"Nato must prepare for 'overnight Russian invasion of..." Topic

…Poland' and the US must ship more missiles to the region, say experts

Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 has made Poland and the Baltic states nervous about the aggressive intentions of the Bear next door

Poland joined Nato in 1999 and the Baltic states signed up five years later In 1939 Russia invaded eastern Poland after Stalin and Hitler carved the country up under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact …"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

looking at the screen, I would first invade the rest of Ukraine before Poland or the Baltic states if I were the Russian…
Europe needs an army, that's a fact.
But that Putin is willing to make war?

Yea, Poland seems to be a bad choice.

Belarus perhaps, since they've been complaining about lots of unapproved Russian military overflights of their country.

Europe doesn't need an army, Europe has Nato, British forces will never be joined into an army run by the Brussels mafia.
Putin/Russia doesn't want a war he wants to be strong and respected and have influence in the area,

Given the Russians have spectacularly failed to knock over the Ukrainians, I doubt they'll want to go toe to toe with NATO soon.

Especially as the Finns would get involved in the Baltics, and the Swedes, and the Finns especially maintain a huge army when the reservists are called up.

I would assume the Finns would retain they tactical advantage in that kind of terrain, even if not so marked as last time…

Worth looking at what the locals can field.

Estonia can, mobilise,d field 2 brigades including 80CV90s from Sweden.

It can also field 20,000 paramilitaries for what that's worth.

Latvia can field a single brigade – but does have 120 or so old CVRs from the UK.

Lithuanina has two mechanised infantry brigades and 88 wheeled Boxer AFVs.

It then has a further 4000 paramilitaries.

All useful forces given the terrain, the big weakness being no combat aircraft.

Since all three are heavily wooded I do wonder about how quickly an invasion could occur.

Re Baltic air policing:

link

The comment 'According to a former staff of the National Defence University of Finland the Baltic air bases are untenable in a war scenario as they lack hardened aircraft shelters which makes them vulnerable to attack.[14] Also Russia operates long-range AAA missiles in Kalinigrad and St Petersburg which would severely hamper or stop air operations from the area.[14]' suggests that aircraft based in the Baltic states themselves may not be a viable option. Better to operate from Poland or Finland?

Putin wants to throw his weight around and be the big man, but I don't see any danger of a war. What Bangorstu said.

An air drop or helo assault only takes an hour, or so.

Faster, if you're in a hurry.

On a related note, Putin hasn't really attacked in Ukraine, though his proxies are well supplied and backed, and things have heated up a bit there in the last few days again.

Mako – all three Baltic states have decent AAA capability… and if you take them out you've rather shown your hand.

I doubt the Russians could mount a surprise attack.

I've been told there a regular Russian units in Ukraine – and they've taken heavy casualties.

Russian ambitions and intentions are overblown. marmont stated what many already knew but refuse to acknowledge. Russia simply wants to maintain influence in her "near abroad," like the US or China. Russia would not have taken the Crimea had Ukraine not deposed the elected president so that she can cut economic ties with Russia and join the EU. Imagine Canada and Mexico pulling out of NAFTA and sign deals with Russia.

It's Geopolitics 101.

Agree!

"Given the Russians have spectacularly failed to knock over the Ukrainians, I doubt they'll want to go toe to toe with NATO soon…"

Maybe…. but Rusia didn't put in the field their Army units… they "support" the Rusian-Ukranians with war material and some "volunteers"… not the same if they invaded with their Army Forces…

Amicalement
Armand

I suspect those gun and missile batteries are unmanned, and that the live ordnance for them is safely tucked away, like with most militaries.

The much vaunted USAF, with all its impressive long range radar systems, continental defense HQ, airbases, and personnel were very slow in responding to the 9/11 attacks. Some fighters were sent up without missiles, and their pilots were considering having to ram any errant airliners they might have to deal with.

Do you really think the very small, Baltic nations are better prepared than the USA for a sneak attack?

NATO's sending a few thousand troops to the Baltics, and Russia's said they'll counter with three full divisions on the border. They've also been stockpiling numerous weapons in Kaliningrad, and the region too (at another airport to the East of the small Baltic States).

US/NATO generals have run exercises, and concluded that Russia could take the Baltics in about 2 – 3 days.

It takes the NATO Rapid Reaction Forces 3 days to a week in order to mobilize to respond, so it'll be over before NATO even gets off the ground. Then, Russia will threaten the use of nukes to protect the territory they've taken, and the NATO/EU leadership will be frozen in fear.

If they can't deal with an unarmed insurgency across their borders, how can they hope to be able to deal with one that is supported by combat jets and helos, tanks, IFVs, and artillery?

Hopefully, it will not come to pass, but the Russians (typed "Soviets" first, ha ha – some things and people never change) could conduct a sneak attack before anyone could react.

They've proved that on a number of occasions, in various countries, e.g. Hungary, Czech, Afghanistan (aerial assault), Crimea, etc., etc..

Russia could take the Ukraine any time it wants to. Thus far, they've decided the cost isn't worth the effort, with the exception of Eastern Ukraine.

…but if Trump wins the election?

Mako – got any evidence for that assertion?

Given NATO regularly intercept Russian plane sin the area, something must be working.

The much vaunted USAF has the advantage of being several thousand miles away from any attack. That explains the lack of 9/11 response.

I doubt any European air force would have taken so long – and that's merely because of the practice the Red Air Force gives us on a weekly basis.

Do you really think the very small, Baltic nations are better prepared than the USA for a sneak attack?

Yes. Because, unlike the USA, they have every reason to expect one.

In the Crimea and Ukraine the Russians used the 'Little Green Men'. They can't use that tactic in the Baltics.. it would be seen through now it's been done twice.

And I don't frankly think three Russian divisions will cut the mustard – assuming the Baltic forces are up to NATO standard.

And once things get messy… the Finns have the astounding total of 330,000 men in their army when deployed.

Saw a recent report Poland reformed its Territorial Defense Force to the tune of 35,000 men in light of just such a scenario. Don't know where they're at with preparations, but the prospect of Russian invasion seems to be a distinct possibility in their thinking.

I'm not sure cool logic and reasonableness prevail in Putin's thinking. He's been dumping men and ships into Kaliningrad lately, then adding anti air systems and short/med range nuclear-capable missiles. Doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Given his regional cyber-attacks, (Estonia and Ukraine) the incursion into Georgia, annexation of Crimea, inciting/supporting tension in the Ukraine and the involvement in Syria, I suspect if Putin wants something and thinks he can get away with it, he'll take a swing.

But perhaps not until he sees who's elected to the White House.

According to Wikipedia, there are only 13,000 ethnic Russians remaining in today's Poland. The post-WWII border changes and population relocations effectively removed any real incentive for the Russians to harbor territorial designs against Poland (unlike the 1930s).

The Baltic states are a different matter, of course, but these type of stories, which have been appearing with convenient regularity for a few years now, all ascribe sinister and evil intent to everything the Russians /Putin do but never explain why the Russians might feel under threat from NATO and US encroachment and encirclement.

The Daily Mail, what a reliable source, and I bet that American "think tank" cited is another right-wing funded lobby group working for Pentagon interests. Cui bono?

Some of the Baltic States don't even have aircraft.

If helos and jets come in at treetop level, my guess is it'll be over before NATO can react, as I've said above.

That's not just my assertion, but the statements of one or more current and former NATO generals/commanders as well. I suspect they know their stuff, Bangor.

The Russian SAMs and radars in Kaliningrad can supposedly provide aerial denial to NATO jets over that section of Europe.

Yes, NATO can put up jets, but are they armed with missiles, or are those left back at base to avoid escalating things accidentally?

If I recall correctly, the NATO "Rapid Reaction" force they're still working on creating takes 5 – 7 days to assemble. That's not really "rapid" in my book, so it seems the reaction performance bar has been set rather low. An article on that was posted here on TMP, not too long ago.

Tanks and IFVs will be able to roll from end to end, virtually unopposed in that time, I suspect, save for the few ad hoc units that can get into the field, to be quickly steamrolled by the Russian forces as they quickly advance, virtually unopposed.

I don't know about the Baltic military forces specifically, but I do know that a lot of other military forces used to keep the peace are frequently for show, and their commanders don't trust them with live ammo, less a diplomatic incident, or massacre be caused by accident. Many peacekeepers have paid the price with their lives due to that decision-making.

Mako…where do you get the idea that NATO mounts CAPs unarmed?

Never happened in Europe to my knowledge.

And if you know anything about East Europeans you'll know they'll fight and fight hard against Russians.

Simple questions:

1. What has Russia got to gain from starting a possible world war (is annexing the Baltic states going to be worth that risk)?

2. What do sectors of the "Western" political and industrial sectors have to gain from talking up the Russian (and PRC) threats?

Do I trust Putin? Not really. But neither do I think he's mad/ambitious/dangerous/deluded enough to turn the clock back to 1939.

The PRC is a different matter.

War? Russia and NATO? Do you really believe that? All these showy performance style "shoot a ballistic missile," "fly close to the American ship" and other saber-rattling always timed to raise taxes.

The mission statement of the think-tank which produced the report:

Mission
The Atlantic Council promotes constructive U.S. leadership and engagement in international affairs based on the central role of the Atlantic community in meeting the international challenges of the 21st century.

It's a pro-NATO organization devoted to promoting US leadership in international affairs. Is it any wonder that it promotes such a scenario?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Piper: One of those think tanks is the Rand Corporation… hardly a right wing think tank. Generally the US government sits up and pays attention when Rand says something. Even Obama, hardly a right winger and defense industry stooge, is taking what they said seriously.

link

In other interesting news, the Rand Corporation was and is a major contributor to our wonderful hobby. This study is based off their wargaming this scenario. Looks like a fun game.