Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can the Baltic Republics, now members of NATO, be defended against Russian invasion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can the Baltic Republics, now members of NATO, be defended against Russian invasion?

    More importantly, will they be? Poland was allied with France and Britain, but ended up getting overrun with no French or British response.

  • #2
    You can't invade Poland without a 100,000 man invasion force and Russia needs months to build that up. By which time, we would have rushed 200,000 to that border.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      You can't invade Poland without a 100,000 man invasion force and Russia needs months to build that up. By which time, we would have rushed 200,000 to that border.
      I'm fairly sure NATO will respond in force to a Russian invasion for historical and sentimental reasons (i.e. having handed Poland over to the Russians after WWII), but Russia would first have to go through Ukraine. The question is whether NATO would really defend the Baltics and if they are defensible against Russian attack.

      Comment


      • #4
        If there weren't any plans before, there are now today. I haven't seen any myself but I can see our air forces cutting the Russian lines to shreds.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mithridates View Post
          More importantly, will they be? Poland was allied with France and Britain, but ended up getting overrun with no French or British response.
          First time I've ever heard starting a World War 'no response'. Britain & France were unable to stop Germany from overrunning Poland, but they did do the whole 'declaration of war' thing. They bombed Germany...a bit. France even did a little invasion....though not a very effective one. Then Germany responded by.....well you know the rest. Poland was eventually liberated, it just took 5 years & was unfortunately by the wrong people. Hitler called Britain & France's bluff. He thought they wouldn't respond. He was half right, but not right enough to win. Probably not much consolation to Poland, but there was a response.

          That is the threat here. A longer, bigger & much nastier conflict. NATO may not be able to drop an army in the Baltics before Russian troops can overrun them, but they can inflict serious casualties on Russian forces at every stage. Depending on NATO's strategy there is the possibility of launching air attacks all over Russian territory. Bye bye fossil fuel industry for a while at least. Bye bye lots of lovely infrastructure. Expensive to replace that. Bye bye an awful lot of Russia's combat power. Taking on NATO also runs the risk that the conflict may move beyond the conventional.

          I'm not saying all of this will happen, but those are the dice Putin or some future Tsar would be rolling. That is why those nations joined NATO. That is why Ukraine is probably regretting not having joined & why it is probably trying to work out just how to do that now.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            You can't invade Poland without a 100,000 man invasion force and Russia needs months to build that up. By which time, we would have rushed 200,000 to that border.
            Are you actually reading what you say? Why would Russia ever want Poland? ever again. All the insurrection and rebellion extra population.
            Destruction of markets and economy why?

            This is not Ukraine there is no local support at all. In Ukraine there is very strong local support in South-East (actual real not imagined).

            No the Baltics can't be defended. It is unrealistic.
            Originally from Sochi, Russia.

            Comment


            • #7
              Read it in context, will you?

              Of course the Baltic States can be defended. Whomever wins the build up can launch the war first. Germany certainly need to defend the Baltic holdings to start Barbarossa.
              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 10 Mar 14,, 07:45.

              Comment


              • #8
                If for whatever reason a war was to break out in the Baltics would it stay conventional? I wouldn't see it as a total war, more the Russians sending a few category A divisions vs a couple of NATO ones, would the belligerents be happy to play in that sandbox and not escalate?
                The best part of repentance is the sin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Neither the Russians nor we think that way. DEEP BATTLE and AIR-LAND BATTLE means that we both look deep to shatter the shaft of the spear than the spear tip.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If Russia invades the Baltics it can say good bye to its natural gas infrastructure.
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Commentary from a guy who claims to have been involved in the operation of AWACS aircraft, re the tasking of surveillance missions in Romania and Poland near the Ukraine border:

                      This is more for show than blow...

                      First, I’m guessing the E-3s for this mission will be drawn from the NATO AWACS wing at Gilenkirchen, Germany—total of 18 aircraft. Two are normally deployed to Afghanistan, and they usually keep an aircraft in Norway or Sicily to reduce over-crowding on the ramp, and to give the crews a paid vacation. So, no more than 15 aircraft for the mission, and when you factor in maintenance, other deployments and similar factors, the number of jets is no more than a dozen. Enough for 24 hour ops over Poland, but there are some “limits” when it comes to the NATO E-3 force.

                      First, the alliance doesn’t want Vlad to shut off the gas pipelines or take any other drastic measures, so the AWACS orbit will be well back of the Polish border. Effective range of the E-3 radar is less than 300 miles—about half the distance from Krakow to Kiev. In other words, Russian air activity in eastern Ukraine and the Crimea will be outside the coverage of a NATO E-3 over Poland.

                      It’s also worth remembering that NATO AWACS is a composite force, with crews and support personnel from throughout the alliance. Most of them are unionized and they will only work so much. I was an aircrew on a USAF battle management platform during the Balkans operation in the 1990s. We were a one-of-a-kind squadron with only a handful of aircraft and crews, yet we maintained 1-2 orbits a day with less than half the resources of NATO AWACS. And we were overland Bosnia (with only limited data on the whereabouts of Serb SA-6 batterys), while the E-3s stayed over the Adriatic or Hungary.

                      One Saturday morning, we were on-station over Bosnia when we heard the “overnight” NATO AWACS extended on their orbit. They finally hit bingo fuel and had to return to Germany, with no replacement on the Hungary orbit. That left the British E-3 (Adriatic orbit) to run the show. I flew a couple of missions with those guys on my various rotations and the Brits were very, very good. Most had decades of ground-based radar experience and tours in NATO AWACS, so their controllers were excellent.

                      We assumed that the “missing” AWACS had some sort of maintenance problem that kept it on the ground, and when it finally arrived on station (about five hours late), nothing was said. We later found out the reason behind their delay; a lot of the NATO crew members from the “less reliable” members of the alliance (i.e., anyone who wasn’t American, British, German or Dutch) had been grumbling about the heavy workload so they staged a “wild cat strike” on the Saturday mission. Most of the mission crew simply didn’t show up, so they patched together a crew of Americans, Brits and Germans to fly the mission.

                      It’s that kind of mindset that guides most NATO AWACS operations. One of the guys I flew with was a career AWACS type who went to Gilenkirchen after years at Tinker. He reported in to an empty orderly room on a Thursday afternoon. Come back next Monday, said the admin NCO (a Belgian), “we’re busy.”

                      I’m sure the appearance of NATO AWACS has Putin absolutely terrified.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That experience does not only apply to the flying force it also applies to the ground force up to Corps HQ level.
                        None the less, if a NATO country does get attacked for real (and not staged or demanded by some eastern member) then NATO will respond. This case is actually better than the current Cremia crisis because NATO can strike legitimately without danger of setting off a nuclear war.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Neither Washington nor Moscow currently have a No First Use policy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Gentlemen,we speak of hypothetical invasion.But these are the hypothetical invaders.Russian ground forces have ~400000 men in 79 brigades,both combat arms and CS arms.Western and Central military districts have ~38 bde's,of which ~20 are maneuver bde's.

                            Polish army with the 3 baltic armies is more than enough to defeat any conventional Russian attack,if there is the will to fight,which depends in part on the American nuclear umbrella.

                            Russian army of today is good only to deter a Chinese thrust in the Far East,win a COIN in the muslim South,beat the Georgians or act as the flexing muscles of Russian diplomacy and subversive efforts.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                              Gentlemen,we speak of hypothetical invasion.But these are the hypothetical invaders.Russian ground forces have ~400000 men in 79 brigades,both combat arms and CS arms.Western and Central military districts have ~38 bde's,of which ~20 are maneuver bde's.

                              Polish army with the 3 baltic armies is more than enough to defeat any conventional Russian attack,if there is the will to fight,which depends in part on the American nuclear umbrella.

                              Russian army of today is good only to deter a Chinese thrust in the Far East,win a COIN in the muslim South,beat the Georgians or act as the flexing muscles of Russian diplomacy and subversive efforts.
                              I 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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X