With American factories egar for munitions orders? Poles over the Russians.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Can the Baltic Republics, now members of NATO, be defended against Russian invasion?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostI would favor Russian staying power over Polish Army and Baltic States to beat the Russian army. History have shown that more often than not, Russian armies can outlast their enemies.
However, those are NATO countries you are talking about. They would be fighting with the backing and support of NATO...and I would not be surprised to see a substantial US presence.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostIf acting alone, I would agree.
However, those are NATO countries you are talking about. They would be fighting with the backing and support of NATO...and I would not be surprised to see a substantial US presence.
Comment
-
Russian staying power? This isn't 1812 or 1943.Russia needed 80000 men,serious defections and several years to defeat the Chechens.Granted,that's much better results than Coalition efforts in A-stan,but to fight against 50 millions Europeans is several orders of magnitudes above current Russian capabilities.
It's HIC we're talking about.NATO vs WP at their peak estimated several weeks of fighting before going broke or nuclear.The estimated lifespan of a 1980's division was 2-3 days.Estimated lifespan of a brigade,half a day.
In our age,the 4 brigades of the Georgian army went from near victory to utmost defeat in less than 12 hours, a feat caused by an inferior Russian force.For all our faults,we're orders of magnitudes above the Georgians and the Poles are even better.Staying power is little issue in this case.Training,discipline and leadership is.
If we lose the HIC phase and the rest of NATO screws us,we go into Chechen mode, official doctrine be damned.If only 10% of the population of the Eastern countries supports active resistence against Russian occupation,it's something 6-7 times worse than Chechnya.10% is a ridiculously small percentage,but it's something it will take twice or thrice the actual Russian Army of today several years to supress at the cost of 100000 KIA.
Did I forgot to say we have troops experienced in COIN,special forces with a decade of combat experience,plenty of AK's from the old age in depots,hundreds of cities,hundreds of thousands square kms of woodland,marshes and mountains and our grandparents fought for a decade or more(abandoned and forgotten by all) in the Forrest Brothers,Cursed soldiers, Haiducs or UPA?Last edited by Mihais; 11 Mar 14,, 17:06.Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostI do not think that Russia will allow such events to unfold to allow a substantial US presence in Poland or the Baltic states. It will trigger a lot of red lines for Russia and likewise for US.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostRussia won't allow events that will necessitate Russia to attack Baltic states and invite an attack from NATO.
To take on the Baltics is to take on NATO. Period.
It will not be an isolated campaign.
And Kaliningrad will end up split between the Poles & Lithuanians. Excuse me....I meant Konigsberg.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Why would Russia attack Baltic countries? They can ignite domestic insurgency in any and all of them in any time of the day.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostAnd Kaliningrad will end up split between the Poles & Lithuanians. Excuse me....I meant Konigsberg.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostGo back to Post #1 on this thread.
To take on the Baltics is to take on NATO. Period.
It will not be an isolated campaign.
And Kaliningrad will end up split between the Poles & Lithuanians. Excuse me....I meant Konigsberg.
Taking Kaliningrad would invite a sure response from Russia regardless of NATO.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostYou misunderstood what I was saying. Putin will not allow a situation where Russia would be forced to take on Baltics, i.e., NATO, meaning he will not allow certain events to be played out leading to such outcomes.
Taking Kaliningrad would invite a sure response from Russia regardless of NATO.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostWTF? How could Putting be 'forced to' invade 3 independent countries? Putin has chosen to invade Ukraine & Georgia. If he invaded the Baltics it would also be a choice. I detect some weird conspiracy theory underlying all this.
http://www.bne.eu/pics/1/837_transAdriaticPipeline.jpg
or the bigger picture, that also has clues about things that happened in former Yugoslavia and why they happened the way they did.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...ng%20Links.gifLast edited by Versus; 11 Mar 14,, 21:41.
Comment
-
I believe that there is some underestimation of Russian military potential in this thread. Sure, Russia has little chance in an all out conventional war with NATO, but I find it hard to believe that Russia would not come out on top against any of the Eastern European countries; on the assumption that NATO does not get involved.
Also I dont think the Russians will tolerate a devastating attack on their infrastructure and economy, without responding with Nuclear weapons. So war between NATO and Russia is still pretty much nuclear Armageddon like in the cold war, unless missile defense reaches the stage where it can intercept ICBM's reliably.
Comment
-
Originally posted by InExile View PostI believe that there is some underestimation of Russian military potential in this thread. Sure, Russia has little chance in an all out conventional war with NATO, but I find it hard to believe that Russia would not come out on top against any of the Eastern European countries; on the assumption that NATO does not get involved.
Also I dont think the Russians will tolerate a devastating attack on their infrastructure and economy, without responding with Nuclear weapons. So war between NATO and Russia is still pretty much nuclear Armageddon like in the cold war, unless missile defense reaches the stage where it can intercept ICBM's reliably.
Nothing is impossible,but this scenario is highly unlikely.Even subversion is different from whatever they do/did in their area of influence.Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36
Comment
Comment