CINCUSAREUR concerned about Russian rapid deployment and interior lines

[LUCASWILLEN05]

7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Dust will still obscure a target if it's thick enough.  Firing on a dry range during the summer will throw up a huge plume, and you'll lose the target for just a bit....but you'll reacquire way faster with thermal optics.

As far as thinner plumes (like driving down a dusty road) it'll only have negligible effects, you'll see the dust suspended in the air, but the heat signature of the target will generally show through.  

 

 

I  

That is what I suspected. Thank you for confirming it from your professional expertise. I came at it from the military history buff angle which will probably cause you to grin :-) Here however we both came to the same conclusion. Don;t you just love it when a plan comes together (Does a Hannibal Smith impression with a big Havana cigar :-) )

Edited June 24, 2016 by LUCASWILLEN05

[LUCASWILLEN05]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has too many advantages in terms of attacking the Baltics on its terms:

1.  It would be the aggressor and therefore could decide if/when to invade.  NATO will always have to react to this

2.  Russia has continued the Soviet concept of "snap drills".  Despite all the false cries of anguish from Moscow about recent NATO activities, NATO's manuevers are announced in advance and (traditionally) Russian officers in Brussels are made aware of the details.  Contrast this with Russia's "snap drills" which are often within striking distance of neighboring countries and come without much, if any, warning.  This tradition of not letting anybody know squat about Russia's plans AND doing it somewhat randomly is deliberately designed to keep those around it forever uncertain if Russia is just training or if it is going to invade.  Since NATO can't run around with its hair on fire every time Russia does one of these exercises, it has to have other information before it would know the difference between the normal Russian passive/aggressive behavior and outright aggression.

3.  The Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. are outlying regions for NATO, but for Russia it's all their "front yard".  Russia can maneuver large forces into place within striking distance of a neighbor relatively quickly because for it the distances are much shorter than for NATO forces.

4.  Russia doesn't have to clear movements of troops with any other government, while NATO on the other hand does.  This is a point that Hodges has made a few times in the last couple of days.  NATO basically needs more authority to maneuver within NATO countries independent of normal restrictions.

5.  Russia is one country, NATO is almost three dozen (including it's partners, such as Sweden, Finland, and France).  Putin could wake up tomorrow, decide to invade, and by the end of next week it would be happening.  That's the benefit of being a dictator... one man is about a short of a decision cycle as you can get!  On the other hand, NATO is a mess of political nonsense coming from the fact that there is no one voice nor a smooth decision cycle.  Some countries, like Italy and Hungary, are thought to be in Russia's pocket enough that they are considered by many to be unreliable.  Out of all Russia's advantages in a Baltic scenario, this it the biggest one.

In the end Russia would lose any war that it started against NATO, so in that sense NATO (as an organization) could allow the Baltics to temporarily go back under Moscow's iron rule and force Russia to withdraw in any number of different ways.  Russia is absolutely incapable of surviving such a war.  And by surviving I mean remaining a nation state with the same political boundaries and government that it started with.

The trick would be to inflict as much pain on the Russian invasion force as possible as quickly as possible.  It's possible that hitting the force hard enough in the first 2 days could dramatically affect the outcome.  That is something NATO is definitely recognizing and preparing for.  And whatever squabbles might go on at NATO HQ, if Russia attacks the Baltics it will be attacking American military forces that are 100% morally and legally justified to be right where they are.  NATO could sit on its collective arses for months, but the US would react within hours.  It would also not be acting alone.

My prediction is that after the dust settled from such a war neither the Russian state nor NATO would exist as they did before the war.  For Russia this isn't a good thing because not only would it come out weaker, whatever new organization that replaced NATO would be far more effective against it's bad behavior in the future.

Steve

The initial sages might well be something like he early part of WW2 German blitzkriegs with there Russians winning early battles in the Baltic States and possibly Eastern Poland. It will take a while for NATO to get organised but,assuming the Russians advanced further West than the Baltic States they will probably be halted on the Vistula or the German border. I envisage a 21st Century version of the 1920 Battle of Warsaw and something similar to von Manstein's Backhand Blow at theThird Battle of Kharkov.

As you say Russia will eventually lose a conventional war if it fails to achieve a early knock oot blow. This will be for much the same reasons the Kaiser lost WW1 and Hitler lost WW2. Western maritime power.Like the two previous world wars a future struggle could turn into a protracted conventional struggle assuming the war leaders are too scared to resort to nuclear weapons use. I believe that will be the case but, since there has never been a war between nuclear armed powers we cannot be completely certain about the above assumption

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

Agree...ESPECIALLY if time is a factor

As I mentioned in an earlier post...The biggest weakness for the US is the Atlantic & Baltic crossing.

IF...the Russian leader decides to strike the convoy carrying all the necessary mech equipment.

I just don't think any amount of naval power can completely protect an convoy all the way to Gdansk(or any Baltic port). Just entering the Baltic with a carrier is highly risky. NATO spent years working on plans/war games to do it. In almost every scenario, losses were severe. That means landing somewhere else in Europe and long distance transporting them. Much safer...but too slow for anything other than a long term (3+ months) fight.

Airlifts won't be able to do it, unless you are willing to take MONTHS. 

I realize that means an escalation.

But if such a tempting prize WERE TO enter the Baltic I'm not sure Putin wouldn't risk it. Even on a war footing, a 2nd US convoy would take awhile...given that the US navy would want to double the protection... and that means pulling assets from all over. In that time, Putin might be betting that enough NATO nations aren't willing to let things escalate further, given that they themselves haven't yet suffered any losses. Would France, Italy or Turkey really care if the Baltic states were taken?

Of course convoys in the initial phases of a war are going to suffer heavy losses. There will be a Battle of the Atlantic in a 21st Century war with Russia just as there was a Battle of he Atlantic in WW1 and WW2. It would make sense for Russians to interdict Atlantic convoys using submarines and long range air. However this probably won't last for too long.

Convoys do not necessarily have to go to Gdansk. They could instead go to Western European ports and from there  Poland by land. Dust off the plans dating from the 1980s and update them as needed; As I indicated elsewhere something similar to the 1980s Reforger plan would make a lot of sense

Edited June 24, 2016 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Anthony P.]

I feel you've got a thing for Russian submarines...

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

I feel you've got a thing for Russian submarines...

Just that the Russians will certainly try to use them to interdict the convoys. Also long range aircraft and anti ship missiles

I do not however see the Russians being able to do this for very long. Only for the first few weeks although I would not like to predict a more precise time frame than that.The West will have largely won the war at sea in the first two or three weeks although some residual threat may remain for longer Then the US will be able to roll reinforcements across the Atlantic almost unimpeded

[Battlefront.com]

Russia doesn't have the military strength to do more than take on the Baltics.  Blitzing into Poland would only hasten the military defeat of Russia and the resulting internal collapse to follow.  I've run the numbers on a Russian invasion of Ukraine many times and I don't think there's a chance in Hell they would come out on top even against the initially poorly led and disorganized post-Maidan Ukrainian state, but against Poland it would be near instant suicide.  First of all, they would have to get through the Baltics first and that would be messy.  Second, by the time the Russians massed their forces to go into Poland would be about the same time that NATO's heavy stuff would be in place within Germany and Poland.  Russia would also likely have near zero air cover.  It would be a slaughter of epic proportions.  10s of thousands of Russian casualties vs. thousands.

The mistake that many people make when they project what Russia is militarily capable of doing is that they really don't understand what Russia is militarily capable of doing   Russia has absolutely no capacity to fight this sort of large scale war.  It knows it very well and, in fact, the 2008 reforms were deliberately designed to take Russia away from the illusion of that capability and instead move it towards being able to do things like take Crimea without totally botching things in the process.  It can only take on the Baltics under ideal conditions and is unlikely to survive to reap any benefits from it. 

I've cased out the likely warning time for NATO in the Baltic scenario to be at least 9 days.  Within that period of time I would have a sit down with Putin's top emissaries and case out exactly what I'd do to Russia if it should attack.  I'd include some pictures of a couple of C-130s being loaded with Javelins with "Слава Україні! Героям слава!" stamped on them (translation = Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!).  This would make it very clear to Russia that if it goes into Baltics then it will have to deal with a two front war MINIMUM.  I think that would be enough to end any thoughts of going into the Baltics because Russia has ZERO ability to fight a two front war.  In fact, I don't think it could win a single front war against Ukraine in any meaningful way.

So let's try to keep the discussion here more factual and less fanciful.  Coming up with convoluted and unrealistic premises for possible successor games to CMBS is absolutely nothing I have any interest in, either personally or professionally.

Steve

[General Melchid]

I think sometimes people make the mistake of equating the strength of the Soviet era military with its modern counterpart, which is in no way as well resourced or manned.

[Sublime]

And is now 25 years irrelevant to any conversation regarding modern Russia as well.

[VladimirTarasov]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia doesn't have the military strength to do more than take on the Baltics.  Blitzing into Poland would only hasten the military defeat of Russia and the resulting internal collapse to follow.  I've run the numbers on a Russian invasion of Ukraine many times and I don't think there's a chance in Hell they would come out on top even against the initially poorly led and disorganized post-Maidan Ukrainian state, but against Poland it would be near instant suicide.  First of all, they would have to get through the Baltics first and that would be messy.  Second, by the time the Russians massed their forces to go into Poland would be about the same time that NATO's heavy stuff would be in place within Germany and Poland.  Russia would also likely have near zero air cover.  It would be a slaughter of epic proportions.  10s of thousands of Russian casualties vs. thousands.

 If NATO does not get involved and Russia is to attack Ukraine. You can expect Russian forces to mass up in Donbass over a few nights with concealment operations. Once DPR/LPR start their operation and Ukraine sends troops to counter this. Russian forces will break through the borders heading for Kharkov and then a group through the north east this one heading to threat Kiev. I don't think Russian forces would consider crossing the Dnieper river through the center as it would leave exposed areas.

How ever thrusts to Kiev can be achieved in short time if Ukraine sends in forces to counter Donbass as they did before, which will leave alot of exposed assaults for the Russian armed forces to exploit. Attacks from Crimea as well as Russian naval dominancy in the immediate vicinity of Ukraine will also speed up operations. 

I don't know how long it would take for NATO to get plans and logistics together to be able to get to Kiev and the Dnieper river to halt Russian forces if they declared war. You probably know better than me on this, how long do you estimate? Panzer your input would be nice here too. Or any of you military guys.

[Kinophile]

Funnily,  you're quite close to the strategic background of a campaign I'm working on (have I mentioned this enough times already? :P). Im working on the same idea of a sudden Donbass offensive towards Melitopol,  reacting to serious UA initiiated local assaults, with the attack as a dangerous front that distracts the UA with the possibility of a major victory (ie cutting off the Russian spearhead.).

This throws the Donbass separatists to the wolves, as essentially a strategic decoy. Using them on the offensive burns them out as a military force (preventing them from becoming a threat later on) and saves using too many  Russian troops while totally focusing Ukraine's attention on a possible glorious military victory. 

Then the Russians invade in the north east. 

Why NATO doesn't intervene is the hydra headed problem I'm wrestling with. 

Steve,  under what conditions do you think would NATO NOT intervene?

The main one I can think of is a combative,  aggressive UKR actively destabilizing the Donbass line further (ie playing into Putin's hands in reaction to the constant local harrasment). This despite repeated NATO pleas to back off and calm down. 

What else could do it? 

 

Edited June 24, 2016 by kinophile

[VladimirTarasov]

12 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Funnily,  you're quite close to the strategic background of a campaign I'm working on (have I mentioned this enough times already? :P). Im working on the same idea of a sudden Donbass offensive towards Melitopol,  reacting to serious UA initiiated local assaults, with the attack as a dangerous front that distracts the UA with the possibility of a major victory (ie cutting off the Russian spearhead.).

This throws the Donbass separatists to the wolves, as essentially a strategic decoy. Using them on the offensive burns them out as a military force (preventing them from becoming a threat later on) and saves using too many  Russian troops while totally focusing Ukraine's attention on a possible glorious military victory. 

Then the Russians invade in the north east. 

Why NATO doesn't intervene is the hydra headed problem I'm wrestling with. 

Steve,  under what conditions do you think would NATO NOT intervene?

The main one I can think of is a combative,  aggressive UKR actively destabilizing the Donbass line further (ie playing into Putin's hands in reaction to the constant local harrasment). This despite repeated NATO pleas to back off and calm down. 

What else could do it? 

 

You're campaign is quite realistic then, however the Donbass armies wont be totally destroyed, they'll probably go on the defensive after such a diversion offensive. And wait for Russian forces to relieve them, from Crimea and also ones that will deploy into Donbass. How ever everything else sounds pretty good, and honestly I don't think NATO would respond to a invasion like this against Russia. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

My own opinion is that there is no scenario in which NATO would choose to engage directly with Russia in Ukraine. It's not legally obligated to do so and none of the major NATO powers have national interests at stake that would justify direct conflict with a nuclear armed near-peer adversary.

[cbennett88]

40 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Why NATO doesn't intervene is the hydra headed problem I'm wrestling with. 

Steve,  under what conditions do you think would NATO NOT intervene?

The main one I can think of is a combative,  aggressive UKR actively destabilizing the Donbass line further (ie playing into Putin's hands in reaction to the constant local harrasment). This despite repeated NATO pleas to back off and calm down. 

What else could do it? 

How about... The UK leaves the EU... and the resulting turmoil and bickering lead to the dissolution of NATO? Fits in with today's headlines. 

[VladimirTarasov]

20 minutes ago, cbennett88 said:

How about... The UK leaves the EU... and the resulting turmoil and bickering lead to the dissolution of NATO? Fits in with today's headlines. 

Would be great for Russia  how ever that's not happening. I doubt the EU will let the UK leave so easy, they're already talking about a second referendum :/ 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Let's say the EU invades the UK under the pretext of protecting the repressed Scots. Steve,  under what conditions do you think Russia would NOT intervene?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia doesn't have the military strength to do more than take on the Baltics.  Blitzing into Poland would only hasten the military defeat of Russia and the resulting internal collapse to follow.  I've run the numbers on a Russian invasion of Ukraine many times and I don't think there's a chance in Hell they would come out on top even against the initially poorly led and disorganized post-Maidan Ukrainian state, but against Poland it would be near instant suicide.  First of all, they would have to get through the Baltics first and that would be messy.  Second, by the time the Russians massed their forces to go into Poland would be about the same time that NATO's heavy stuff would be in place within Germany and Poland.  Russia would also likely have near zero air cover.  It would be a slaughter of epic proportions.  10s of thousands of Russian casualties vs. thousands.

The mistake that many people make when they project what Russia is militarily capable of doing is that they really don't understand what Russia is militarily capable of doing   Russia has absolutely no capacity to fight this sort of large scale war.  It knows it very well and, in fact, the 2008 reforms were deliberately designed to take Russia away from the illusion of that capability and instead move it towards being able to do things like take Crimea without totally botching things in the process.  It can only take on the Baltics under ideal conditions and is unlikely to survive to reap any benefits from it. 

I've cased out the likely warning time for NATO in the Baltic scenario to be at least 9 days.  Within that period of time I would have a sit down with Putin's top emissaries and case out exactly what I'd do to Russia if it should attack.  I'd include some pictures of a couple of C-130s being loaded with Javelins with "Слава Україні! Героям слава!" stamped on them (translation = Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!).  This would make it very clear to Russia that if it goes into Baltics then it will have to deal with a two front war MINIMUM.  I think that would be enough to end any thoughts of going into the Baltics because Russia has ZERO ability to fight a two front war.  In fact, I don't think it could win a single front war against Ukraine in any meaningful way.

So let's try to keep the discussion here more factual and less fanciful.  Coming up with convoluted and unrealistic premises for possible successor games to CMBS is absolutely nothing I have any interest in, either personally or professionally.

Steve

I agree the wisest thing for the Russian army would be to stop at the Polish border and it would make it hard for a NATO "Desert Storm" style operation to liberate the territory. The only possible advantage of pushing on into Warsaw would be a gamble to knock out an important NATO member before the alliance fully mobilized and deployed. It couldvery well result in a military disaster for Russia as they make a similar mistake to that made at 3rd Kharkov or in 1920. Which is why they probably won't risk it.

Having aid that NATO's problem is a political one. To deploy without risking a political split NATO has to g through the Article 5 procedures as described by General ir Richard Shirreff, As former Deputy SACEUR Shirreff is well awar of the procedures, potential problems and the time it will take to get things done.Sure NATO has 9 days warning but then you have to convince the alliance members th threat is real Lets say it takes three days to get Article 5. That leaves you 6 days to mobilize and deploy. It will be wisest for most of the heavy forces to deploy on the Polish border so tey don't thrust themselves into a trap rather like that the British and French did in in May 1940 under the Dyle Plan. Some forces could deploy into the Baltc States both for political reasons and to fight a delaying action to gain time for NATO to complete deployment.

The Russians will then be haled on the Polish border while NATO prepares a counter offensive if the Russians refuse to withdraw

[AttorneyAtWar]

18 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

I agree the wisest thing for the Russian army would be to stop at the Polish border and it would make it hard for a NATO "Desert Storm" style operation to liberate the territory. The only possible advantage of pushing on into Warsaw would be a gamble to knock out an important NATO member before the alliance fully mobilized and deployed. It couldvery well result in a military disaster for Russia as they make a similar mistake to that made at 3rd Kharkov or in 1920. Which is why they probably won't risk it.

Having aid that NATO's problem is a political one. To deploy without risking a political split NATO has to g through the Article 5 procedures as described by General ir Richard Shirreff, As former Deputy SACEUR Shirreff is well awar of the procedures, potential problems and the time it will take to get things done.Sure NATO has 9 days warning but then you have to convince the alliance members th threat is real Lets say it takes three days to get Article 5. That leaves you 6 days to mobilize and deploy. It will be wisest for most of the heavy forces to deploy on the Polish border so tey don't thrust themselves into a trap rather like that the British and French did in in May 1940 under the Dyle Plan. Some forces could deploy into the Baltc States both for political reasons and to fight a delaying action to gain time for NATO to complete deployment.

The Russians will then be haled on the Polish border while NATO prepares a counter offensive if the Russians refuse to withdraw

 

I think you misunderstood Steve.

RUSSIA DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO INVADE THE BALTICS AND THAN THREATEN WARSAW, THAT IS RIDICULOUS.

I mean think through this man, what the hell happens if they capture Warsaw, the Polish just give up and say "Well the Warsaw pact wasn't THAT bad guys, come on fall in line!". This isn't World War 2, this freaking war is going to be decided in less than a week.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Raptorx7

[VladimirTarasov]

26 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Let's say the EU invades the UK under the pretext of protecting the repressed Scots. Steve,  under what conditions do you think Russia would NOT intervene?

LOL  I almost spilled my warm cup of milk.

[AttorneyAtWar]

2 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

LOL  I almost spilled my warm cup of milk.

DUDE OMG.

COMBAT MISSION: BREXIT

Situation:

EU forces comprising of Russian, German, French, Polish, Italian, and Dutch forces invade the southern coast of England to force Britain back into the EU. Maybe the expansion would add US forces to aid Britain, and than an additional expansion featuring the Irish invading northern Ireland.

I would pay 500$ for that.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Raptorx7

[cbennett88]

3 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

EU forces comprising of Russian, German, French, Polish, Italian, and Dutch forces invade the southern coast of England to force Britain back into the EU.

Maybe Turkey, Greece and the Czech Republic join in...but only to sneak in thousands of migrant refugees dressed as "soldiers"! 

[VladimirTarasov]

3 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

DUDE OMG.

COMBAT MISSION: BREXIT

Situation:

EU forces comprising of Russian, German, French, Polish, Italian, and Dutch forces invade the southern coast of England to force Britain back into the EU. Maybe the expansion would add US forces to aid Britain, and than an additional expansion featuring the Irish invading northern Ireland.

I would pay 500$ for that.

I can only pay 250 dollars, sanctions hurt my income please lower the price, how ever it is a brilliant idea. Let's all PM Steve about it maybe he can put it on schedule. The commander of these forces should be prime minister David Cameron, with the goal of taking out Farage's henchmen.  Im dead at the moment dude this is gold.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

42 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

 

I think you misunderstood Steve.

RUSSIA DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO INVADE THE BALTICS AND THAN THREATEN WARSAW, THAT IS RIDICULOUS.

I mean think through this man, what the hell happens if they capture Warsaw, the Polish just give up and say "Well the Warsaw pact wasn't THAT bad guys, come on fall in line!". This isn't World War 2, this freaking war is going to be decided in less than a week.

I am not saying thy will do it. Indeed I think I have made it very clear in multiple posts that it would be unwise. But,under certain circumstances (NATO not mobilized and incompletely deployed someone might think of trying it. As I have also pointed out it would be a gamble and gambles that go wrong tend to go horribly wrong.The Russians would end up with a much longer line of defense eg along the Vistula in the event the Polish did not capitulate as Putin might hope they would. Indeed, as #I hve also pointed out several times the Russians woul risk over extending their forces exposimg them to defeat in detail

I AM IN FACT POINTING OUT GOOD REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS WOULD NOT TAKE THE RISK ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT CONSIDER THE GAMBLE

That is why  have stated categorically that the best option would be a limited rapid operation to take the Baltic States before NATO mobilizes and deploys heavy forces into Poland.

I don't agree however the war will be decided in a week. yOU ASSUME THATrUSSIA OCCUPIES THE bALTICsTATES AFTER WHICH NATO NEGTIAES FOR PEACE AFTER BEING HANDED A FAT ACCOMPLI.

In fact NATO will spend two or three months building up fr the liberaton of the Baltic States.A bit like Operation Desert Storm

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, Raptorx7 said:

DUDE OMG.

COMBAT MISSION: BREXIT

Situation:

EU forces comprising of Russian, German, French, Polish, Italian, and Dutch forces invade the southern coast of England to force Britain back into the EU. Maybe the expansion would add US forces to aid Britain, and than an additional expansion featuring the Irish invading northern Ireland.

I would pay 500$ for that.

?1? :-)I think a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, possibly followed by an advance into Poland is probably more likely. Putin has made threats to invade Poland. The only "threats" EU leaders have made is that the UK won't have any special privileges. That is hardly a threat of Operation Sealion 2 coming through the Channel Tunnel. And no I am not suggesting that as a CM game!

OK how about Combat Mission PEXIT? :-)

Larry Bond's Cauldon does postulate an EU (EURCON) invasion of Poland and Hungary. Now. were Poland to leave the EU Merkel could be a little upset....Perhaps Germany and France could ally with Russia  as nearly happens in Bond's novel.:-)

Now, if Battlefront were to add French. German and Polish forces we could actually game that with Blue on Blue forces. that is a serious game suggestion by the way - just as a bit of fun, nothing more so don't start WW3 over it :-) It is just a war game, not reality! Some people take strict geopolitical correctness a little too seriously at times.All it s is |"what if they did do that"

Edited June 24, 2016 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

My own opinion is that there is no scenario in which NATO would choose to engage directly with Russia in Ukraine. It's not legally obligated to do so and none of the major NATO powers have national interests at stake that would justify direct conflict with a nuclear armed near-peer adversary.

This is my opinion too (unless Putin attacked NATO first, of course).  The most likely response would be the military aid which, apparently, the US (and presumably other NATO countries) said that they would hold off sending to Ukraine on the condition that Russia not invade.  Which is one reason that Russia has bent over backwards to lie about the fact that it already has invaded Ukraine and continues to be present there.  The West, sadly, is letting Russia get away with it.  But I digress

If Russia were to invade Ukraine proper there would be no NATO response in any direct way.  However, the amount of military aid that would suddenly appear in Ukraine would be substantial.  Even if NATO doesn't officially do it, several of its member states definitely would.  Having Poland on the border with Ukraine ensures that the aid would get there quickly and in whatever quantity chosen by NATO.  If it had to be flown in by air or moved by ship then perhaps Russia could interdict it, but not by land.

2 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:

 

I think you misunderstood Steve.

RUSSIA DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO INVADE THE BALTICS AND THAN THREATEN WARSAW, THAT IS RIDICULOUS.

Exactly.

Quote

I mean think through this man, what the hell happens if they capture Warsaw, the Polish just give up and say "Well the Warsaw pact wasn't THAT bad guys, come on fall in line!". This isn't World War 2, this freaking war is going to be decided in less than a week.

Even if Russia could get very far into Poland (which I doubt VERY much), what would it do?  It would have a very hostile population which, incidentally, Poland is now preparing for guerilla warfare.  Russia's supply lines would be extremely long as they would have go go through the Baltics, not Belarus (anybody that thinks Lukashenko would throw his lot in with Putin is ill informed).  The Baltics would be a hotbed of partisan activity as well.  Russia doesn't have the manpower for the invasion much less keeping whatever takes EVEN IF not a single NATO country lifted a finger to help Poland.  Which is, of course, not likely at all.

1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

II AM IN FACT POINTING OUT GOOD REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS WOULD NOT TAKE THE RISK ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT CONSIDER THE GAMBLE

You are still missing the point.  Let me explain it to you in as simple terms as possible...

Russia could no more take on Poland than I could get a date with Kate Upton.  Even if I should happen to go to a bar where she was hanging out with her crew and "gambled" on going over to her VIP table to ask her on a date with her, it would never happen.  I'm not young enough, good looking enough, famous enough, or rich enough to get past her body guards.  My hopes and desires, planning, what I told my friends at the bar before I went over to her table, etc. MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  I would leave that bar without her phone number.

Let me summarize so you don't misunderstand me again...

Under the most extreme circumstances Russia might invade the Baltics.  It might militarily conquer the Baltics.  It would not be able to hold the Baltics for more than a few weeks, perhaps a few months.  Any talk of Russia invading Poland is utterly insane.  I think it's got less of a chance of happening than the EU invading Great Britain to take back all the superior cuisine that Britain acquired over the past 40 years.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

 If NATO does not get involved and Russia is to attack Ukraine. You can expect Russian forces to mass up in Donbass over a few nights with concealment operations. Once DPR/LPR start their operation and Ukraine sends troops to counter this. Russian forces will break through the borders heading for Kharkov and then a group through the north east this one heading to threat Kiev. I don't think Russian forces would consider crossing the Dnieper river through the center as it would leave exposed areas.

Sure, it could do that, though the DPR/LPR forces are basically Russian forces for all intents and purposes.  Russia leads them, equips them, supplies them, and even staffs them.  On their own they have proven to be almost utterly useless on the offensive and just about as hopeless on the defensive.  This means that Russia would have to put significant forces into Donbas if it wanted anything significant to come from it.  And it does have the forces to do that.  It also has the forces to attack out of Crimea, at least enough to cause Ukraine significant problems. It also could attack anywhere north of Donbas towards Kiev while doing both of these things.  That is a fairly straight forward possibility for Russia.

However, you've only address Russia's ability to invade Ukraine, not Russia's ability to win a war with Ukraine.

What would Russia's objectives be?  The only thing I can think of is to knock Ukraine down to the ground and then force some sort of lopsided punitive arrangement from it.  Based on what we've seen over the past 2.5 years, I think that is extremely unlikely to happen.  I think Putin is well aware of that as well.

OK, so Russia has stripped all of its best, most ready, most capable forces from everywhere in the Russian Federation and pushed them into Ukraine and Ukraine doesn't surrender.  Then what?

Nazi Germany and its allies took over almost all of European Soviet Union within a few months.  It caused the Soviet forces the single biggest loss of military forces in the history of warfare.  But the Soviet Union didn't collapse and four years later Nazi Germany ceased to exist.  This is the path Russia would find itself on if it invaded Ukraine full out.

Russia's opportunity to beat up Ukraine into a compliant border state, if it existed at all, was Spring 2014.  It no longer exists as a possibility.

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I don't know how long it would take for NATO to get plans and logistics together to be able to get to Kiev and the Dnieper river to halt Russian forces if they declared war. You probably know better than me on this, how long do you estimate? Panzer your input would be nice here too. Or any of you military guys.

Unless Russia attacked NATO first, there would be no force to meet a Russian invasion force.  The question you should ask is how quickly could meaningful military aid reach Ukrainian forces from the West.  Given enough warning ahead of the invasion I would say hours.  If NATO were somehow caught 100% by surprise, I'd say 2 days.

Steve