградская область как шило в задней точке НАТО . Тут блоку НАТО надо волноваться больше ."}

[HUSKER2142]

4 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. Chechnya is most certainly no terribly happy with being in Russia judging from Russia external sources.  Continued terror operations from the Chechens, and counter-terrorism operations by the Russians seem to indicate an insurgency that is either in remission, or biding its time vs a resolved situation.  Large scale military operations against NATO would provide an opportunity for Chechens to again visit their grievances writ large.  

I was in Chechnya and in Grozny was during the service. I can tell  of the Chechens do not want to fight and there are no thoughts of secession from Russia.

^{Я был в Чечне и в самом Грозном был не раз во время службы . И могу сказать никто из чеченцев не хочет воевать и нет никаких мыслей о выходе из состава России .}

 

[Jotte]

2 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Why Russia to capture the Baltic countries? She has the Kaliningrad region, which is an excellent military region. Kaliningrad region as a pain in the back at NATO. Here NATO have to worry anymore.

 

^{"Зачем России захватывать Балтийские страны ? У неё есть Калининградская область , которая является великолепным военным регионом . Калининградская область как шило в задней точке НАТО . Тут блоку НАТО надо волноваться больше ."}

One possible reason is to "safeguard" russian populations in the baltic's. Things could get out of hand in many ways that would lead up to such a move and it wouldnt even have to start at state level (ethnic group clashes etc).

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

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.

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

Definitely  agree. I was simply pointing out a couple of alternative possibilities. Some NATO countries might dither depending on the leaning of the government in power at the time. A more left leaning government might prefer to keep out. i would certainly agree that Poland would commit due to their long and unhappy history with Russia. I would be more concerned about Germany, France, Denmark, the Benelux nations. Possibly also Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Norway particularly if they see little direct threats to their national interests Again it could depend on whether there was a left or rigt wing government in power at the start of a conflict. if the Russians invaded the Baltic States it should be an Article 5. On tje other hand, i the pre war situation there might be doubt and debate regarding Russian intentions. Russia would seek to complete a fait accompli within a matter of days. NATO would then have to choose between accepting the loss of the Baltic States or mobilizing for a major war No doubt Putin would be encouraging the nti war movement

[LUCASWILLEN05]

8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

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.

In theory,yes, the policy is the Baltic States would be defended - and they should be. However, nations with left leaning governments might well be fr less willing to intervene. In Britain's case for example a Conservative government under Cameron probably would. But Cameron has a very slim 12 seat majority and the Labour Party under Corbyn is leaning towards the Far Left. The Syria Debate was very acrimonious although the Government finally go its way with a decent majority. In the case of war with Russia (with the very real risk of nuclear war) we would see strong anti war demonstrations and great Parliamentary opposition particularly with the Labour Party. We could not count on a vote committing Britain to war. If it passed it could be by a very slim margin,

Regarding Putin I agree with you. He would need to win a war quickly before NATO mobilizes and deploys. The Baltic States could be occupied within a few days. Then NATO must choose between mobilizing for a big war o liberate the Baltic States or accepting their loss with all of the consequences to NATO credibility. If Putin were to make threatening noises about "selective nuclear strikes" particularly against the territories of key nations that were politically uncertain about the whole idea of going to war or, so Putin would hope, might be enough o get NATO to negotiate from a position of weakness.

I am not saying that is what would happen, just tat Putin would likely see it that way. As you say h is a ruthless and clever opportunist but is no fool.He knows that he cannot fight a protracted non nuclear conventional war with the West. He also knows the West, particularly European nations fear the likely devastation even a conventional war would cause. Putin is clever enough and ruthless enough to try nuclear blackmail even though  has no intention of actually using them.The question is whether we are prepared to call his bluff

 

Edited May 19, 2016 by LUCASWILLEN05

[LUCASWILLEN05]

46 minutes ago, TJT said:

One possible reason is to "safeguard" russian populations in the baltic's. Things could get out of hand in many ways that would lead up to such a move and it wouldnt even have to start at state level (ethnic group clashes etc).

In a war situation Russia might well decide to occupy the Baltic States to open up a land corridor to Kaliningrad and to prevent NATO from using them as the launchpad for an invasion of Russia. NATO has no intention of doing so but Russia, in view of its' history fears some kind of "Barbarossa 2" St Petersburg is only some 80 miles from the border. Hitler got that far in WW2 from the 1941 border of German occupied Poland. So NATO armoured units could do it - and Russia fears this perceived threat

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Interesting article from 2015 analyzing how a war might start. Possibly a 1914 style crisis

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I heard about this new book by General Sir Richard Shirreff. Entitled "The President's War (US version) 0r 2017 Warwith Russia (UK verson) which looks very relevant to this debate. Looks like it could be a  modern day version of Hackett#s 1980s book Might be worth a look http://www.booksdirect.com.au/books/?isbn=9781473632226

 

[Battlefront.com]

The primary thing to keep in mind is Russia's strategic position in the event of a war with NATO.  It's armed forces are insufficient to fight a war on even one front if the opponent is NATO.  It is certainly incapable of fighting full scale wars in two or three places concurrently.  Here's what would happen if Putin decided, today, that he wanted to take the Baltics.

1.  There would be a major massing of Russia best forces, staffs, and support units in northern Russia.  This would mean leaving poorly equipped, led, and motivated conscript units everywhere else.  Specialized equipment, such as electronic warfare and counter battery systems, would not be available to those areas at all or at least in sufficient quantity. 

2.  NATO would notice this even if it were half asleep and would take measures to try and head off an invasion before is started (there's all kinds of things that it could do to dissuade Putin).  At a minimum the military presence of NATO in the Baltics would be increased and more forces moved around elsewhere.  On the assumption that no dissuasion is possible...

3.  As soon as Russia launched it's attack on the Baltics NATO would have no reason to hold back from interfering with Russia in other places.  For example, Syria, occupied Ukraine, occupied Georgia, occupied Moldova, etc.  With all the best units and capabilities concentrated in the Baltics, these areas would be very easily undermined by EXISTING opposition forces.  Some actions could happen within days, others would take weeks, some might take a month or more.  The important thing is that Russia could do NOTHING about it because it is outnumbered and has given its enemies plenty of reasons to be motivated to retake what Russia has taken from it.  Russia would lose all of these places within days or weeks of military action against its forces.  Especially Syria since there's no way Russia would be able to resupply its forces there.

4a. On the presumption that the Russian forces take the Baltics without suffering too many casualties, the best forces would have to remain in garrison for years.  Otherwise NATO would just walk in and retake it.  Therefore, best case is that Russia can't redeploy its best forces in significant numbers in a timeframe that would matter in terms of what is mentioned in #3.

4b. On the presumption that Russian forces do NOT take the Baltics without significant casualties, things are even worse.  Now Russia not only doesn't have the forces to secure it's many fronts against it's many enemies, but it doesn't necessarily have enough to hold the Baltics which it just fought to secure.  And that gets to this point...

5.  The Russian economy can not take this sort of stress even if everything goes well in the Baltics, because nothing would go well anywhere else.  Everybody that matters would be either at war with Russia or (at best) neutral.  There's even some scenarios where Belarus would side with NATO, depending on circumstances.  China needs the US trade relationship desperately, it does not need anything Russia has to offer.  Anybody that thinks China would side with Russia or even stay neutral is a fool.  In fact, there is an ample body of evidence to suggest that China would militarily take advantage of Russia's poor strategic position and secure for itself even more power in the Stans.  Something that is headed that way already.

6.  More importantly is to think what will happen within Russia itself.  Average Russians would see their standard of living go down the toilet almost overnight.  There would be thousands of dead and more thousands of wounded Russian service personnel (even best case).  And for what?  Nothing that would be worth the pain and suffering.  Just look at Ukraine, where Russia has been waging a war of aggression since the start and has been trying to hide it and the casualties from the Russian people.

The notion that the Caucuses are peaceful and wouldn't take advantage of a major opportunity to revolt, even if on a fairly small scale to start with, is wishful thinking.  History shows that when a security apparatus relies upon fear and violence to stay in power (as Kadyrov absolutely does) the situation can change very quickly.  Once change starts it's very difficult to stop and, often, the security apparatus' response makes the change happen faster and often times more violently (for example Syria).  Whatever change happened it would be to the determent of Moscow's control over the region.  At a minimum Kadyrov would be even more independent of Moscow's control than he already is.

 

Anybody that thinks that Russia doesn't have enough disincentives to attack the Baltics is not looking at the big picture.  One battalion of US forces in the Baltics would be enough to trigger everything I just wrote.  If the Russian government leadership isn't smoking crack they'd see this as well.  Even though I don't think Putin is very smart and is a horrible long term thinker, I don't think he is smoking crack.  He would love to take the Baltics if he could, but I am confident he knows he can not.  So he'll just keep doing what he's been doing which is causing the Baltic region discomfort and distraction from having a normal life.  Putin can play the "spoiler" for a very long time.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The primary thing to keep in mind is Russia's strategic position in the event of a war with NATO.  It's armed forces are insufficient to fight a war on even one front if the opponent is NATO.  It is certainly incapable of fighting full scale wars in two or three places concurrently.  Here's what would happen if Putin decided, today, that he wanted to take the Baltics.

1.  There would be a major massing of Russia best forces, staffs, and support units in northern Russia.  This would mean leaving poorly equipped, led, and motivated conscript units everywhere else.  Specialized equipment, such as electronic warfare and counter battery systems, would not be available to those areas at all or at least in sufficient quantity. 

2.  NATO would notice this even if it were half asleep and would take measures to try and head off an invasion before is started (there's all kinds of things that it could do to dissuade Putin).  At a minimum the military presence of NATO in the Baltics would be increased and more forces moved around elsewhere.  On the assumption that no dissuasion is possible...

3.  As soon as Russia launched it's attack on the Baltics NATO would have no reason to hold back from interfering with Russia in other places.  For example, Syria, occupied Ukraine, occupied Georgia, occupied Moldova, etc.  With all the best units and capabilities concentrated in the Baltics, these areas would be very easily undermined by EXISTING opposition forces.  Some actions could happen within days, others would take weeks, some might take a month or more.  The important thing is that Russia could do NOTHING about it because it is outnumbered and has given its enemies plenty of reasons to be motivated to retake what Russia has taken from it.  Russia would lose all of these places within days or weeks of military action against its forces.  Especially Syria since there's no way Russia would be able to resupply its forces there.

4a. On the presumption that the Russian forces take the Baltics without suffering too many casualties, the best forces would have to remain in garrison for years.  Otherwise NATO would just walk in and retake it.  Therefore, best case is that Russia can't redeploy its best forces in significant numbers in a timeframe that would matter in terms of what is mentioned in #3.

4b. On the presumption that Russian forces do NOT take the Baltics without significant casualties, things are even worse.  Now Russia not only doesn't have the forces to secure it's many fronts against it's many enemies, but it doesn't necessarily have enough to hold the Baltics which it just fought to secure.  And that gets to this point...

5.  The Russian economy can not take this sort of stress even if everything goes well in the Baltics, because nothing would go well anywhere else.  Everybody that matters would be either at war with Russia or (at best) neutral.  There's even some scenarios where Belarus would side with NATO, depending on circumstances.  China needs the US trade relationship desperately, it does not need anything Russia has to offer.  Anybody that thinks China would side with Russia or even stay neutral is a fool.  In fact, there is an ample body of evidence to suggest that China would militarily take advantage of Russia's poor strategic position and secure for itself even more power in the Stans.  Something that is headed that way already.

6.  More importantly is to think what will happen within Russia itself.  Average Russians would see their standard of living go down the toilet almost overnight.  There would be thousands of dead and more thousands of wounded Russian service personnel (even best case).  And for what?  Nothing that would be worth the pain and suffering.  Just look at Ukraine, where Russia has been waging a war of aggression since the start and has been trying to hide it and the casualties from the Russian people.

The notion that the Caucuses are peaceful and wouldn't take advantage of a major opportunity to revolt, even if on a fairly small scale to start with, is wishful thinking.  History shows that when a security apparatus relies upon fear and violence to stay in power (as Kadyrov absolutely does) the situation can change very quickly.  Once change starts it's very difficult to stop and, often, the security apparatus' response makes the change happen faster and often times more violently (for example Syria).  Whatever change happened it would be to the determent of Moscow's control over the region.  At a minimum Kadyrov would be even more independent of Moscow's control than he already is.

 

Anybody that thinks that Russia doesn't have enough disincentives to attack the Baltics is not looking at the big picture.  One battalion of US forces in the Baltics would be enough to trigger everything I just wrote.  If the Russian government leadership isn't smoking crack they'd see this as well.  Even though I don't think Putin is very smart and is a horrible long term thinker, I don't think he is smoking crack.  He would love to take the Baltics if he could, but I am confident he knows he can not.  So he'll just keep doing what he's been doing which is causing the Baltic region discomfort and distraction from having a normal life.  Putin can play the "spoiler" for a very long time.

Steve

Russia would of course be employing political and military Maskirovka deception measures/ They practically invented the art

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36333664

A NATO response might, in the event be delayed politically as the member states debated whether this was a crisis, whether to deploy forces. It depends what the various governments wanted to do == and as indicated earlier politicas can stymie a response as happened over Libya.

One hopes that a US response would be quick and forces deployed to the region in sufficient strength to deter a Russian invasion before it started. However, if Russia saw a divided NATO that might actually encourage a Russian invasion

Putin may be a gambler a bit like Hitler prior to WW2. The question is what happens when his bluff is called. Does Putin know where the Red Line is and does he know not to cross it? Hitler didn't.

[Battlefront.com]

You need to picture everything that goes along with this scenario, not just some of the elements from crisis past.  In particular that Russia would be directly attacking NATO.  Not with Maskirovka, but with blatant military force.

US forces killed by Russia = war on Russia within hours if not days.  Any country that didn't immediately sign on and support the war would face the wrath of the US, which would be unmerciful.  Look at how nasty the US was towards France for not supporting the voluntary 2003 war against Iraq.

Europeans dither when they are allowed to dither.  The US (and others within the EU/NATO) would not allow dithering.  Period.

Again, what each country does/doesn't provide for the war effort is a whole different story.  And yes, Putin's funding of far right and far left political groups might create long term problems.  But remember this... Russia's power is mostly smoke and mirrors.  When put to the real tests it doesn't tend to produce results.  Witness the continued EU sanctions against Russia.

Yes, totalitarian states have a history of making huge blunders because they believe their own propaganda.  It is possible that Putin falls into that category, but I don't think so.  He's more in it for the money and the money is not going to be improved by taking over the Baltics.  Keeping Ukraine out of the EU, on the other hand, does.

Steve

[MikeyD]

I think we'd all be in trouble *if* nation states were still geared towards national defense on the scale of 80+ years ago. But they're simply not. To say nothing of current unwillingness to accept mass casualties. Nobody's going to raise an eight million man army to take over Europe any time soon. I read somewhere (perhaps here) that Ukraine 'rebels' currently field more tanks than Germany. The British army, the last I read, has just 227 active MBTs. These armies are of a sufficient scale to engage in a nasty sub-regional conflict, say the eastern borders of some Baltic state. But nobody's going to be marching to Paris or Moscow any time soon.

Edited May 19, 2016 by MikeyD

[VladimirTarasov]

Yep, Putin indeed is in it for the money. And he isn't he one who actually brought Russian standards high. He's a dictator who only cares for himself. Honestly with no disrespect to anyone, this sounds like CNN and Fox News. Russia would not be able to invade and hold the Baltics. But it would be able to invade and destroy the baltic military, and withdraw. Russia doesn't care about the baltics. They already hate Russia anyways. The only way I see Russia attacking a Baltic country is if the Russian population is abused by the governments of those countries. (Which I don't think is going to happen.) All this media coverage on a Russian invasion onto the baltics is just NATO's way on expaning east ward. Ukraine plans to join NATO by 2020... who would have known. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Yep, Putin indeed is in it for the money. And he isn't he one who actually brought Russian standards high. He's a dictator who only cares for himself. Honestly with no disrespect to anyone, this sounds like CNN and Fox News.

Those two sources couldn't find their way out of a paper bag, so I don't pay much attention to them  

Putin and his supporters are definitely in it for the power and the money more than anything else.  Why am I so sure?  Well, because the decisions they make clearly show no regard for the benefit of the Russian people, the Russian economy, or Russia's standing in the world.  Russia could be a great nation (and in fact SHOULD be), but as long as it's riches are being looted and the people prevented from questioning the abuse, Russia will be nothing more than thug state internationally and a poorer place to live than it could be.

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Russia would not be able to invade and hold the Baltics. But it would be able to invade and destroy the baltic military, and withdraw. Russia doesn't care about the baltics.

Then why is Russia so openly hostile to the Baltics?

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

They already hate Russia anyways. The only way I see Russia attacking a Baltic country is if the Russian population is abused by the governments of those countries. (Which I don't think is going to happen.) All this media coverage on a Russian invasion onto the baltics is just NATO's way on expaning east ward. Ukraine plans to join NATO by 2020... who would have known. 

No, Russia's actions are why NATO is reluctantly expanding again.  NATO was shrinking until Putin deliberately engaged in activities that made everybody very, very nervous.  This includes open threats to countries such as Sweden and Finland, not to mention the Baltics.  Personally, I think Putin is doing some of the things he's doing to provoke a response from NATO because it plays well for domestic propaganda.  All totalitarian states require an external enemy to distract the masses.  NATO is the obvious choice.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Buuuuut, we're getting off track.  To sum up, Russia attacking into the Baltics is state suicide.  Even Green Men is state suicide.  Therefore, I don't think Putin is contemplating it.  Instead I think he is deliberately provoking NATO into expanding in order to give his regime more "street cred" and stir up more internal troubles for the EU/NATO members. 

As for deterrence, one platoon of dead American soldiers is enough to start a full scale war which Russia can't win, so there's no need to put more forces into the Baltics from a deterrence standpoint.  If an all out war with the West isn't enough to keep Putin on his side of the border, a bunch more brigades won't make a difference either IMHO.  However, it is possible that Putin is stupid enough to attack and for that I think it is sensible to have a Plan B readily available.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Russia would not be able to invade and hold the Baltics. But it would be able to invade and destroy the baltic military, and withdraw.

That is a very good point. It does seem that all of these hypothetical scenarios assumes Russia would fight to the bitter end over the Baltics once they invaded but in many ways it would be more sensical to declare mission accomplished and leave. They could be in and out within a few weeks. The only reason I can think of to stay would be if Russian internal politics required it, e.g. to protect oppressed Russian minorities. But I do think that in the pantheon of crazy "Russia attacks!" scenarios the "Russia overruns the Baltic states then digs in to take on all comers" is the craziest and therefore the least probable.

[Codename Duchess]

2 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That is a very good point. It does seem that all of these hypothetical scenarios assumes Russia would fight to the bitter end over the Baltics once they invaded but in many ways it would be more sensical to declare mission accomplished and leave. They could be in and out within a few weeks. The only reason I can think of to stay would be if Russian internal politics required it, e.g. to protect oppressed Russian minorities. But I do think that in the pantheon of crazy "Russia attacks!" scenarios the "Russia overruns the Baltic states then digs in to take on all comers" is the craziest and therefore the least probable.

Thing is the most realistic scenarios for Russia intervening (protecting ethnic Russians or some variation thereof) would require some sort of long(er) term occupation.  Smashing the Baltic Military and leaving will just have a bunch of pissed off citizens looking to avenge their brothers/fathers/neighbors etc against those very same ethnic Russians.