"Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania & NATO's Eastern Flank" Topic

Excellent video from Perun: YouTube link

RAND did a study a few years ago (maybe in 2016, I could be wrong) that said in order to hold Lithuania, we (and by "we" I mean NATO, not JUST the US, needed to put seven BCTs, three with an ABCT like capability, into Lithuania in 96 hours.

The big takeaway was the port clearance requirement in the chaos that will be LSCO.

I was fortunate to be able to do a site survey and assessment of Lithuanian logistics capability back in 2018.

Let's just say, it will be interesting.

I'll give even odds to the Lithuanians over the Russians.

Just on pure ethnic hatred the Balts have for Slavs, specifically those under Putin's direction.

Just my assessment.

Eric

Perun makes the point that the RAND study did not factor in the presence of Sweden and Finland in NATO, putting forces exactly where they are needed, and opening that huge flank for Russia.

These three countries have started to build fortifications along their border with Russia.

When completed this will slow down the rate of advance quite a bit.

An attack would have to be built up which should give ample time to bring in reinforcements before it commences, if politicians dare to make the decision to do it.

NATO would now have a much easier time getting reinforcements there as every country in the vicinity is a NATO member.

Swedish forces could start to support basically within minutes of an attack. Flight time from Gotland is very short. Same with forces from Finland.

But NATO would have to act fast as the countries are small.

On a related note there is an entertaining series on YouTube called the The Next World War based on this scenario. He's up to episode 9 and it is entertaining, even if it doesn't dive to deeply!

YouTube link

Like pretty much all his stuff well worth the hour. Very educational.

Seven brigades in 96 hours seems like a tall order. As I noted on the Sweden thread, the Baltics don't have a lot of strategic depth, and they're close to St. Petersburg- so it's a short lunge. Assuming the Russian Army can scare up the men, vehicles and artillery these days.

Saw an Estonian politician interviewed on the BBC. He said they will support the Ukraine with ammo, etc. even if the USA doesn't … I don't doubt the other Baltic States will do the same along with many in NATO will continue their support. We can't let Ukraine lose and Putin think he's a "winner" …

With the accession of Sweden and Finland, the Baltic States have 'strategic' depth. It's 'operational' depth they lack; and that's only with respect to ground operations. Certainly there is air and maritime operational depth.

If we take lessons from the Black Sea and extrapolate to the Baltic with NATO's resources, there's only one asset in the Russian Baltic Fleet that would be worrisome – the lone Kilo SSK (conventional submarine). Their surface assets have a better chance of survival if they stay in port.

With respect to "short lunges" to the capitals of the Baltic States, we must again look to lessons from Ukraine. Google earth gives the following distances "as the crow flies":

Narva to Tallinin = 195 km
Russian border to Riga = 210 km
Belarus border to Kyiv = 130 km
Russian border to Kyiv = 185 km
Crimean border to Kherson = 95 km
Crimean border to Vasylivka = 175 km
Russian border to Izyum = 105 km
Russian border to Kharkiv = 25 km
And so on…

Also, keep in mind that the geography (physical and demographic) in the Baltics is more similar to northern Ukraine than it is to the southern part where the Russsians had their early successful 'lightning dashes'.

It's a huge risk. A better option is to attack Finland in the north which allows Russia to (1) test Article 5 and (2) de-escalate if that should prove necessary. Both of those are more difficult with an invasion of the Baltics.

ETA: One should not forget that whatever forces Russia could generate to invade the Baltics they'd need to keep forces to defence St. Petersburg (135 km from Finland), Murmansk (110 km from Norway) and the logistical line from the south to Murmansk (approx similar distances from Finland).

Seven brigades in 96 hours seems like a tall order.

The trick might be to get them in before the actual shooting starts – in which case their presence might be enough to deter the offensive in the first place.

It will take a while for the Russian military to prepare and mass a major invasion force, and if it is detected early enough by intelligence then there is possibility to move in ground forces and do other preparations.

That said, the cited case was specifically for Lithuania, which is probably in the best geographic situation, as any attack would need to come from Kaliningrad oblast (isolated), through Belarus (long logistical tail) or through Latvia (needs to be conquered first).

The US have prepositioned equipment in Norway. This is no secret it I public knowledge. With Sweden in NATO these units can easily be transported through Swedens east coast and then shipped across the Baltic Sea.

This is also no secret, it has even been practiced.

This could be done quite quickly. Fly the troops to Norway, pick up the equipment and road march to Swedens east coast, board ship and sail to the Estonia.

The Swedish navy is good at sub hunting so the lone Russian Kilo would of course be a threat but not an unmanageable one. Remember that the US navy paid to rent a Swedish sub with crew for several years to act as aggressor against its carriers.

Swedish subs are state of the art, the crews are experts in the Baltic Sea. Would convoys be completely unmolested by Russian forces? maybe not. But this move would most likely be made before hostilities have broken out so a Russian attack is unlikely.

I´m not saying NATO could get 7 brigades to the baltic states in 96 hrs but fairly quickly get a substantial force there very very quickly from continental US if needed.

This would be reinforcements to the standing "tripwire" forces already there. These tripwire forces are drawn from across NATO so that all countries share the burden of fighting. One for all and all for one.

There are a lot of things for NATO to consider when supporting Estonia, et al.

However, there may be even more for Russia to consider. Possible counterstrikes include:
1) In the North from Norway/Finland or via an amphibious assault.
2) From Poland and the Czech Republic through Belarus and Ukraine. The Poles seem to have an aggressive posture towards Russia.
3) In the South from Turkey through Georgia. Again there is no love lost between Georgia and Russia.

The risk reward profile for Russia does not seem good. The prize is a few small Baltic states and the downside is a potential attack from all sides by Nato on Russia itself. It would be whether Nato chose to expand the theater, as there would be a huge risk of escalation. Nevertheless, Russia must consider the risk of a multi directional response from Nato.

NATO will never invade Russia proper. NATO is a defensive alliance. There will be missile and possibly airstrikes against military targets in russia but never "invasion".

It's a huge risk. A better option is to attack Finland in the north which allows Russia to (1) test Article 5 and (2) de-escalate if that should prove necessary. Both of those are more difficult with an invasion of the Baltics.

That was also Anders Puck Nielsen's suggestion. Its not something I'd disagree with – though frankly given the pummelling the Russian military has taken even his multi-year timeline may be generous. A few hundred Km square of forest in the back of the frozen beyond could well and truly stretch the resolve of many NATO partners to come when called…. Worryingly since I think Putin is likely to draw all the wrong conclusions from a lack of response.

FWIW – The US Army has 10th MTN troops in Finland. Training for winter warfare ops … Probably other NATO troops will go there as well. Plus there are NATO Forces in the Baltic States. And Poland always has 1 US ARMY Bde Cbt Tm there.

2) From Poland and the Czech Republic through Belarus and Ukraine.

Czech Republic (Czechia) shares border neither with Belarus nor Ukraine.

Out of current NATO members:
- Latvia, Lithuania and Poland share a land border with Belarus
- Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania share a land border with Ukraine
- Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland share a land border with Russia (though in case of Lithunia and Poland this is limited to Kaliningrad oblast)

A few hundred Km square of forest in the back of the frozen beyond could well and truly stretch the resolve of many NATO partners to come when called…

There are many ways that NATO partners can provide help, it does not necessarily need to involve sending in an infantry battalion or brigade. For example providing intelligence, air defense assets, munitions, aircraft, long range missile systems, drones, medical resources, trucks loaded with spam, naval assets to secure shipping lines etc. could be more handy in the above scenario than one more infantry battalion on the ground – of which the local member country in question would be able to provide quite a number.

In response to two of the replies to my last comments:

- I am aware that the Czech Republic does not border Belarus and Ukraine. I visit the Czech Republic multiple times each year to meet with a supplier, I also have a basic knowledge of European geography. My comment was that that the Nato nations of Poland and the Czech Republic could attack Russia through Belarus and Ukraine. Poland and the Czech Republic have been two of the nations most aggressively opposing what Russia is doing – The Czech Republic has been instrumental in sourcing and providing artillery shells to Ukraine until additional Western Capacity comes on line. In a conflict, the Czech Republic could easily move troops through Poland to get to Ukraine and then Belarus.

- I am also aware that Nato is a defensive alliance. That means that they will not initiate hostilities. It does not mean that once hostilities start that they are not allowed to enter Russian territory. If the best solution is to counterstrike and hit enemy supply lines by moving into Russia and encircling the Russian forces, then that is always an option. It is an option that Russia needs to consider. Now such a move may increase the risk of a nuclear response by Russia and Nato may decide not to do it. However, the threat of Nato carrying out such an encirclement is still something Russia must consider.
Also, I am not saying that if Nato did enter Russian territory during a conflict that they would stay there when the conflict is over.

There are many ways that NATO partners can provide help

Without any doubt, but fundamentally you're getting into a potentially open ended armed conflict with Russia and if all of a sudden politicians and public opinion gets squeamish…

It has been more than twenty years since I signed out of the 82nd, but I am deeply skeptical about the idea that NATO could surge 7 brigades to the Baltics within 96 hours. I think people like to imagine that big units are routinely ready to go on almost no notice, but they aren't. A lot of times, a "high readiness" unit is one that can push out a sub-unit very rapidly, and follow with the rest on a considerably longer timeline. Seven maneuver brigades is a small corps, and I don't believe the US can surge that much that fast; I would doubt whether even the high readiness NATO forces for the allies with a history of outside- theater commitments like the UK or France could surge a brigade in that time.

So is that Rand study on the web? I would be interested to see what it says about port capacity, because I have difficulty believing that we could surge a small corps, which would require a pretty substantial CSS and logistics slice. That's a lot of stuff, and it all has to be offloaded, marshalled, moved to assembly areas…..if I were a decision maker, and someone told me a given course of action for securing three countries was a fifty-fifty proposition, I would be highly uncomfortable with that.

Russia: Russia Claims a Lot More Than Ukraine

link

Armand

Nine lbs. +1

Yes, it takes time and planning to upload a heavy unit. Been there, done that …

Without any doubt, but fundamentally you're getting into a potentially open ended armed conflict with Russia and if all of a sudden politicians and public opinion gets squeamish…

Then it might be preferable that those countries might consider things through already now, and decide to drop out of the alliance already before the bullets start flying. Though I guess some folks in Kremlin would also draw their conclusions from such an event…

Then there is that old saying about crocodiles and appeasement.

From Military.com …

Putin Says He Won't Start a War with NATO But Western Bases Hosting Ukraine F-16s Would Be Targets

More saber rattling for local consumption, IMO …

link

Realistically speaking, how much force can the Baltic states generate for their own defense- could they generate a division apiece?

I know what shows on the charts- but it's not hard to imagine the Russians surging three or four times that. The idea that American forces are going to appear at short notice seems mistaken to me. If thsurvival of the Baltics depends on speedy reinforcements, where do they come from?

Still waiting to read that RAND report….I assume it's unclassified, of course.

But as we know … the Russian Military has taken some heavy losses in Ukraine. They won't be going anywhere anytime soon. Of course, if NATO is that concerned, send more NATO forces to the Baltic States. As we have in Poland.

Plugging the holes before they happen. As well as even if Putin was going to attack the Baltic states, if NATO sends a large number of troops there. Which may make Putin to think twice. But again Putin knows he couldn't take on NATO even before he invaded Ukraine.

Realistically speaking, how much force can the Baltic states generate for their own defense- could they generate a division apiece?

The total population of the three countries is around 6 million.

According to the Wikipedia, Estonian Defense Forces has around 240 000 active and reserve personnel, Latvian armed forces around 50 000 and Lithuanian armed forces 140 000. I don't have time right now to dig into what their mobilisation plans look like in terms of time tables, actual unit strengths and equipment, but at least they have manpower to put together more than a division each.

Also, I am expecting to see the Latvian military increasing their reserve strength in future.

Just preposition NATO Forces in all those countries Now. Don't wait like the US has done in the recent past with other conflicts. And the US in not the only NATO member that could send troops. There is IIRC 32 NATO members …

Excellent point, Legion- what about the alliance members who are closest? Do Sweden and Finland have, say, a deployable force of, say, a small division apiece they could surge to the Baltics?

Just preposition NATO Forces in all those countries Now.

There have been NATO forces from other member countries present in the Baltic states for a number of years. This includes both ground and air forces – the Baltic states do not have actual air forces of their own, so they are dependent on fighter contingents from other member countries that rotate on the duty.

Do Sweden and Finland have, say, a deployable force of, say, a small division apiece they could surge to the Baltics?

At the moment, no. In future, there might be possibility for both to have a ground brigade that could be ready for deployment to other NATO countries, but establishing that would take a while (and it would need to be formed of volunteers that have completed their compulsory military service). However, the respective air forces and navies would be better prepared to provide quick assistance.

And for more details, NATO has had multinational battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland from 2017, and in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia from 2022 onwards.

According to the NATO website:

link

the member states taking part in these battlegroups were in December 2023 as follows:

Host nation: Estonia
Framework nation: United Kingdom
Contributing nations: France and Iceland

Host nation: Latvia
Framework nation: Canada
Contributing nations: Albania, Czechia, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain

Host nation: Lithuania
Framework nation: Germany
Contributing nations: Belgium, Czechia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States

I haven't seen more detailed organisations for these battlegroups – if somebody is aware, please tell.

So, four battalion-sized units, made up from small contingents of up to 11 nations.

Setting aside my previously expressed skepticism about the US remaining in NATO – which is not assuaged by anything I have read here- where do the troops come from to defend the Baltics against a determined Russian attack in the short term?

Sweden has decided to deploy a mech inf bat to the Baltics.

The more countries that have troops there the better. That way all members have skin in the game. Just like it should be, one for all and all for one.

Hopefully the war of US will stay in NATO. If the US leave there will be a war and sooner or later the US will be involved anyway. And many many american soldiers will die.

If the US stay in NATO Russia will not have the balls to attack and there Will be no war. So no americans Will die.

You're placing a lot of eggs in the basket of deterrence- but there's not much force behind your deterrent. Russian doctrine places so little value on the threat to escalate that it states that escalation up to or past the point of nuclear action is the way to deescalate the crisis. Weakness backed by a non credible threat is not a deterrent – it's a temptation.

what about the alliance members who are closest? Do Sweden and Finland have, say, a deployable force of, say, a small division apiece they could surge to the Baltics?

Yes … The closer nations would be quicker and easier to deploy.

There have been NATO forces from other member countries present in the Baltic states for a number of years.

Very true … And that is the way NATO is supposed to work. But maybe more forces need to be deployed there now. That was my point, but I said it very poorly.

Good intel Griefbringer … But as nine pound round posted … that is only 4 Bns … Plus as soledad posted Sweden sent a Mech Bn. So now 5 …

If the US leave there will be a war and sooner or later the US will be involved anyway. And many many american soldiers will die.

That would be a given … But again the US won't be leaving …

If the US stay in NATO Russia will not have the balls to attack and there Will be no war. So no americans Will die.

Yep, but again if Putin attacks NATO he must know its game over. His forces already have taken heavy losses and have demonstrated little to know tactical expertise. Unless you consider their modern version of WWI tactics.

And again, I don't think the US will be leaving NATO any time soon.

Sadly, you are probably right- and I say that because this thread is reinforcing my preexisting conception that the growth of the alliance has added obligations, but not commensurate capabilities. If the defense of the Baltic states depends on NATO being able to surge seven brigades in 96 hours, I don't believe it can be carried out successfully.

Plus the forces of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who will fight like the third monkey on the ramp to Noas ark. They know what it feels like to live under the Russian jack boot. They will never give up.

It is their country that will cease to exist so they have nothing to lose.

Well, such of them as there are: I would expect them to be heavily outnumbered, and up to half of the population behind them (in the case of Latvia – the percentage of the others is smaller) will be Russian. An unstable rear is a particularly serious problem when strategic depth is lacking.

They know they are outnumbered. They know they will cease to exist id they lose.

All they hope is that NATO will honor the treaty. There are always traitors and defeatists in the west that want to undermine NATO. All we can hope for is that those are a very small minority who no one listens to.

All former eastern bloc countries have always been very staunch NATO supporters as they know the russians.

It is the decadent lazy assed "west" who save om defense and wants to appease Putin and Hungary of course.

And there are also those in Europe who desperately hope somebody else will do the fighting for them.

The fact that you're resorting to this kind of emotional argument – "traitors" and "defeatists" who are "decadent and lazy assed" when I'm pointing out the very real strategic problems of depth and lack of resources does not suggest a serious analysis.

I'm talking about willingness to fight. If you want "a serious military analysis" I can give it to you. A very long and thorough analysis .

Since most of your arguments have been about how europeans "dont want to fight" and expect some one else to the fighting for them I thought you might be interested that such views are not that common.

I fully understand your point of view. I understand (I think) why you want to leave NATO and only care about yourself.

I have met many americans during the last 30 years. They have been from different states. Have been both democrats and republicans. They have been LE people, from the armed forces and "ordinary " citizens. Almost all have had traits like a good moral compass, a love for the "underdog", a willingess to help others in need and a strong sense of what is right or wrong.

Traits that I do not sense in your posts unfortunately.

why have they not started to aquire aircraft to start airforce?

Being a "staunch NATO supporter" is a zero-risk, zero cost exercise when a nation doesn't provide more forces for the common defense than it requires to secure itself. "There might be a possibility" is not a real commitment, and nobody should mistake it for one.

Believe me, I have met many continental Europeans over the last thirty years, and I can assure you they had exactly the traits I sense in your posts. That is a big part of the reason I am reluctant to see my nation remain in NATO.

NATO at this time is better to have than not. Especially that Putin has invaded another country… again.

Just out of curiosity- when Sweden sat out the Second World War, and supplied the Nazis with the iron ore that sustained their war effort, would that be classified as:

a) a good moral compass
b) a love for the underdog
c) a willingness to help others in need, or
d) a strong sense of right and wrong?

Just kidding- you don't need to answer that, of course, because we all know the correct answer was "none of those things." It was in their national interest to not be invaded by the Germans, and to make money. And so they did.

My point is this: every nation acts in its own self-interest, and in a democracy, the interests of its people. The Soviet Union was a qualitatively different animal from today's Russia, ugly a beast though it is. My advocacy of a US departure from NATO is based on two beliefs: one, that we have fewer vital strategic interests in Europe that require a commitment than we did forty years ago, and two, that the European nations can and should take up the burden of their own defense, since they're some of the world's most advanced economies- but they don't wish to, for reasons that are purely internal. That's their decision to make- but it does not create a corresponding moral burden on the United States to take up their slack.

You can judge for yourself how sensitive the nerve I have hit is from the responses I am getting, on this thread and elsewhere. They don't encourage me to believe I am wrong.

Plus as soledad posted Sweden sent a Mech Bn. So now 5

Will send – keep in mind that they just became NATO member. It will probably take months to recruit, organise, train and ship over that battalion. They will be based in Latvia.

There have also been recent talks about the possibility of Finland deploying ground forces to Estonia – official decision may be announced around the NATO summit in July, after which it will take time until the actual boots in the ground will make it there.

As for the battlegroup strength, my understanding is that the present intent is to increase all three of the Baltic groups into brigade strength (no idea about the Polish one).

why have they not started to aquire aircraft to start airforce?

The Baltic states?

Air force is an expensive investment, and these countries have limited economies, due to small population and fifty years of foreign occupation from which they have not yet fully recovered.

Financially and logistically, it may make more sense to invest their limited resources in training and equipping their ground forces, with other NATO member countries in the meanwhile taking care of patrolling their air space (please notice that this is not done for free, the three Baltic states pay for the other member countries for the provided service – not sure about exact sums involved).

As discussed already, there are some logistical challenges with bringing ground force reinforcements in, these needing to be shipped over the Baltic Sea or to transit through the Suwalki gap between Poland and Lithuania. Therefore, it is probably desirable that the Baltic states can put together as strong ground forces as their limited populations allow.

On the other hand, the air space of the Baltic countries can be in a crisis situation secured by aircraft operating from other near by countries – aircraft are quick and have enough range to operate in the relatively small air space involved. Considering the limited depth of countries, and the vulnerability of aircraft when landed, it might be safer that in crisis time the aircraft would indeed operate from fields further to the west (currently the Baltic air patrols operate from local airports).

Especially the southern part of Sweden (which has just joined NATO) might provide good logistical base for aircraft operating over the Baltic states and the southern Baltic sea. Sweden has a modest air force, equipped with the domestically produced Saab JAS Gripen fighters. Sweden has also air bases in the northern part of the country, which might be helpful in providing air support to northern parts of Norway and Finland.

The mech bat that will be sent is already trained and equipped. It could be sent tomorrow.

Swedens behavior during WWII is actually very shameful. Swedens treatment of Baltic refugees after the war is also shameful. There are many things Sweden have done wrong. Sweden have had a very loud and moral opinion but not backed it up with action. That is not very good. Action speaks louder than words. Swedish politicians have produced alot of hot air but no action.

Many European countries have skipped on defense spending. I have always stated that. Europe have lived in an illusion that eternal peace had arrived and war would never happen and therefore let their armed forces decline. A very stupid thought.

I agree that one should only help a country that wants to help itself. Eastern Europe really tries to help themselves but they know that they are too small to survive a war with Russia. That is why the wanted to join NATO. That is also why they have sent troops to help the US in their war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The reason Ukraine gave up their nukes was because the US promised protection. So far that has been a false promise from the US. I think Ukraine would have been better off with nukes than US support…

But I do hope the US will stay in NATO. Both for Europe and the US. Who knows when the US will beg for help just like in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I do not think it serves US interests best in trying to isolate itself. That has been tried and did not work out very well.

The mech bat that will be sent is already trained and equipped. It could be sent tomorrow.

Good to know – looking forward to hearing of their arrival in theatre.

____________________________________________________________

As for the defense of Europe in general, I agree that the European countries should be prepared to carry the burden of their own defense. The population base is not an issue (EU + UK totals over 500 million inhabitants), economy and industry are strong, and the technological know-how at high level – it is just a matter of using these resources effectively to provide sufficient defense and deterrent.

That said, I also consider that free and democratic countries around the world should be in principle prepared to support each other on some way against oppressive dictators and totalitarian regimes.

Europe have suffered two major wars, and a few small ones, between 1914 and 1999.

So the politicians felt that wars must be "abolished". So when the Soviet Union collapsed the feeling was that war could be avoided if all countries started to trade with each other. The line of thought was that countries do not start wars if their economies are "interwoven". A good rational thought but it did not take into account "irrational" leaders like Putin.

So as the economies were tied tight together the defense forces were stripped down.

The feeling truly was "there will never be war again". The former easter block countries did not share this feeling as they had direct knowledge of Russia. But the "former west" did not.

Especially Germany suffered from this. Then Putin wrecked the party completely.
Many European countries have been caught with their pants down and looking for the soap.

Even now many European politicians do not understand that spending on defense must increase.

Many European countries do contribute to the defense of the Baltics. they do not make a big fuss about it though.

But regardless whatever happens in Europe it will involve the US. Russia wants part of the arctic. It is a strategically important area for US and Russia. To defend it properly the US needs the help of the nordic countries.

But if the US wants to defend the arctic by itself, go ahead and try…

the world should be in principle prepared to support each other on some way against oppressive dictators and totalitarian regimes.

I agree … and NATO is as good a name as any.

Who knows when the US will beg for help just like in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Well IIRC Europe was having terrorist attacks from those aligned with AQ from A'stan. And ISIS from Iraq.

Of course that did not happen until later. The GWI was a UN sanction IIRC, to push Saddam out of Kuwait. The US wanted a coalition to do that.

Iraq is a big country so the more troops the better. You always want superiority in numbers in the attack. That is SOP.

The US did not want to appear as the only forces engaged.

GWII for all the questions, etc., about it, in the end Saddam what removed.

But if one wants to think the US begged for help. Is not correct, IMO. A'stan became a NATO mission as one of its members, the US, was attacked. So, Article 5 was in effect.

Again Europe was suffering terrorist attacks too. Mostly from home grown terrorists who became allied with AQ, ISIS, etc. As some Europeans nations have a large number of moslems. Who were born there.

Many European countries do contribute to the defense of the Baltics. they do not make a big fuss about it though.

Regardless that is part of what NATO does. And they are much closer to the Baltic States. Than the USA and Canada.

But regardless whatever happens in Europe it will involve the US. Russia wants part of the arctic. It is a strategically important area for US and Russia. To defend it properly the US needs the help of the nordic countries.

Yes, that would be a given. Does NATO want a Russian dominated Artic ? Of course, Ukraine is serving as a major force in significantly attriting the Russians. They can't attack anyone.

Yeah, we didn't "beg" for help. We invoked Article 5, and we got……not a lot. The whole of NATO eventually managed, after years of discussion, to produce ISAF, a force of about 15,000- roughly half of them American.

Here's a snapshot from 2017:
PDF link

The astute observer will note that after the American contingent, only Germany,
Italy, Romania, Turkey and the UK (among NATO nations) broke 500. Georgia managed 870, and most of the rest furnished companies, platoons or less.

Regardless of my opinion about whether the US should remain in NATO, my skepticism about NATO's ability to generate forces for foreign commitments is grounded firmly in….problems NATO has had in generating forces for foreign commitments.