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

[LUCASWILLEN05]

5 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Paranoia, propaganda and all want to destroy us? Have you ever watched your media, your all politicians say that the Russian center of evil and wants to destroy democracy. Each country has its own propaganda, but we all have our own head on his shoulders, and it must always be remembered.

 

^{Паранойя , пропаганда и все нас хотят уничтожить ? Вы когда смотрели ваше СМИ , у вас все политики говорят о том что Россия центр зла и она хочет уничтожить демократию . У каждой страны своя пропаганда , но у нас всех есть своя голова на плечах и это надо всегда помнить  .}

Arguably Russia is equally paranoid because of your history. You fear some kind of Barbarrossa 2. On the other hand the countries on Russia's borders fear Russian attack because of their history with Russia. Paranoia works both ways

[LUCASWILLEN05]

14 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

That is exactly what I mean. It is stupid to hold down the Baltics. 

Is it? Holding the Baltics opens up a route to the Russian naval base at Kaliningrad

[Sublime]

I honestly dont see why itd be worth to the russians to have even one dead Russian soldier just to militarily defeat the baltics and go back to russia all just to make nato look silly and perhaps dissolve.  Then again Im not Russian and all my interactions with whom I assume are real Russians are always online and always seem to end badly or in arguments about what to me were what I thought fundamental realities about the world. Unless of course Tarasov is a capitalist plant to make me think Russians often argue things they know are wrong or ridiculous, and seem to be overtly nationalistic and 'war as a useful option in the 21st century to deal with other countries' types. And yes I know America isnt a sterling example of such behavior towards certain other countries recently either, as far as OIF 2 goes. But i contend that was still different than say Ukraine, and I contend its still different because its openly discussed in the US and journalistdsarent turning up dead for saying it. Which of course must be true since its propaganda we all do it equally! See Goebbels and Saddams famous mouthpiece in 03 with his awesome press conferences " the Americans are not in Iraq *BANG* that was not an explosion".

So ok ya lets say nato dissolves. The alliance per say isnt there but that doesnt mean that the us britain germany france and all these countries that have been very friendly- and began indeed as allies vs the nazis- are still there. Its not as if "making article V look dumb" means the russians either have the capability or the will to roll on to the english channel or whatever.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Sublime

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

What exactly did I write that is "nonsensical"? That protecting ethnic Russians would be merely a pretext with the real objective being the discreditation of the NATO alliance? Or that any subsequent real ethnic strife used as post facto propaganda? Or that Russian leadership may not feel wedded to their casus belli? Nothing you wrote addresses any of those contentions.

No, all of that is standard Russian playbook stuff.  What I was aimed at specifically was the notion of invading the Baltics and then withdrawing.  That makes no sense at all.  Russia would get all of the pain and what gain?  It couldn't even say "we protected Russian minorities" unless it annexed parts of each of the three Baltic states, which is the same as occupation.  Anything less than that and the excuse to protect Russian ethnicity would run into serious trouble internally because obviously if Russia invades and leaves it isn't protecting them.

 

Quote

As for your points, withdrawing forces would not save a few thousand Russian troops. If we are assuming that NATO would go to the mat for the Baltics,

They would, in my view, "go to the mat" in a meaningful sense of the word.  Meaningful in terms of its impact on Russia.

Quote

withdrawing would save the bulk of the Russian conventional forces from destruction.

What does that buy it if it lost Ukraine and Georgia and Molodva and Syria and weakened in the Stans, etc. before those troops were withdrawn?  What good does it do when it's cut off from all meaningful international relations and trade?  I bet they'd also get booted from the Security Council's permanent seating.  At least there would be a big effort to do so.

Quote

And to say that Russia would lose "all control of its fate" is obvious hyperbole.

No, it's a statement of obvious fact.  Currently Russia has all kinds of leverage points to do nasty things and get away with it.  It is under 0.0% threat of a direct attack upon its forces by any state actor.  As soon as the first artillery strikes hit the Baltics all of that goes away and it no longer has control of its fate.  It might be able to influence things here or there, but compared to the control it has now it would be nothing.  Even threatening nuclear war would not ultimately work in its favor.

Quote

Germany and Japan lost all control of their fate at the end of WW2. Russia's position, while bad, would be a far cry from that.

The Russian state would collapse as a direct result of an invasion of the Baltics.  If it was lucky it would avoid an effective civil war, but I don't think it would.  And whatever Russia reemerged would be a shadow of its current self for decades.  In terms of outcome, I think that's more "catastrophic" than "bad".

Quote

Agreed that Ukraine could take back the Donbas with the USAF flying cover.

If Russia had any foresight at all they would have withdrawn at least most of their troops from Syria and Transnistria, but any still there would be hit

And here's my primary point right back in the spotlight again.  If Russia were to invade the Baltics it would have to write off a huge investment in strategic positions elsewhere.  Voluntarily withdrawing would admit this ahead of time, which would mean that the Russian government put a higher value on the Baltics than all of these other things combined.  That's hard to believe, even harder to believe if the Russians have no plan on staying in the Baltics.  That's what I mean by the voluntary pull back out of the Baltics being "nonsensical".

The only sensible reason for Russia to invade the Baltics is if they thought they had a chance of coming out ahead.  That pretty much requires keeping the Baltics and everything else they have.  That in turn means full military occupation of the Baltics and full garrisoning of their military outposts.  Which, as I keep pointing out, is unrealistic.  Anything less than that is "nonsensical".

Quote

(BTW, Transnistria is a breakaway region of Moldavia rather than Romania and has it's own little army but that is neither here nor there).

Uh, first of all "Moldavia" is a region which spans the borders of both Romania and Moldova.  So what you mean is that Transnistria is a part of Moldova, which is definitely true.  However, in the event of war with NATO there would likely be a joint operation to take back Transnistria between the Moldovan and Romanian militaries, backed by other NATO forces/assets.

Quote

Georgia retaking South Ossetia or Abkhazia is fantasy.

Hardly.  The only reason these puppet states exist is because the Russian military and Russian government is there to protect them.  Once the military has been withdrawn and nobody cares any more about Russian government threats, it's open season.  Now, how much damage could be done there in a short period of time?  I don't know, in the short term I suspect not much.  But as things got worse for Russia things could change rapidly.  At the very least Russia would have to be concerned about the possibility of losing this area and that would mean stretching its limited resources to cover the area, which means less cover elsewhere.

Quote

Of course this is not a good outcome for Russia which is why I agree there is little chance of it happening. I'll reiterate my previous points that the least improbable scenario is a very limited incursion into one of the Baltic states instead of an attempt to conquer them outright even for a limited time.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "limited incursion".  Even if NATO/West didn't go "to the mat", as you put it, Russia would be punished severely and would lose the Ukraine MINIMUM.  There's just no way they can go into the Baltics and avoid a drastic response.

3 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Personally I think war with Russia is inevitable.

I think the collapse of the Russian state as we know it is inevitable.  The signs are all there, it's just the timing and exact circumstances that trigger the obvious collapse are unknown.  Could be 10 years from now, could be next week.  As for the latter, what do you think would happen if Putin got thrown from a horse and broke his neck?  That's the problem with autocratic systems... unexpected succession can be very, very messy.

What happens after that is a big and very scary open question which could produce something much worse than Putin's regime.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, Sublime said:

ISo ok ya lets say nato dissolves. The alliance per say isnt there but that doesnt mean that the us britain germany france and all these countries that have been very friendly- and began indeed as allies vs the nazis- are still there. Its not as if "making article V look dumb" means the russians either have the capability or the will to roll on to the english channel or whatever.

This.  I have mentioned it a few times, but the US could wreck Russia without ANYBODY's help.  It doesn't need NATO for anything, especially because the important nations within would stick with the US for sure.  In terms of Russia's security, NATO is irrelevant in the event of war as it is irrelevant in peacetime.

Plus, if Putin's main goal was to have NATO break up he could have done that by not invading Ukraine and threatening NATO and non-NATO members.  NATO was on the decline before 2014 with significant calls for it being disbanded or massively downsized.  Putin's actions have reversed all of that.  Which is why I suspect that part of what Putin is doing is making sure his "bogeyman" doesn't go away.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Putin is something of a messianic personality. His actions aren't driven so much by profit or strategic consideration as the fantasy that he was granted by God the authority to rule as czar over all Slavic peoples. I understand much of Russian speaking Ukraine has been quickly transitioning to Ukrainian language, the joke being that they don't want to give Putin an excuse to 'save' any more Russian speaking Ukrainians. Any Baltic state with a Russian speaking population on its east should consider itself at risk. Putin imagines he already 'owns' those territories, an invasion in his mind would simply be correcting mis-drawn map boundaries. This puts Western Europe in a bind. How does one rationally prepare for the possibility of an irrational act? Take Ukrainian Crimea for example. Russia could've leased their naval base from Ukraine for the next hundred years and lived in happy prosperous proximity to its neighbors. But instead it chose the worst case option and created an endless cascade of problems for itself. I guess we should consider ourselves luck there's not much of an ethic Russian speaking population in the former Russian territory of Alaska.

[Erwin]

"I guess we should consider ourselves luck there's not much of an ethic Russian speaking population in the former Russian territory of Alaska."  This is where floods of immigrants escaping oppression or looking for economic opportunities becomes an xnt longterm weapon.  If Russia could create a situation where thousands of Russians flee to Alaska, they may be onto something...

[BTR]

5 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

For Europe nothing good ever came from Russia.

Yeah, only the past nine centuries the general path of aggression came from the west in Europe. Four crusades (13-14th centuries), Polo-Swedish invasions (14-17th century), Napoleonic campaign (18th century), First world war (20th century), Foreign interventions (20th century), Second world war (20th century). I mean damn, type all you want, but unfortunately statistics are supporting our domestic paranoia agenda. 

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

His actions aren't driven so much by profit or strategic consideration as the fantasy that he was granted by God the authority to rule as czar over all Slavic peoples. 

Wow really? Yellow billboard worthy. 

[Rebby]

Aren't politics discussions supposed to be banned from this forum? 

[Wicky]

16 minutes ago, BTR said:

...statistics are supporting our domestic paranoia agenda. 

Ever considered therapy to break the bad imaginings? trading out of it? before Russia potentially ultimately ends up in a deprivation tank wallowing in its fears like North Korea?

[Rebby]

2 minutes ago, Wicky said:

Ever considered therapy to break the bad imaginings? trading out of it? before Russia potentially ultimately ends up in a deprivation tank wallowing in its fears like North Korea?

Ever felt like it goes both ways? Except, a little bit less intense? 

[Aragorn2002]

41 minutes ago, BTR said:

Yeah, only the past nine centuries the general path of aggression came from the west in Europe. Four crusades (13-14th centuries), Polo-Swedish invasions (14-17th century), Napoleonic campaign (18th century), First world war (20th century), Foreign interventions (20th century), Second world war (20th century).

Most of them in reaction to the endless Russian aggresssion and meddling in Eastern Europe. Please don't play the victim. 

[Kinophile]

It's a discussion re a NATO v RUS war. Politics are inherent to it. 

That said, it IS drifting into a needles and borderline rude Russia bashing direction. 

Personally,  it seems there are several points so far:

1. Invading the Baltics will trigger a full NATO response. NATO unity over Art. V is a given if attacked by Russia. 

2. This response will (POSSIBLY) not be limited to the Baltics

3. NATO can fight a multi-front war and win. 

4. Russia can fight a multi-front war and Draw at extreme best. 

5. The Baltics are not worth the price of territory lost,  men and machines list,  influence list,  economic loss  and potential Regine change. 

Our Russian friends have argued alternates over several aspects,  but nothing has been presented that offsets the costs of attacking the Baltics. 

Conclusion 1) The Baltics are NATO. NATO WILL respond to an attack. 

Conclusion 2) Threatening the Baltics is done for domestic consumption in Russia. 

Let's move this forward...

What CAN Russia do in Eastern Europe without NATO? 

BELARUS -  my understanding is Putin is not a personal fan of Lukashenko. If he goes or wobbles,  What's to stop Putin from intervening? What's to stop Putin from creating the wobble on the first place? Proper,  Donbass style control of Belarus would give a stronger buffer. 

Any other suggestions? 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by kinophile

[Rebby]

1 minute ago, kinophile said:

It's a discussion re a NATO v RUS war. Politics are inherent to it. 

That said, it IS drifting into a needles and borderline rude Russia bashing direction. 

Personally,  it seems there are several points so far:

1. Invading the Baltics will trigger a full NATO response. NATO unity over Art. V is a given if attacked by Russia. 

2. This response will (POSSIBLY) not be limited to the Baltics

3. NATO can fight a multi-front war and win. 

4. Russia can fight a multi-front war and Draw at extreme best. 

5. The Baltics are not worth the price of territory lost,  men and machines list,  influence list,  economic loss  and potential Regine change. 

Our Russian friends have argued alternates over several aspects,  but nothing has been presented that offsets the costs of attacking the Baltics. 

Conclusion 1) The Baltics are NATO. NATO WILL respond to an attack. 

Conclusion 2) Threatening the Baltics is done for domestic consumption in Russia. 

Let's move this forward...

What CAN Russia do in Eastern Europe without NATO? 

BELARUS -  my understanding us Putin is not a personal fan of Lukashenko. If he goes or wobbles,  What's to stop Putin from intervening? What's to stop Putin from creating the wobble on the first place? Proper,  Donbass style control of Belarus would give a stronger buffer. 

Any other suggestions? 

 

 

Someone should have mentioned the East-West economic cost of this potential (near) future preparatory war for the Baltic States. I do not believe that RF victory in such conflict is actually feasible but repeatedly stating that it would be just a "steam roller" for US/NATO is a little exaggerated IMO. 

Also, there's this recently increasingly politically unstable Poland with anti-EU sentiment. This is a minor element in the game. 

 

[Aragorn2002]

7 minutes ago, kinophile said:

It's a discussion re a NATO v RUS war. Politics are inherent to it. 

That said, it IS drifting into a needles and borderline rude Russia bashing direction.

Nobody is bashing Russia. I've met too many nice and decent Russians for that. And everybody seems determined to underestimate Russia and it's armed forces. NATO can fight a multi-front war and win? Dangerous nonsense. We are talking about a huge army, air force and navy, and a huge nuclear arsenal. The best thing we can hope for is rearmament and prevent a war. Another Cold War is just around the corner.

[Rebby]

1 minute ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Nobody is bashing Russia. I've met too many nice and decent Russians for that. And everybody seems determined to underestimate Russia and it's armed forces. NATO can fight a multi-front war and win? Dangerous nonsense. We are talking about a huge army, air force and navy, and a huge nuclear arsenal. The best thing we can hope for is rearmament and prevent a war. Another Cold War is just around the corner.

Apparently, it has already started.... *plays eerrie piano music*

[AttorneyAtWar]

1 minute ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Nobody is bashing Russia. I've met too many nice and decent Russians for that. And everybody seems determined to underestimate Russia and it's armed forces. NATO can fight a multi-front war and win? Dangerous nonsense. We are talking about a huge army, air force and navy, and a huge nuclear arsenal. The best thing we can hope for is rearmament and prevent a war. Another Cold War is just around the corner.

You think Russia can sortie an air force that can stand up to the U.S. and European air forces? Sure they can surge but ill give them two days before they start having serious problems. A huge navy, you mean the rusted and beaten up ships that are stuck in port?

Statistics don't help you in this regard unfortunately.

[Rebby]

1 minute ago, Raptorx7 said:

You think Russia can sortie an air force that can stand up to the U.S. and European air forces? Sure they can surge but ill give them two days before they start having serious problems. A huge navy, you mean the rusted and beaten up ships that are stuck in port?

Statistics don't help you in this regard unfortunately.

Russian Navy was never really that much capable of pursuing serious combat operations especially since the downfall of the USSR, I agree with that. 

If we forget about the air and the naval forces for a second and think about the SOF/general black ops capabilities; don't you think there would be trouble with potential rear lines interferences?

[AttorneyAtWar]

2 minutes ago, Rebby said:

Russian Navy was never really that much capable of pursuing serious combat operations especially since the downfall of the USSR, I agree with that. 

If we forget about the air and the naval forces for a second and think about the SOF/general black ops capabilities; don't you think there would be trouble with potential rear lines interferences?

 

It depends on the situation that's way to hard to judge, I was just speaking generally about there air force and navy. With planes and ships you can talk numbers and capabilities, spec ops could mean a million different things.

Honestly though Russia isn't stupid enough to do the things were talking about, Putin isn't going to risk the nation of Russia on the Baltics.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Raptorx7

[Rebby]

Just now, Raptorx7 said:

 

It depends on the situation thats way to hard to judge, I was just speaking generally about there air force and navy.

Honestly though Russia isn't stupid enough to do the things were talking about, Putin isn't going to risk the nation of Russia on the Baltics.

Unless he would be diagnosed with a terminal illness in the near future and than think to himself: "Dear God, I am dying, blast this cruel world for the cannons in the Baltics!" Or something similar to this, you get the overall gist. 

That is how I would realistically imagine the background to a war for the Baltic States. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

The extent to which people down play NATO's military power and overplay Russias is ridiculous though. I mean I get respecting an enemy and that is absolutely important and if I was top brass Russia would be 2nd or 1st on the list, but I would also respect MY capabilities. The fact is that our Navy and AIr force are superior, bolster that with the Europeans and I don't see a way for Russia to achieve air superiority in any way, short of an all out strategic strike on air bases which is worthless to talk about because it would escalate into a nuclear exchange.

I can definitely see how the military can scare there governments into more money though, fear mongering to people who don't grasp the situation as well as you do is a powerful tool. Ive seen countless articles with "Americas military is dieing a slow painful death", "Russias super jet", "Armata: The future of tank warfare", its all drivel.

[Aragorn2002]

33 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

You think Russia can sortie an air force that can stand up to the U.S. and European air forces? Sure they can surge but ill give them two days before they start having serious problems. A huge navy, you mean the rusted and beaten up ships that are stuck in port?

Statistics don't help you in this regard unfortunately.

There's nothing unfortunate about that, let's pray it remains that way. But we have enough problems on our hands in Europe and even a winable war is the last thing we need. My point is that weakness always provokes aggresion. And at this moment the Russians are preparing for war. I'm sure their navy will also benefit greatly from that. And yes, I think their air force can stand up to what little is left of the NATO air power.

Putin is far too clever to invade the Baltics just like that. He will use a whole arsenal of 'incidents' against the Russians there, black ops, propaganda and such to make it hard for NATO to intervene, until it is too late.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Aragorn2002

[AttorneyAtWar]

2 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

There's nothing unfortunate about that, let's pray it remains that way. But we have enough problems on our hands in Europe and even a winable war is the last thing we need. My point is that weakness always provokes aggresion. And at this moment the Russians are preparing for war. I'm sure their navy will also benefit greatly from that.

Taking in refugees instead of focusing exclusively on building up the  military=Weakness

Were doomed as a species, we have learned nothing, even after wars that killed hundreds of millions. How much larger should the US military be and how much larger should European militarys be, how far do we need to go to meet this "massive" Russian threat?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Raptorx7

[Rebby]

Too bad that generally the Russian citizens are willing to suffer of supply issues just for the military modernization programme. 

 

To reply to Raptor, not really doomed as a species. But that would be kind of off topic, check PM. 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Rebby
More text.

[AttorneyAtWar]

5 minutes ago, Rebby said:

Too bad that generally the Russian citizens are willing to suffer of supply issues just for the military modernization programme. 

 

To reply to Raptor, not really doomed as a species. But that would be kind of off topic, check PM. 

Maybe not to the point of extinction just yet, but the priorities of too many people are still rooted in fear and ignorance.