"If Russia Invaded The Baltics, NATO Forces Would be..." Topic

… Overrun In 3 Days.

"If Russian tanks and troops rolled into the Baltics tomorrow, outgunned and outnumbered NATO forces would be overrun in under three days. That's the sobering conclusion of war games carried out by a think tank with American military officers and civilian officials.

"The games' findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members," said a report by the RAND Corp., which led the war gaming research.

In numerous tabletop war games played over several months between 2014-2015, Russian forces were knocking on the doors of the Estonian capital of Tallinn or the Latvian capital of Riga within 36 to 60 hours. U.S. and Baltic troops — and American airpower — proved unable to halt the advance of mechanized Russian units and suffered heavy casualties, the report said…"

link

Full article here
link

To deter such a "Russian invasion", the following NATO military deployment is being proposed ….

"…. A force of about seven brigades in the area, including three heavy armored brigades, and backed up by airpower and artillery, would be enough "to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states," it said. The additional forces would cost an estimated $2.7 USD billion a year to maintain…."

Amicalement
Armand

up S*** creek

No need for that.

They can do as for Ukraine!
Also look at the excellent Norvegian TV series "OCCUPIED"that we saw on ARTE a few weeks ago!

Robert

Surprised they think they'd last that long.

My guess is less than 24 hours, given today's modern methods of deployment, and Russia's demonstrated ability to carry out numerous, large-scale "exercises" in the region.

And the point is?

Being a member of the NATO alliance doesn't 'guarantee' security by having massive forces stationed on the border with a potential aggressor (Russia in this case).

It works by the Treaty assurance that an attack on one is an attack on all and will be followed by joint action to restore the situation.

The idea of forward deploying large scale forces is provocative, unnecessary and sounds like a counterproductive money pit.

Better to invest a quarter of the money in proper forces able to respond rapidly without resorting to Cold War II, while spending another quarter in proper diplomacy designed to defuse the ridiculous posturing of both sides.

It's not wise to rely on Maginot style defences in any case.
And the Crimean situation is in no way analogous to the Baltic situation.

Gwydion +1

Lot's of places get overrun in the opening stages of a war.

The important thing is who ultimately wins the war.

I don't know of any think tanks, East or West that concludes Russia would win any conflict against the West/NATO.

I'm sure if it did happen a stern condemnation would be drafted in the UN Security Council.

Baltics see tripwire

Forward deploying forces in response to Putin's and his cronies bellicose threats to many of the smaller nations in the EU, in addition to the EU as a whole isn't provocative, but seems to me to be a wise move.

It's Putin who is being provocative by invading countries, seizing territory, aiding rebels, and running dangerous aerial exercises with nuclear armed bombers all over the globe, but mainly centered in the airspace of the EU. Not to mention all those snap military exercises all over Russia, which are really just a smokescreen, and prep for eventual additional military excursions external to the "Motherland".

I guess sometimes that's what you need to do to remind others you're relevant, when you're a declining power on the world's stage.

This grave violation will not go unreported!!!

Yes … Gywdion and cwlinsj +1

And on the lighter side – Redroom … and VCarter …

I guess sometimes that's what you need to do to remind others you're relevant, when you're a declining power on the world's stage.

Putin must be taking lessons from Un …