"Could The U.S. Military Stop A Russian invasion Of ..." Topic

…The Baltics?

"After conducting an exhaustive series of wargames wherein "red" (Russian) and "blue" (NATO) forces engaged in a wide range of war scenarios over the Baltic states, a Rand Corporation study called "Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank" determined that a successful NATO defense of the region would require a much larger air-ground force than what is currently deployed.

In particular, the study calls for a NATO strategy similar to the Cold War era's "AirLand Battle" doctrine from the 1980s. During this time, the U.S. Army stationed at least several hundred thousand troops in Europe as a strategy to deter a potential Russian invasion. Officials with U.S. Army Europe tell Scout Warrior that there are currenty 30,000 U.S. Army soldiers in Europe.

The Rand study maintains that, without a deterrent the size of at least seven brigades, fires and air support protecting Eastern Europe, that Russia cold overrun the Baltic states as quickly as in 60 hours…"

More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

What, no tough love for Lithuania?

Dunno. Could Russia stop a US invasion of Iraq?

So we've stopped pretending by using Blue versus Orange, then?

No. A bunch of civilians with Javelins could stop a Russian invasion.

While the Russians are involved in Syria and the Crimea/Eastern Ukraine, the likelihood of an invasion of the Baltic states is very small.

I suspect the new European Union Army will reestablish the status quo.

Peace on you all

"The National Interest" seems to be be only interested in causing war hysteria. Not really surprising given their ties tot he defense industry.

Could Russia then protect the Ukraine and Kalingrad?

By Ukraine I meant, of course, the Crimea and those other 'disputed' areas currently held by 'volunteers'.

Stop as in stop at the border?

Or stop as in making it economically unwise to do so?

Or stop as in Nato then starts sinking ships, shooting down aircraft. etc. etc. until Russia decides that the invasion was a bad idea and heads back over the border?

David

No.

Much like the EU, we can't even stop an invasion by…..self-censored for content.

I suspect you can figure out the rest.

NATO would have to have a lot of units in place in those Baltic States to stop the initial Russian Forces. But even if they took the Baltics, that may be as far as they could go for a number of reasons.

It depends on how much 'skin' you want to put into the 'game'. If the Russian's really want them, there's not much (short of nukes) to stop them. But at what cost? Russia can't even make the payments on their current adventures. Adding a Baltic 'adventure' may be one too many.

Pan Marek- You're so right, 'National Interest' is now more mouthpiece than news and analysis source.

Does the United States need to stop an invasion of the Baltics? There are already hundreds of thousands of combat troops in Europe.

America doesn't -need- to stop the Russians. It's our job over here in North America to reinforce them if it gets too crazy, in my opinion.

No.

Of course they couldn't. It's actually a very small chunk of ground and the roads are infinitely better now than they were in 1940.

The only way NATO would be able to stop the Russians is to convert a chunk of Estonia and Latvia into military fortified zones backed up by massive armoured reserves and airpower.

Stationing 4-12 fighter aircraft and a couple of battalions of light infantry to supplement the weak forces fielded by the Baltics won't be more than a speed hump.