Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

[Officer of Engineers]

I've been saying it since this whole sh*thole in Ukraine started but will repeat it again; at present the Baltic States are indefencible. You do not need any journos or retired Generals to look at the deployments and maps.

You're right. The only way to defend the Baltics is to invade Russia. The small geographic boundaries precludes any meaningful defence en-depth and if you have enough force to stop the Russians cold, you have enough force to invade Russia.

But that doesn't mean we can't drive the Russians out.

[Doktor]

I've been saying it since this whole sh*thole in Ukraine started but will repeat it again; at present the Baltic States are indefencible. You do not need any journos or retired Generals to look at the deployments and maps.

What in your view would make them defensible?

[SteveDaPirate]

What in your view would make them defensible?

I agree with OOE that NATO would have to likely have to retake the Baltics rather than keeping a determined force of Russians out entirely. I've often wondered if Riga and Tallinn might be held against a Russian attack however, even if the rest of the country is lost initially.

Being located on the Baltic Sea, they are well situated to quickly receive large quantities of men and materials from CONUS to help hold the cities while taking advantage of naval fire support and aviation. MEUs and prepositioned stocks in Norway might even be able to beat the Russians to the Baltic capitals if the Baltic countries themselves can slow the Russians down even a little.

Attacks on the Baltic countries could be met with naval bombardment of St. Petersburg and a counter invasion of Kaliningrad to raise the cost of doing business for the Russians. The Russian Baltic fleet doesn't appear to be in a condition to do more than die heroically, and Kaliningrad is geographically cut off from any Russian support.

[Doktor]

Knowing the Russians, it's far better option to let the Russians in, than to defend it hoping for resuplies. Berlin and Grozny come to mind

[Mihais]

What in your view would make them defensible?

A Finnish style army.

However,the Russians are not going to attack without a severe crisis in the Pacific to distract the Americans.If even then...
The Russians already lost a war on basically home ground,against an ad-hoc volunteer militia.
They are however a threat.

NATO deployments are in many ways psyops,to counter Russian Information ops."No green men will haunt you,we have American armor".

The prospect of a few Russian Bde's invading the 3 Baltic nations is ludicrous.Yes,they might "win" ,but their own experience in Ukraine might make them more prudent.Strelkov held Slaviansk and surrounding arreas with 2000 lightly armed men.Being outnumbered initially 3/1 is not as bad as it seems.There are cities to defend and enough forrested terrain to organize delays and raids.
National traits also play a role.Ukrainians are "little Russians".The idea of a brother war was repulsive.The rest of E. Euros are hardcore dislikers of Russians :)
The few millions in the Baltics might provide more men to fight the invaders than Ukraine.Which makes the Ukrainian defense more worthy of respect.

[jlvfr]

A Finnish style army.

I'm unfamiliar with the area. Do the baltic states have the hundreds of lakes and forests that Finland uses as part of it's defenses?

[snapper]

What in your view would make them defensible?

It is a matter of having sufficient forces in the Baltic countries to buy enough time for reinforcements (via Poland and the 'Suwalki Gap' which may need to be forced) to arrive. It may entail crossing the Belarus border. Otherwise you will have to liberate them again with logistics against you.

[Doktor]

How many of those should be from the Baltics?

Geez, they joined the club for protection, but what about their share in their own defense?

[snapper]

The more you are worried the more you should spend on defence. But even if Estonia were to spend 5% (currently at 2.1%) of GDP on defence for the next 10yrs it would amount to relatively little, total GDP in 2015 being 20.5bn eur. Obviously some form of 'national reserve force' of most of the population - something like the IDF for example - and cooperation between the three Baltic States and Poland (and Finland/Sweden perhaps) would increase security as would 'winning over' Belarus, which is itself threatened (though on a different level) by the same potential aggressor.

[Officer of Engineers]

The Battle for the Baltics isn't going to won in the Baltics. It's going to be won in Poland and Belarus/Russia.

[S2]

"...It's going to be won in Poland and Belarus/Russia."

I'll pray it's won in Washington D.C. without a shot fired in anger.

[Officer of Engineers]

"...It's going to be won in Poland and Belarus/Russia."

I'll pray it's won in Washington D.C. without a shot fired in anger.

I want the like button.

[snapper]

The Battle for the Baltics isn't going to won in the Baltics. It's going to be won in Poland and Belarus/Russia.

Of course the insanity is that while the Baltics are currently indefencible - and it seems that is unlikely to change; "We will agree on the deployment by rotation of four robust multinational battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland." http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_132351.htm the Dnipro is defencible and currently being defended. The Straits at Constantinople could be closed - stifling Muscovite operations in Syria (this would not be illegal I am informed) - SWIFT cut off/North Stream 2 stopped/dirty Muscovite money (much of it in London) found and confiscated etc etc etc. We could cripple them without a shot while moving deterrent forces into CEE.

To be fair S2 similar resolution as you require in Washington is needed in London, Berlin, Paris etc...

[Officer of Engineers]

How mighty have we've fallen. 4 Battalions, actually Battle Groups. The Russians ain't that much better. They have 2 brigade groups over the border. If they scrounge, they might get another brigade group up. Using the traditional 3 attackers to every 1 defender, the odds are even but ...

We were 73 NATO divisions against 172 Warsaw Pact Divisions. Hell, the Poles alone fields 4 divisions and 6 independent brigades today.

I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing but this isn't WWIII, at least not the WWIII that we Cold Warriors knew.

[jlvfr]

(this would not be illegal I am informed)

Cutting off naval shiping in the Bosphorus? There's a legal way for Turkey to do that?...

We were 73 NATO divisions against 172 Warsaw Pact Divisions. Hell, the Poles alone fields 4 divisions and 6 independent brigades today.

I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing but this isn't WWIII, at least not the WWIII that we Cold Warriors knew.

Otoh, guided munitions have completely transformed the way any war is fought. At the heigh of the Cold War, it would take (for example) a flight of our old A-7P a pass with a full dumb-bomb loads to cause serious damage to (for example) a mech platoon. Today, a single F-16MLU would fire LGBs or missiles from X miles away, 1 per tank...