What would actually happen if Russia invaded the Baltic countries?

[Astaroth]

In the hope that a more active discussion will begin here, I'm reposting this from the Symposium...

A few preliminary points: I am aware that this scenario is fairly unlikely. Russia is neither ready nor willing to enter into open conflict with NATO and I doubt that Putin would attempt such a risky move. Therefore, this thread is not about whether Russia would even attempt this or how (un)likely it might be. Nor am I interested in creating an "anti-Russia" propaganda piece. Please stay on topic which is not the likelihood of such a scenario.

But let's look into the actual matter at hand.


----

Whenever something like Putin attacking a NATO country is mentioned, everyone immediately starts shouting about WW3. Now obviously an attack on a NATO member would result in that country invoking Art. 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. And of course NATO and Russia both have access to a large military and nukes. However, these are theoretical points. I am not so sure if an attack on one of the Baltic countries would actually lead to anything comparable to WW3. I am not even entirely convinced it would even necessarily lead to an open full military confrontation between Russia and NATO, let alone a nuclear war.

Here are two different scenarios:

1) Russia actually invades one or all of the Baltic countries with all of its military might. Several factors to consider here: One, all three Baltic states combined do not even have 25,000 active military personnel. That is less troops than Russia has on Crimea right now. Only taking into account Russia's active troops, they outnumber the Baltic states military combined more than 30-1. Add to that the Russian superior navy, tanks and artillery, not to mention nukes. Two, consider how fast small countries have been occupied by larger neighbours in the past. For example, Denmark was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany in less than a day during WW2.

This indicates that even if there was a bit of time for the three countries to prepare, they would most likely be completely overrun and occupied by Russia in a matter of days at most. As a result, the other NATO countries would not even have time to properly mobilise their troops, let alone send them to the Baltic countries in time to defeat the Russian invasion. Now if the Russian army kept pushing south and west into Poland, of course a major military confrontation between NATO and Russia (i.e. WW3) would inevitably happen sooner or later, regardless of whether Russia would manage to push into Germany or even France.

But imagine that does not happen. Imagine Russia occupies the Baltic countries, but doesn't keep on pushing and does not attack NATO any further. How would NATO, how would the world react? Obviously there would be an incredible outcry, the diplomatic, political and economic consequences would be disastrous for Russia. Needlesss to say, Russia would be sanctioned by the West (or even the world) and isolated.

But the interesting question is: Would any military steps be taken? You might say, "of course, look at Art. 5 of the NATO Treaty!". Sure, but that's in theory. Fact is, nobody wants WW3. Nobody in the West, especially in Europe, wants any war right now, period. Of course defending yourself against an ongoing invasion is one thing. I doubt German or French or British troops would just let enemies take over their countries without any response. But retaliating against an enemy or potentially taking back land that was conquered by them is something entirely different, especially in the age of nuclear weapons.
How would the West actually react? Would the US start nuking Russia? Would NATO actually amass a giant conventional force and invade the Baltic countries in an effort to push Russia back?

I am not sure any of that would actually take place. In the light of recent events and the views most politicals and citizens in the West have, it seems more likely that NATO would limit itself to drawing another red line, build up a large troop presence in Poland and only put pressure on Russia via drastic economic, political and diplomatic measures (plus perhaps some covert operations). However, such a reaction seems extremely problematic to me, because it would ultimately showcase that NATO is not able or willing to protect its members against foreign invasion.

What do you think would happen?


2) Another possible scenario, this one being a lot more likely. Russia sends thousands of masked men without insignia and armoured vehicles without number plates into the Baltic states and de facto quickly occupies a region such as the Ida-Viru Country (70+ % ethnic Russians). Just like in Crimea, Estonia would have no chance of defending against such an invasion by itself (standing military: a mere 3,000 personnel, much less than Ukraine had even on the Crimea). Nor would they be willing to attack a (clearly) Russian force by themselves with their tiny military and thus risk the scenario 1) taking place.

Now picture pretty much a Crimea 2.0. The unidentified but clearly Russian soldiers occupy all military bases, border posts and government buildings quickly. One or two weeks later, a referendum takes place and 95% vote for joining Russia. Putin agrees and lets the region join the RF.

What do you think would the West do in the meantime? Of course, there would again be sanctions, economic, political and diplomatic consequences. But would the North Atlantic Treaty actually play a role? Would anyone actually dare to oppose the Russian invasion militarily in the light of the dangers associated with that?

I personally hope that something like that would not be tolerated by NATO or the international community. But considering the war-weariness in the West and the unwillingness to openly oppose Russia militarily, I'm not sure the West would do much to oppose such an invasion.


----

When discussing such scenarios ridiculing them as unlikely or reducing them to "WW3 will happen" is easy. However, I'm not sure the situation is quite as simple and I'm seriously wondering what would actually happen if any of this came to pass, unlikely or not.

What do you think?

[Condottiere 40K]

Crimea may have shot Putin's bolt, much like the invasion of the Czechoslovakian rump placed Britain and France in a position that they were firmly behind Poland. The problem with Crimea is not that Putin had it annexed, but the means through which the process took place.

The Chinese aren't ready for a confrontation with the West for another twenty years, and need them to keep their economic development ontrack, so at best, he won't get any support from that quarter, at worst, the Chinese may rediscover some old maps which stretch the Middle Kingdom a bit further northwards.

Even if Putin ignores the lessons of history, the most nationalistic of Russians wouldn't have; world wars bring incredible suffering to it's people, and there's a fifty percent chance they'll lose a great deal of territory, assuming no one pushes any nuclear buttons.

The oligarchs, despite being neutered, create the wealth that oils the bureaucratic machine of state, and a war would ensure immediate sanctions, the lose of their assets in the West and their escape route, though they could slum it in Africa and South America.

[Dromikaites]

Invading even a province of Estonia requires some build up of troops. That buildup cannot go undetected since NATO actively monitors the activity in the close proximity of their borders.

So we have to assume that a Russian invasion would happen after NATO has detected the preparations, has put the NATO forces in readiness and has warned Russia to back down.

The moment the Russians cross the border with Estonia, the AWACS flying over Poland would coordinate the NATO air force strikes against the Russian columns. That would happen even before article 5 is invoked, for the simple reason the NATO forces were already on alert.

Given the AWACS sees deep inside the Russian territory, no Russian air force surprise strike would be possible prior to the invasion. Nor would it be possible for Russia to provide effective air cover for the invading forces.

What would be left of the Russian troops after the airstrikes would be more manageable for the Baltic armies, till the Polish "cavalry" arrives. And coming behind the Poles would be the Germans.

The Russian generals know how to read a map and the Cuban Missile Crisis has shown they aren't particularly suicidal.

This is why Russia cannot hope to have another Crimea in the Baltics.

If the Russians want to do some additional territorial acquisitions Belarus and Eastern Ukraine are far less dangerous than the Ida-Viru county.

Belarus is begging them for annexation since 1996 and nobody in the West had objected to that for almost 20 years now.

Eastern Ukraine would be more tricky since it would result in Russia being embargoed like Iran is and in a massive NATO buildup in Poland and Romania, but if Putin is in an Adolf mood, he might try that. Ida-Viru? No way!

[Holger Danske]

Well the premise of the OP is that Russia does attack a NATO country. But as you said there is no way Russia will be able to do that without NATO seeing it coming and reacting to it. The question is if a full out war between NATO and Russia would erupt from there or if the two would keep it to a "minor" border skirmish.

[conon394]

OP

Well the Baltic's don't really need an army first as actual NATO members Putin would be upping his game to a very dangerous level. The simple fact is he would have to assume a US president would allow NATO to be fatality rendered pointless and that is not going to happen.

Second Putin's actions have already revived a Polish plan for a joint Polish/Ukrainian/Lithuanian Brigade. I would suspect if unmarked Russians show up a lot unmarked Poles might as well. And of course 173 Airborne can react rather quickly and all Obama has to say is you can buy uniforms at the army surplus store...

Now I doubt anything more than a fraction of the 173rd could be put in a Baltic country quickly but between what can be and Poland I really doubt Russia could manage a snap no badge thing again - especially now that they have done it once. Also do the local Russian speakers even want him to? I mean its one thing to go from corrupt Ukraine to corrupt Russia (with more oil wealth) but all the Baltic states have less income inequality and better per capita GDP than the Czar's land why change?

If Russia were mass real force NATO can do the same as noted.

Putin has shot his best wad - at best he can play for more of Ukraine but unless he is really lost it the Baltic States are out.

[trance]

Even poor sweden has commited to helping the baltics if it is attacked. Russia would be cut off economically from the world and its forces would be minced into dust in kaliningrad before long. Hopefully a US carrier group would make its way into the baltic sea too. That would be awesome.

[Astaroth]

Well the premise of the OP is that Russia does attack a NATO country. But as you said there is no way Russia will be able to do that without NATO seeing it coming and reacting to it. The question is if a full out war between NATO and Russia would erupt from there or if the two would keep it to a "minor" border skirmish.

Yes, the question is how exactly NATO would react, though. Maybe it is just me, but I cannot imagine Merkel or Obama ordering a full frontal assault against Russia's military. I just don't see that happening, considering the current political climate in the West and the fear of WW3 starting. Naturally, NATO would not stand by idly if Russia really were to invade deep into Europe. Also, if the Baltic countries manged to hold off a Russian invasion for a few days or weeks, NATO troops would soon start gathering in Poland and the Baltic Sea, no doubt about that.

But note the WW2 Denmark example -- the country was conquered in less than a day. If Russia managed to quickly seize Estonia without too much bloodshed, would NATO really retaliate with a full-scale war in order to re-take the country? Especially if Putin made no inclination to attack further NATO countries but threatened with a nuclear war if NATO attacked him openly?

I'm sure that at least in Europe, a lot of people would be opposed to starting a major war against Russia over Estonia, especially considering the threat of nukes getting used.

All of this applies to an even greater degree if Russia were to "only" seize one or two Estonian regions.

@Dromikaites: Yes, NATO would be aware of the Russian troop movements soon enough. But 1) they might believe that Putin is just attempting to threaten its neighbours or impress his population (especially with a lot of people in the West thinking "the Cold War is over" etc.), 2) Russia does not need a lot of time to gather enough strength to overrun Estonia's 3000 men and 3) Russia can build up troops in that area much faster than a strong NATO force could be assembled. Also, note that especially people like Merkel might not be too fond of sending thousands of German soldiers to Estonia out of a fear of "escalation" (if they were still unaware that Putin actually wants to invade rather than just threaten, which is not too unlikely).

If Russia were mass real force NATO can do the same as noted.

Yes, but it's not quite as simple. Russia could be seen as only wanting to threaten Estonia, Western politicians might not want to escalate the situation too much, Russia can mass troops faster in the area and they also would not need too many men to take over the Baltic countries, especially Estonia.


-----

Again, I'm convinced that the NATO and international verbal, diplomatic and economical reaction would be very harsh. I'm also sure that NATO would react by mobilising, threatening Russia and amassing troops in nearby countries. But I'm not sure they would openly attack Russia in order to take back countries that are already occupied (defending countries against Russia is a different matter).

[conon394]

But I'm not sure they would openly attack Russia in order to take back countries that are already occupied (defending countries against Russia is a different matter).

Hmm I still think you are failing to see the difference between Putin messing around in a stable NATO/EU member nation vs mucking about in the Ukraine or Georgia or what have you.

But again Putin can't really fool anyone, he has played the no badges card and massing troops takes time I'm not sure why you think Russia can to this faster near the Baltic Sates than Poland + the various rapid US response forces in Europe.

Yes, but it's not quite as simple. Russia could be seen as only wanting to threaten Estonia, Western politicians might not want to escalate the situation too much

But Poland might and that I think that is sufficient. It has been active in the Ukraine before current situation and seems to pushing hard now both militarily, and with EU/IMF negotiations and in general calling for harsher sanctions on Russia. It has a fair amount of military investment in supplementing the Baltic states. In the Long Run it seems to still have retained mostly coal for energy and is building a LNG terminal and with the US off the market - LGN is a viable alternative to Russia.

Putin might have Germany by the energy balls and France might be bogged down in African bush wars and the UK tired after following the US in Mid East fun for a decade, but I am thinking Poland might just be a little less than happy about more Russian power plays and not likely to just watch and react rather seriously and promptly.

edit: Besides could not Poland or Germany simply counter a Russian move against Lithuania or Estonia by taking over Kaliningrad Oblast? I mean 'Historically' it is obviously part of Poland or Germany once you hand all the Russians suit cases and plane tickets it is again.

[Dromikaites]

Yes, NATO would be aware of the Russian troop movements soon enough. But 1) they might believe that Putin is just attempting to threaten its neighbours or impress his population (especially with a lot of people in the West thinking "the Cold War is over" etc.),

What the civilians think and what the NATO command does are two different things.

When Putin was sending unmarked troops to Crimea NATO moved two American destroyers into the Black Sea, brought the 6th fleet carrier to Piraeus, moved NATO fighter jets to Poland and put one AWACS above Romania and another one above Poland.

2) Russia does not need a lot of time to gather enough strength to overrun Estonia's 3000 men and

Estonia has 3,000 men in peace time. If anything funny is detected in the area, like some Russian "exercises", Estonia has 60,000 reservists a phone call away. In order to be sure to subdue Estonia quickly, Russia needs to send in at least a division (10,000 - 12,000 men). That's not something which could sneak undetected.

3) Russia can build up troops in that area much faster than a strong NATO force could be assembled.

Any buildup is easily detected by NATO form the very incipient phase. So if it looks threatening, the first to mobilize would be Estonians, the Latvians, the Lithuanians and the Poles. It is faster for the Estonians to arm 60,000 men than for Russia to bring the first 60,000 within striking distance of Estonia. And once the Estonians have 60,000 men under arms, the Russians would need some 180,000 to deal with them, even if the rest of NATO doesn't lift a finger.

Also, note that especially people like Merkel might not be too fond of sending thousands of German soldiers to Estonia out of a fear of "escalation" (if they were still unaware that Putin actually wants to invade rather than just threaten, which is not too unlikely).

The Germans and the Poles would show up later, after the airstrikes and the local forces have dealt with the initial attacks.

Do understand there is no possibility of a sneak attack on Estonia because a division is too big to approach undetected. Actually it is too big to start preparing for marching undetected. But a division is also too small to win even against 3,000 Estonian troops if NATO planes come to the rescue. And the airstrikes are beyond any doubt.

So the Russians need to assemble many more troops than a single division. That both takes time and it is absolutely impossible to conceal. Which in turn means the Baltic States have time to mobilize their forces and NATO has even more time to bring additional assets to the area.

What happened in Crimea was possible only because the Ukrainian army was unprepared and because the orders were not to resist. The Defense Minister got sacked precisely because of those reasons.

Later Edit:
To better understand how hard is to move troops undetected, the Russian forces currently massed at Ukraine's eastern border are estimated to be between 25,000 and 35,000 soldiers, which means 2 - 3 divisions.

And that is what NATO can "see" far away, well beyond its borders.

[Simon Cashmere]

I think that Putin might really bite off more than he can chew if he invades NATO members. Sure there will be more calls for Neville Chamberlain like appeasement, but, the NATO treaty is explicit. So the governments and NATO would have to declare that they were violating their own treaty. Might happen, but also what might happen is that NATO reaches its breaking point with Russia, much like the Allies eventually reached their breaking point with Hitler. Hitler was pretty certain nothing was going to happen if he invaded Poland. But on the other side, he thought, even if it does - good - I can defeat UK/France no problem. That was correct up until the point that he then invaded Russia and declared war on the United States (that was astonishingly stupid).

I do think that NATO would dither for a while before it did anything. Putin could quickly grab Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia with no trouble at all. Will the public accept WW3 to restore sovereignty to Lithuania? Are politicians brave enough to even try? Maybe NATO will just wear it and reinforce Poland then. But its a dangerous game for Putin to play, the upside for him is maybe getting 1,2, or 3 run down tiny baltic states. The downside, is having the most enormous war where, loads of people, his own people, are killed - and - NATO will wipe the floor with Russia ultimately, so it will be a humiliating defeat for him. Unless Putin is mad, I think he'll just keep messing with Ukraine as it is not EU or NATO.

Looks like Putin is going to invade Ukraine proper now:

The troops are reportedly not average Russian conscripts. New intelligence reveals the mechanised infantry units and their tanks to be among the best and most highly trained the Russian Federation has — diverted from their Moscow barracks to their tents and revetments overlooking Ukraine.

http://www.news.com.au/world/a-rapid...-1226867240935

You don't move elite mechanised infrantry from Moscow to the Ukrainian border unless you are going to tell them roll west.

[DarthShizNit]

Why do you assume world war 3 kicks off because the two countries go head to head in the Baltic? World War 3 didn't break out when the UN and China slogged it out in Korea. Nukes might be an option if NATO is down the road from Moscow or vice versa with Paris, but the type of conflict you're talking about will by no means escalate past the Baltic. No one would invade Russia, and the Russian military is unlikely to be able to handle more than one front for a long time.

As for what happens , as others have noted, Russian military build up would be spotted long before the Russians themselves were crossing the border. Amidst a war of words sure to break out before Russians left the mobilization zone, French and American carriers link up in the Baltic with the Polish Navy, NATO subs surround Kalingrad, an imperial ton of aircraft gets parked in Poland, and US and Polish forces start moving into the Baltic (in small numbers most likely), with the 173 likely hijacking a ride to Talin Interntioal airport assuming the Russians haven't put planes over the airspace already. As mentioned, this is likely before Russian troops have actually crossed any border. America has satellites, Russia's not mobilizing enough troops to invade a country without them noticing (yeah we more than likely noticed Crimea before the average Russian).

You seem to be confusing the Baltics, stable democracies already in NATO (and backed by a very paranoid Poland) with a backwater and corrupt nation that never left Russia's sphere of influence. The West might be war weary, but we're also not ing stupid, good lord the amount of Hitler analogies that would flood the media. Russia simply doesn't get away with invading a standing member of NATO, period.

Assuming the "Bring it mother er" troops NATO puts on the table fail to talk Russia into calming the hell down, then things get hot very quickly, and people die very quickly, and you would have your results in about a week tops. The most likely result is the vaporizing of Russian military men and equipment in Kalingrad (good bye Baltic fleet) and a divisions worth of Russian tanks lying just inside the border of whatever Baltic country they choose to attack, most likely taken out by NATO airpower, and any footholds cleaned up by Polish/Baltic/American ground forces. If America puts a CTF into the Baltic, either they dominate or the Russian manage to pull a Red Storm Rising (I'm not gonna claim a CTF is invincible, especially in the close quarters of the Baltic) and we're down a carrier, but either way I doubt the Russians will be able to achieve air superiority, though their supposedly decent air defense should keep NATO from hitting within Russia. All in all, you would have a brief military flare up, a clear tactical defeat of the Russians, and then the calming of down. We wouldn't go "Now's a great time to invade Russia" (though Poland might have occupied the countryside surrounding Kalingrad by this point in time) and Russia will unlikely be in any shape of launch another major offensive anywhere else in Europe. NATO showers in their glory and Russia goes off the sulk and die from the economic impact.

Meanwhile, China and Japan will have been taking careful notes.

[Simon Cashmere]

Russia simply doesn't get away with invading a standing member of NATO, period.

Maybe under Bush, but under Obama, I think he'd go to water and make excuses about why he couldn't do anything. I also think that Putin believes the same thing. Without direction from the US, the rest of NATO would look for the same excuse not to be involved, and stall saying that negotiations need to be given more time to complete. By that time Putin has completely occupied Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. What does NATO do - call up reserves and fight to get Russia out of those places?

If Russia invades - France - I think NATO would get involved. Estonia, Latvia and/or Lithuania - I'm not so sure. I hope they'd keep their bargain with these countries, but I have my doubts,

[DarthShizNit]

Yeah cause Obama is so adverse to fighting...oh what was that Osama Bin Laden? You couldn't read that because the bullet turned your brain to mush? Here I'll get Anwar al-Awlaki to help you...what do you mean we can't find him? That's it, get me Ghaddafi!

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

And i doubt the other men of high standing i Russia would be willing to go so far, Putin does rule with an iron hand but will everyone in Russia obey?

[conon394]

Maybe under Bush, but under Obama, I think he'd go to water and make excuses about why he couldn't do anything.

Umm really? Adverse say to fighting the pointless war of the previous Admin is now adverse to war anywhere? Getting the hell out of A-stan a place nobody has ever changed it into Imperial Russia, The USSR, a democracy, part of Queen Victoria's realm , or hell even Alexander only held it for about as long he was alive and he did the by killing most anything that even even looked funny at his troops is adverse to war - looks smart to me.

Or do mean we should be at war already over the Crimean situation? Why - care to outline that? The is a very large difference in defending a NATO country - NATO being a cornerstone of US power - and worrying about border disputes in a former Soviet republic that should have never been left to fester anyway. I don't recall uber invasion happy GW going to bat for Georgia. But wait does that mean the US has actually an logical long term policy on territory squabbles in the Former USSR - as in I don't care and its not worth a war? Rigged vote or not it is reasonably clear the majority of the Crimea would have voted to be in the marginally better run Russian Republic at any time since the USSR collapsed. As such is this really an issue the US cares about or NATO? The Ukraine is screwed up and has been run poorly for quite a while (its whole independent existence). 'The West' has also more or less accepted that lines drawn on the map by dead guys up to and before 1946 or so are not set in stone - see Sudan, Yugoslavia, etc. So Putin does actually have a leg to stand on in that a of USSR republics don't make sense as independent countries that never were.

Better yet Putin has helped nullify the absolutist polices he and China like on sovereignty and UN mandates etc.

Of course IKE was a pussy for not supporting Hungary back in the day right?

Obama is killing folk all the planet with drones and special op types I don't see any fear of war, just a good policy of avoiding Syria war at all costs - because I see no gain in for the US. Otherwise how can you really argue with a policy of letting Europeans fight in Africa or other Africans and helping them when it is in our interest. Good policy as I see if Kenyans want to die in Somalia fine, if the French want to run around Mali and the CAR fine. Let them get the black eye when the local help goes on revenge spree or they bomb a wedding - not our problem if we are just hauling the luggage.

I suppose there is the lunacy of attack Iran now folks - but why? Seems to matter to Israel at lot more; let them do the job if its so bloody important. But you know that would spike Oil prices and make Putin even more secure, while a deal that opens up Iranian exports makes Europe all that much not dependent on said Czar. What political imperative is more important?

Without direction from the US, the rest of NATO would look for the same excuse not to be involved, and stall saying that negotiations need to be given more time to complete. By that time Putin has completely occupied Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. What does NATO do - call up reserves and fight to get Russia out of those places?

Actually as I noted above you are understating the position of Poland about the Ukraine and regional military issues and this is from the government that was looking to reduce tensions with Russia. It has both the means and ability to act and it is already and has been.

[I WUB PUGS]

Maybe under Bush, but under Obama,

Not really interested in this discussion since there's no way around Article 5. There would be retaliation and if the Russians wouldn't leave the Baltic states under peaceful conditions then NATO air and sea power would whittle them down. I don't think WWIII would break out. That means its global. You can have big boys fighting it out in regional spats without even extending it to forces of enemies in other parts of the world.

That means that just because the US and Russia are engaged in the Baltics, doesn't mean there has to be something going on, or something hot anyway in the Pacific certainly everyone would be on a war footing ready for to pop off though. However, once you go global total destruction mode on someone's military, you're not far from the nuke button.

Russia couldn't drive deeper into NATO territory, the logistics would be mind boggling and NATO air attacks would be unrelenting. It would look a lot like the air campaign over Kuwait in the first Gulf War. Sustained attacks on every possible target in the area and in the supporting areas of Russia. Once NATO had softened them up and felt secure in a ground campaign, the troops would roll in. Russia would've already lost by then and the ground war would be a mere formality, if it happened at all.

The point of Article 5 isn't to be able to prevent an invasion by getting troops into position. Its to guarantee that the full weight of NATO will be used to throw out the invader. It has a secondary affect of deterrence via what it guarantees in response.

While I personally don't like the extension of NATO into the east, I fully understand that the US would use all at its power to retain the sovereignty of the NATO member that invokes Article 5. I think this alone would cause a Russian withdrawal.

Edit: Alternatively, which is what the "OMGWTFBBQ HELP UKRAINE" crowd are pointing at is that NATO will just sit on its hands. Well if that happens, then the treaty is null and void. If the big guns aren't willing to come aid a country that invokes Article 5 then the alliance falls. This leaves Russia to gobble up whatever it wants. Part of me says that stops at Belarus and the Baltics, the other part of me says it stops at Germany and we reset the clock 150 years back and have pissing contests over the Balkans while Europe actually builds a military. New World Order. Count down to WWIII again. Sounds fun.







Oh look, I've responded. All I really wanted to do was say "lolwut" to Simon. For someone that hates Obama, sure do ignore his constant warmongering.

[YuriVII]

I want to comment on the line of argument that NATO would detect a military build-up on the Baltic border. I don't know as much about the disposition of forces on the Latvian or Lithuanian borders but I have a good idea about Estonia. Short version. We already have troops on the border with Estonia. Enough military assets exist directly on the border to take Estonia off the map in a day. Those Estonian soldiers are good for nothing other than ensuring the evacuation of the Estonian government. Russia knows this, Estonians knows this, NATO knows this. Our tanks will be in Parnu before "Polish cavalry" even crosses into Lithuania.

This military situation has existed for more than a decade. This is our only frontier we actually share with NATO countries...which happen to be only 160km from the second city (St. Petersburg) of coarse we are going to have large standing forces in this area. It was an objective of the Leningrad Military District to seize Estonia as fast as possible in order to further secure the area around St. Petersburg. For instance, the city of Ivangorod which is directly opposite the Estonian city of Narva across a shallow river is home to at least a division-sized element (not skeleton division) with all accompanying heavy armor, BMPs, and relevant tools for mechanized warfare. On the southern flank of Lake Peipus, Pskov is also a major military area (less than a 45 minute drive to the Estonian border. That's less time than my commute to work) and is also home to a VDV division. Let me make that more clear. The 76th VDV Airborne division, the spearhead into Chechnya, Tskhinvali, and Crimea (reportedly) is a 45 minute drive to the Estonian border. Estonia on the other hand only has a battalion in that area against the 76th airborne division. So talking like NATO will detect a division enroute to mass at the border is kind of irrelevant because they have already been there for a long time. NATO's hope in detecting an attack will come from communication intercepts, not satellite footage of a military build-up. Considering American intel's analysis of the "likelihood" of our Crimean operation, it is clear to me that y'alls SIGINT needs some work when it comes to monitoring our communications. Relying on a strategy where a small cadre of Estonians hold off a Russian invasion until Fritz drives his Leapords to Tallinn (assuming they aren't tied-up in Kalliningrad,which we'll loose anyways.). is doomed to failure due to the overwhelming numerical and technological superiority of Russian forces (compared to Estonians), good roads (thanks EU for improving Estonian roads so much!), flat terrain, and the incredibly short distances between objectives. This is my sober assessment as a former Russian serviceman who served in the Leningrad military district and not as a nationalist blowhard.

Looks like Putin is going to invade Ukraine proper now:
http://www.news.com.au/world/a-rapid...-1226867240935

You don't move elite mechanised infrantry from Moscow to the Ukrainian border unless you are going to tell them roll west.

Hmmm somewhat skeptical because of this concern in my head: "Only 80,000 soldiers?" In 2003 the Coalition fielded 300,000 troops to take on Sadamm's Iraq. Ukraine, despite the bad state of its armed forces is still several orders of magnitude stronger in quality than Iraq and Russia is not as militarily competent or prepared as the Coalition forces. They built up for a few months in Kuwait before they finally moved in. 80,000 soldiers IMO is not a sufficient amount of soldiers for even the limited objectives of securing Lugansk, Kharkov, and Sumy oblasti of Ukraine. When forces reach 200,000 than we should start to be more concerned. Until then I take it as posturing...for now. I would also like to know which divisions from Moscow are being used. Are they elite non-conscript troops? There are alot of regular conscript motor rifle divisions in and around Moscow.

http://www.news.com.au/world/a-rapid...-1226867240935

You don't move elite mechanised infrantry from Moscow to the Ukrainian border unless you are going to tell them roll west.

Ok, I'm sorry I read through the article again. This guy has no ing clue what he's talking about. An elite motorized infantry division for "regime preservation". Are you ing kidding me? Motorized Infantry is made for attacking enemy positions in a war, not street riots. Sacrificing these strategic formations for the sake of a few hippies doesn't seem feasible at all to me. Moscow has plenty of OMON and FSB keeping track of these movements. These guys are the real regime preservation force. And ELITE? They are uniformly regular infantry, they are not "elite". This guy is smoking crack.

[Dromikaites]

I want to comment on the line of argument that NATO would detect a military build-up on the Baltic border. I don't know as much about the disposition of forces on the Latvian or Lithuanian borders but I have a good idea about Estonia. Short version. We already have troops on the border with Estonia. Enough military assets exist directly on the border to take Estonia off the map in a day. Those Estonian soldiers are good for nothing other than ensuring the evacuation of the Estonian government. Russia knows this, Estonians knows this, NATO knows this. Our tanks will be in Parnu before "Polish cavalry" even crosses into Lithuania.

This military situation has existed for more than a decade. This is our only frontier we actually share with NATO countries...which happen to be only 160km from the second city (St. Petersburg) of coarse we are going to have large standing forces in this area. It was an objective of the Leningrad Military District to seize Estonia as fast as possible in order to further secure the area around St. Petersburg. For instance, the city of Ivangorod which is directly opposite the Estonian city of Narva across a shallow river is home to at least a division-sized element (not skeleton division) with all accompanying heavy armor, BMPs, and relevant tools for mechanized warfare. On the southern flank of Lake Peipus, Pskov is also a major military area (less than a 45 minute drive to the Estonian border. That's less time than my commute to work) and is also home to a VDV division. Let me make that more clear. The 76th VDV Airborne division, the spearhead into Chechnya, Tskhinvali, and Crimea (reportedly) is a 45 minute drive to the Estonian border. Estonia on the other hand only has a battalion in that area against the 76th airborne division. So talking like NATO will detect a division enroute to mass at the border is kind of irrelevant because they have already been there for a long time. NATO's hope in detecting an attack will come from communication intercepts, not satellite footage of a military build-up. Considering American intel's analysis of the "likelihood" of our Crimean operation, it is clear to me that y'alls SIGINT needs some work when it comes to monitoring our communications. Relying on a strategy where a small cadre of Estonians hold off a Russian invasion until Fritz drives his Leapords to Tallinn (assuming they aren't tied-up in Kalliningrad,which we'll loose anyways.). is doomed to failure due to the overwhelming numerical and technological superiority of Russian forces (compared to Estonians), good roads (thanks EU for improving Estonian roads so much!), flat terrain, and the incredibly short distances between objectives. This is my sober assessment as a former Russian serviceman who served in the Leningrad military district and not as a nationalist blowhard.

You are absolutely right that 2 divisions are more than enough to deal with the peace-time Estonian army before any terrestrial force can come to their rescue. Especially well equipped and well trained ones.

But how about the NATO air force?

Each division has its own AA capabilities, but that is never enough. Russia would need to also provide air cover over Estonia, something which is quite tricky against NATO.

So either Russia provides also massive air support or those two divisions would be drastically reduced. For two divisions to escape largely unscathed (like the Serbian ones did in Kosovo) they need time to dig in and camouflage, a luxury those two won't have.

That leave a Russian commander with two options:

1) Bring lots of planes in the general area and the means to service and supply them. While the planes can show up "instantly" by simply flying from afar, fighting over the skies of Estonia and then landing on the nearby airports for rearming and refueling, increasing the ability of those airports to handle much more planes than usual is much less "stealthy". It is impossible to be sure it can be done in secrecy;

2) Send more than two divisions into Estonia. That way even after the NATO pounding there would be enough of them to hold the ground till the rest of the Russian forces arrive. But then we talk about a lot of preparations before the invasion, which can hardly escape undetected. I mean, even ordering more medical supplies than usual in the St. Petersburg area would raise an alarm.

What happened in Crimea cannot necessarily be interpreted as NATO being taken by surprise. Neither there not in a future conflict elsewhere (like in this Estonian scenario).

For one, the Russians were having exercises very close to Crimea, making it very difficult to distinguish between the increased radio traffic as part of those exercises and increased radio traffic because of the preparations for invasion.

Then let's put ourselves in the shoes of the Western intelligence. Say they do know the Russians are going to invade Crimea. Not that they estimate a Russian invasion is likely, but they actually know it because of some well-placed spies/traitors or because they have broken the Russian encryption.

What then?!

Is there anything to be done to stop such invasion? Because if nothing can be done, it would be completely idiotic to signal to the Russians they have been penetrated at the highest levels or that their encryption is worthless.

Then even if something could be done, is preventing the invasion of Crimea the best thing to do? Because if it is better that the Russian invade Crimea, then why tip the Russians the West has access to their most secret plans?

That would risk the Russian fix their problems and the next piece of intelligence would be missing when the West needs it more than in the case of Crimea.

Hmmm somewhat skeptical because of this concern in my head: "Only 80,000 soldiers?" In 2003 the Coalition fielded 300,000 troops to take on Sadamm's Iraq. Ukraine, despite the bad state of its armed forces is still several orders of magnitude stronger in quality than Iraq and Russia is not as militarily competent or prepared as the Coalition forces. They built up for a few months in Kuwait before they finally moved in. 80,000 soldiers IMO is not a sufficient amount of soldiers for even the limited objectives of securing Lugansk, Kharkov, and Sumy oblasti of Ukraine. When forces reach 200,000 than we should start to be more concerned. Until then I take it as posturing...for now. I would also like to know which divisions from Moscow are being used. Are they elite non-conscript troops? There are alot of regular conscript motor rifle divisions in and around Moscow.

The thing is Putin's move on Crimea didn't bring him any rational benefits. So he could be very much in a Saddam mindset.

What good did it to Saddam to harass the UN inspectors? He didn't have any nuclear weapons, nor any chemical weapons, nor any running programs to develop any of those. By doing what he did, he convinced the West he had something to hide. The only explanation was he was trying not to lose face with the Iraqis, and especially with the jackals of his inner circle.

Likewise, a war with Ukraine which Russia might lose because of committing only 7-8 divisions might happen solely because Putin needs to "save face" and to create the impression "Russia is under siege", irrespective of actually bringing Putin on the same train Saddam boarded.

[conon394]

On a related note How does the typical operational NATO Baltic fleet stack up vs NATO (plus Finland and Sweden). Becuse i looks like if the BAltic fleet is not uber ready to go it could be locked in the Gulf of FInland and leave room for the US roll its capital ship/missile weagons

[Condottiere 40K]

Remember how I joked that if Putin invaded, it would be just after the Winter Olympics ended? I doubt that I was unique in making that assessment. And I wasn't really joking.