"Baltic States nervous" Topic

…If the training "is coupled with the narrative of warmongering and increased threats, it's going to be a problem, especially for us because the training areas in the Western military district are close to our borders," said the official, who asked for anonymity. "Imagine hundreds of thousands training 70 kilometers from a NATO border with the narrative that NATO needs to be destroyed."…

Defense One: link

Understandable as part of the Russians national paranoia. Of course there is no problem as we are the Good Guys.

They are part of NATO, other NATO nation have forces there as well. They shouldn't worry too much.

And what much of Putin says is for local consumption … The Russians can't destroy NATO. Possibly unless they use Nukes/WMDs, which he is also said he will employ. But it has to be clear … anyone who starts tossing nukes around will not like what will happen.

Then the question is, can you survive a limited nuclear exchange ?

Or is there anything like a limited nuclear exchange ?

Will the concept of MAD be proven to be viable ? If almost everyone is dead … guess it won't matter then ?

No such thing as limited nuclear war. One side tosses a tac nuke, other side tosses one. First thinks, I'd better use all these or other side will destroy them. And away we go to nuclear Armageddon!

How many Russian missiles will actually work?

Putin has his hands full with Ukraine. Expanding the war would not be popular at home. The only way I would see him attacking the Baltic States is if he pulled off a quick win by overrunning a country quickly. Yet, that is what he thought would happen with Ukraine and look how well that worked. But, in the end, the Baltic States are part of NATO and it would be the height of folly for Putin to attack them.

Just imagine some strange little grey submariners with the magical cloak of plausible deniability would cut of the data cable between Russia and Königsberg. accidentially.

Boy, they would be pissed!
They would have to secure Königsberg, although they need the resources much more urgently in their fiasco called Ukraine.

Worth saying that the Baltic states' forces- though small- are highly motivated and capable. They perform well in NATO exercises, and can give US/UK and other bigger players a very hard time. Within the NATO construct, they would be formidable opponents to any russian aggression.
But their note of caution is worthwhile. Having supported their freedom in 1920- by 1940 Western Europe (the USA was not then a player), could do nothing practical to stop soviet (read russian) imperial resurgence.
The Baltic states are an impressive part of the free world again- we must not let them down.

"How many Russian missiles will actually work?"

This is an excellent question. The U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal was facing physical degradation of the warheads. Refurbishing them was/is expensive, time-consuming, and difficult.

Because of utter secrecy, any funds devoted to refurbishing, or even performing maintenance on, the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal is easy to steal.

We've also seen Strategic Rocket Forces patches showing up in Ukraine. I'm sure that they're trying to comb out janitors first, but they're going to start pulling maintenance technicians at some point.

"But their note of caution is worthwhile. Having supported their freedom in 1920- by 1940 Western Europe (the USA was not then a player), could do nothing practical to stop soviet (read russian) imperial resurgence."

That may be true, but it is also irrelevant. The western powers could not intervene because of a little problem called Nazi Germany. Unless you sever all transportation links from the U.S. and U.K. by sea, and from the rest of Europe by road and rail, the Baltic states can be supported. If you can sever all those links, we're already so bleeped that the Baltic states are irrelevant.

Remember that you can even land material and forces at Oslo, transship to Stockholm, and then ship them across the Baltic. Sure, it's inefficient, but it's another route to stop. Oh, and you can ship to Hamburg, then ship overland through Denmark, across the straits by tunnel and bridge, and on to Stockholm.

emckinney- just a thought but perhaps you might wish to consider very slightly toning down the ease with which you dismiss the relevance of other people's posts.

Obviously, it was the nazi-soviet pact in force at that time made Western help for the Baltic states impossible. Of course, the details of the situation are different now, and there are all of the ferry routes, Stockholm transhipments etc, etc, and all that, which you accurately itemise in detail.

But the Baltics have an understandably deep memory of the time when help didn't materialise, for whatever reason. NATO membership is a great reassurance, but I know from Baltic/East European friends that the Trump era really shook confidence in US commitment to NATO. That's being restored by current actions re Ukraine- but it did have an effect.

It's important that we stay on a strong message that NATO really will make good on helping defend Eastern Europe if necessary.

No such thing as limited nuclear war.

Many have said that, and I tend to very much agree. But there is some thought that it could occur. The Russians as their tactics' manuals say, e.g. use only 1-2 KT nukes on a limited area. Of course, regardless fallout will still go almost everywhere.

And IMO it will be too easy for the tossing nukes starts. Once one goes off.

This is an excellent question. The U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal was facing physical degradation of the warheads. Refurbishing them was/is expensive, time-consuming, and difficult.

If the maintenance of their nuke forces is as good as many/most of the rest of their forces. They may be just putting out the " Beware of the Dog" sign. But nukes can be a 0 – sum game. And never underestimate you enemy.

But we did overestimate the Russian capabilities to quickly take Ukraine in a few days or a week. They really proved to pretty much be a paper tiger. But again, when it comes to nukes better to use caution …

"Trump era really shook confidence in US commitment to NATO."

A NATO that contained countries that cut their defenses to near zero compared to Cold War levels and a NATO That would not spend even 2% of GDP on defense did not seem like they had much of a commitment to fight anyone either.

Just how many NATO nations sent troops to Afghanistan that intentionally engaged in actual ground combat?

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

UK, Poland and those very same Baltic states kept their spending up to NATO 2% guarantee levels and sent troops to Afghanistan and/or Iraq.

I'm not suggesting that all NATO countries pull their weight (some obviously don't). But the concern of other countries during the Trump era was about what appeared to many to be his capriciousness and even instability. Whether or not Trump WAS capricious and unstable is a matter of debate (I certainly don't know enough to say)- but many countries thought/think he was/is.

Trump, I think in the end was proved right as regards NATO and Europe's dependence on Russian gas and oil

And Helsinki did not help, at home or globally. A perception of weakness regarding Putin, who was and is always looking to undermine NATO, his major concern, would naturally be unsettling to the world. The famous photo of Merkel staring down Trump at the G7 summit, which Europe then jokingly called the "G6", also gives us a clue. There are loads of explanations for these thing from US supporters on the right, but the rest of the world did not always get the message, IMO.

Some US global commitments were cut during this era, like in the Pacific. Some feel this was right, but our place on the world stage began to change and I agree that there was some concern about American stability. I am not talking about right or wrong policy here, but perception of the USA.

The the defense of the United States and the other NATO members against Russia should not hang on whether everyone is paid up. It's not much of a price to pay for being able to keep a deterrent force in being on Russia's doorstep IMO.

NATO is back, however, and I think the Baltic is as safe as it can be.

Donnie was not the first, he was just a little more 'rustic' about it to Angie.

Germany was warned much earlier, and contrary to current Russian propaganda, it did not do what its US 'imperialist masters ' told it to do.
German-US Tensions Grow Over Baltic Pipeline – On Spiegel.de, 2008

We knew better…

As an aside, we should also have accepted Bush Sr.'s offer for the U.S. and Germany as partners in leadership in 1989.
George H. W. Bush, Partners in Leadership Speech, 1989
But we did not dare to do so for understandable reasons.

Later, in a sense Germany economically anticipated Donnie's famous campaign slogan as 'Germany first'.
If not politically, then as the world champion of exports, based on cheap energy.

So, we all would be better off if we had listened to our friends more closely.
On the other hand, no 'Coalition of the Willing' with us.
BS that Russia loves to use for its Whataboutism campaigns.

So, there we were right.

Buckerkmeister +1

Jeffbird +1

Someone tell me what policies Trump changed re NATO? I think the answer is very little to none. He just forcefully reminded NATO that they need to put skin in the game or else.

And, IMO, reason many in Europe felt differently can be laid at the feet of media, who piled on the anti-Trump arguments at every turn.

As I said, loads of explanations from the right re: foreign policy conduct. Who knows? Not even any record of the Helsinki summit.

He just forcefully reminded NATO that they need to put skin in the game or else.

Yep and it seemed to work … Many started to use their 2% GNP(?) required by NATO for upgrading their military. Now it took some time and not all still could not do that. But the then POTUS was clear. Pay to play or we will be out of NATO. Of course, Putin's invasion woke NATO up … Had the opposite result he had hoped.

And, IMO, reason many in Europe felt differently can be laid at the feet of media, who piled on the anti-Trump arguments at every turn.

Exactly … and the media continues telling the news to fit an agenda & narrative etc. All the way around.

It's not much of a price to pay for being able to keep a deterrent force in being on Russia's doorstep IMO.

Bingo !

NATO is back, however, and I think the Baltic is as safe as it can be.

Attack any member of NATO is an attack on all. That includes the Baltic States. Of course, Putin could never take on NATO before the invasion or especially now.

With NATO backing them up, I can understand their anxiety.

If you think that these events were not influenced by Trump being in office your not paying attention or turning a blind eye.

If Putin tries to use nukes that will be the end of Russia, whether it the end of the rest of us is a different discussion. And judging by recent events saber rating is do nothing for his approval ratings at home.

Tortorella: Trump and his pointing out European shirking of it defense commitments had nothing to do with finances. President Trump and many Americans saw that Europe was relying to much on the USA for its defense. A prime example was EU interventions relying on American support to much on basic equipment that the EU refused to invest in. That and the over dependence on Russian energy by EU countries made many like me wonder if the Europeans were serious abut defense.

If you think that these events were not influenced by Trump being in office your not paying attention or turning a blind eye.

Ah … he's not in office … it has proven repeatedly there was no Russian Collusion … just say'n …

If Putin tries to use nukes that will be the end of Russia, whether it the end of the rest of us is a different discussion.

As I said on another thread …

Saw Ret. 4 Star Army GEN Jack Kean on the news. Said that much of Putin's talk is just saber rattling for local consumption. But again, when it comes to nukes, he said we have to take it seriously. But don't overreact …

He also said, IF Russia used nukes in Ukraine. The US[maybe some others in NATO?] would retaliate with non-nuke missiles, air strikes and drones. And wipe out everything the Russians have in the Ukraine. GEN Petreus said similar …

I'm going with their assessments …

And judging by recent events saber rating is do nothing for his approval ratings at home.

There are many old school commies like Putin still hanging around Russia.

HazeGray, you may be right. But diplomacy requires subtle skill, knowledge, persuasive powers, gamesmanship to get the best results. And sometimes you don't bring your hammer to the table.

But diplomacy requires subtle skill, knowledge, persuasive powers, gamesmanship to get the best results. And sometimes you don't bring your hammer to the table.

I don't see how you can use diplomacy when the other guy takes your land and says it is his forever.

The increase in defence spending by some NATO countries had already been agreed with Obama. Trump sticking his oar in made little difference.

Bill, I was talking about dealing with the NATO nations in response to Hazegrey's post. Bringing Europe and NATO back into cohesion required understanding of history and current events, cultural differences, and human nature, as well as diplomatic skills. Basic stuff you expect in a leader.

I disagree with anyone who thinks that the US and NATO have not been instrumental in defeating Putin's conventional forces. The NATO leaders who committed to this have presented Putin with a much more united front than would have been possible a couple of years ago.

Ah … he's not in office … it has proven repeatedly there was no Russian Collusion … just say'n …

Correct, it was Russian interference that was established, not collusion with the Russians:

"The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Pages 1-2 of:
Report On The Investigation Into
Russian Interference In The
2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II

link

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific
offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal
criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the
factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ed]"—a term that appears
in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion,
"coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood
coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the
Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking
actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term
coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the
Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Page 2 of the above.

And tell me again what that episode was about when Trump asked everybody but Putin's Russian Translator to leave the room?

Good info Steve …

And as of yet AFAIK … the former POTUS has been charged with nothing …

Now paying a former UK Spy & Russian operative for a made-up story/file about Russian collusion … So what do I know … ?

It will be an interesting election.