Is NATO really committed to the defence of the Baltic states?

[Thor]

Even before the start of the unfolding events of the last few days in Georgia, my gut feeling was that NATO in case of Russian aggression against the Baltic states only would provide symbolic or at best limited military support, but I didn't see even the slightest possibility of Germany, France or any other major mainland European state entering an all-out war with Russia over a few small ex-Soviet nations. The last few days certainly haven't changed anything in that regard. I'm in fact not even sure that US and UK would honour their commitment.

In my opinion the most likely scenario in such a turn of events is similar to what we have seen in Georgia. There will be some harsh rhetorics, meetings, angry letters, appointments of negotiators etc. Perhaps with additional promises of military support being "on it's way" and call for international sanctions.

Discuss.

[kosse]

I've had a similar feeling for a long time and the conflict in Georgia only strenghtened it. My guess is that NATO will collapse like a house of cards if some of it's small, practically defenseless members is attacked. Nobody will risk getting into bigger conflict for a few million peoples. Big NATO members have too much to lose.

Even if countries like Germany or France were willing to give limited military assistance I doubt they could get off their asses before it would all over for a small country like Estonia.

[Jaeger07]

No offence, but you are totaly wrong.

If the rest of NATO would not honour their commitment reagrding an Article 5 (The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all) - the NATO alliance would in reality cease to exist.

Remeber what NATO is: Its the EU / USA's defensive military strategy.

If the commitment would not be honoured it would be both political and military suicide for the states (especially the EU).

Lets not forget what happened after 9/11: Article 5 was invoked and ALL NATO-members promised to help the USA if they asked - and this was a not even an ordinary attack on a NATO member, but a terrorist attack. The USA did however not demand assistance from NATO but said that those who were willing could help. Most NATO members are in Afganistan today and have at some point been in Iraq to help the americans.

Lets also not forget what NATO is ment for: To counter an attack by Russia. If Russia were to attack the baltic NATO-members it would be just what the alliance was made to defend against.


IMO there is no doubt: NATO would have to help the baltic NATO states if they were attacked from Russia. There is no other option for NATO.

[Military-G]

^^^ What he said.

:)

[Herman the II]

Currently the German "JG 71 Richthofen" (fighter wing) is based down there for NATOs "Baltic Air Policing" on a three-month rotation. They are stationed at the Air Base in Zokniai.
An attack on one of the Baltic states would mean a direct attack on "French/German/you name it" personal. Totally different situation than Georgia.

[kosse]

No offence, but you are totaly wrong.

If the rest of NATO would not honour their commitment reagrding an Article 5 (The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all) - the NATO alliance would in reality cease to exist.

Remeber what NATO is: Its the EU / USA's defensive military strategy.

If the commitment would not be honoured it would be both political and military suicide for the states (especially the EU).

Well, NATO commitment is still just words on the paper. It would not be the first time such a pact falls apart when shyt hits the fan. As for US..I see NATO more as a means to watch over it's interests. As you can see from US arms procurements they are not counting on NATO to protect them from anything.

Nevertheless, I'm fairly sure that NATO would offer limited support in form of trying to keep the skies clear and supplying weapons but I just don't see German panzer divisions rolling to Estonia to help out. European politicians are pragmatic: sometimes it's wiser to sacrifice little to avoid all-out war. Besides, Europe is 100% dependant from Russian oil and gas and therefore can't afford a conflict with it.


Lets not forget what happened after 9/11: Article 5 was invoked and ALL NATO-members promised to help the USA if they asked - and this was a not even an ordinary attack on a NATO member, but a terrorist attack. The USA did however not demand assistance from NATO but said that those who were willing could help. Most NATO members are in Afganistan today and have at some point been in Iraq to help the americans.Afghanistan is a limited operation with little risk involved. It would not put any large European NATO countries in harms way unlike going against Russia. It's easy to say OK to such a mission but putting your whole country in danger is a bit different.


Currently the German "JG 71 Richthofen" (fighter wing) is based down there for NATOs "Baltic Air Policing" on a three-month rotation. They are stationed at the Air Base in Zokniai.
An attack on one of the Baltic states would mean a direct attack on "French/German/you name it" personal. Totally different situation than Georgia.

Air policing is not going to help much when Russian armor rolls in. You need a lot of heavy metal to push them back. Where are the closest NATO armored formations, in Poland? I just don't see them coming because they'll be wanting to secure their own borders if things get too hot in Europe (and like said the countries are dependant from Russia so they don't want to either). I doubt American soldiers either are too eager to die for some small piece of land in European periphery on the other side of the globe..

[kosse]

For my own country I support independent defense policy. We have GDP large enough to buy all the weapons needed to give a bloody nose for Russia's if we want to..of course we can't hold out forever but I still trust heavy metal more than smoke and mirrors that NATO offers. In NATO we'd have a few very expensive light brigades geared for international missions and manned with professional soldiers..I'd rather see the money spent on something that can actually give that give a bloody nose for Ruskies. Small army with NATO "peacekeeping" AMVs isn't that.

[Jaeger07]

Afghanistan is a limited operation with little risk involved. It would not put any large European NATO countries in harms way unlike going against Russia. It's easy to say OK to such a mission but putting your whole country in danger is a bit different.



Limited operation with little risk? What the hell are you talking about?

Afganistan is 1/2-way around the globe from EU and the cost both in lives and cash is absolutely not limited. Think of small countries like Denmark and Poland - their contribution in the Afghan war is close to 100% of their capabilities.


An attack on the Baltic states is not only an attack on NATO members but on the European Union, its also a direct violation of international law.

If there is two twings we europeans get war-mongering angry about its our economical security and international law.

The conflict in Georgia has stunned european countries. The commitment to NATO will be even greater after this conflict is over than before.


The NATO and the EU is the economical and political foundation of Europe, at this point in time there is now way they are going to be abandoned.


Had russia attacked the baltic states im absoultely sure that even Sweden and Finland would join the NATO and declare war on Russia. I would re-enlist in the army and go fight the russians myself.

:)

[Tykimies]

The russians couldn't count on Nato's lack of support in case of invading baltic countries! They just couldn't tell if other members would or would not ignore!
There is so much more in stake when having a beef with Nato! Anyway, Georgia ain't member! After this Georgia incident Russians will carefully calculate their scenarios and update 'em. And so will do Baltic countries, Nato, Finland, Sweden everybody. Wouldn't be surprised if there were some extra money on defence budgets in Baltics! I'm hoping there will be also some cash here in Finland but I ain't too optimistic 'cause pussy ass politicians!

[Russian_dude]

People tend to forget the 1000's of nukes Russia has. German Panzers rolling into Baltics? More like rolling into a rain of tactical nukes. However it is not going to happen. Russia is not some rogue state.

[Tykimies]

People tend to forget the 1000's of nukes Russia has. German Panzers rolling into Baltics? More like rolling into a rain of tactical nukes. However it is not going to happen. Russia is not some rogue state.


Russia doesn't forget the 1000's of nukes Nato has! And therefore, invading even a tiny Nato country is a very risky business!

[Jaeger07]

People tend to forget the 1000's of nukes Russia has. German Panzers rolling into Baltics? More like rolling into a rain of tactical nukes. However it is not going to happen. Russia is not some rogue state.

I dont think this is part of our scenario here. Any nuclear attack from Russia against Europe would automaticly result in a nuclear holocaust in both russia and Europe. NATO has a lot of nukes too, remeber?

IMO nukes should be kept out of this scenario.

[Abaddon]

Russia doesn't forget the 1000's of nukes Nato has! And therefore, invading even a tiny Nato country is a very risky business!

That's why the invasion of Georgia happened now as opposed to later.

[Tykimies]

That's why the invasion of Georgia happened now as opposed to later.

Exactly!!!

[link16]

That's why the invasion of Georgia happened now as opposed to later.

yeah, Russian already have no choice . threat has just out side the door of Russia .

[kosse]

Limited operation with little risk? What the hell are you talking about?

Afganistan is 1/2-way around the globe from EU and the cost both in lives and cash is absolutely not limited. Think of small countries like Denmark and Poland - their contribution in the Afghan war is close to 100% of their capabilities.

I meant what I said. Afghanistan is far away from you homes and thus no real risk to your countries. There is virtually no danger of escalation except for angering some towelheads in the mountains. It's really more like an armed adventure into the 3rd world and no indicator of NATO's ability to protect it's small members in Europe from real threat like Russia.


An attack on the Baltic states is not only an attack on NATO members but on the European Union, its also a direct violation of international law.

If there is two twings we europeans get war-mongering angry about its our economical security and international law.

The conflict in Georgia has stunned european countries. The commitment to NATO will be even greater after this conflict is over than before.International law is a joke at best. You can't really touch the big boys. They play in a league above the law.


The NATO and the EU is the economical and political foundation of Europe, at this point in time there is now way they are going to be abandoned.Well, we'll see. I just wish small countries would not put all their eggs in one basket.


Had russia attacked the baltic states im absoultely sure that even Sweden and Finland would join the NATO and declare war on Russia. I would re-enlist in the army and go fight the russians myself.

:)Ha Ha Ha Ha. You obviously don't know Finland. There's no fvcking way Finnish reservist army would go to war against Russia over Estonia or any other NATO country. No credible politician would endorse it either. At most you'd get volunteers but that would be it. And Sweden would do exactly what it did the last time: stay out.

[kosse]

Russia doesn't forget the 1000's of nukes Nato has! And therefore, invading even a tiny Nato country is a very risky business!

Get a grip. Nobody's going to risk a nuclear holocaust over small country like Estonia. It would be a limited conflict with conventional means.

[Kangars]

Estonia and Latvia are on a verge of economic collapse. Russian threat is just a playing card in hands of failed politicians, as always.

[Jaeger07]

Ha Ha Ha Ha. You obviously don't know Finland. There's no fvcking way Finnish reservist army would go to war against Russia over Estonia or any other NATO country. No credible politician would endorse it either. At most you'd get volunteers but that would be it.

Yes, this is exactely what all nations in europe said in 1939. "No way we're getting inti troublle over Poland". That policy didnt exactely work out well. And for that reson NATO was created. Today european leaders are a little more realistic in their thinking... The conflict in georgia has surely reminded them of just that.


As for Finland: I dont think you guys have the policy of just "giving the russians a bloody nose and then give up". In case a of a major war between NATO and the russians you may try to stay neutral - but you will have to choose sides (forced or willing) and you will choose NATO.


Finns are a lot closer to NATO than to russia, for numerous reasons.


Edit: May I remind you of the (still not functional) EU battlegroups. Finns could easily be drawn into a conflict on the NATO side through the European Union's security policy. The same goes for Sweden.

[Loki77]

Russians are not saints, but they are not idiots. Why would they invade the Baltic nations?



Georgia conflict is about the control of Oil and Gas of Caucasus!

[kosse]

Yes, this is exactely what all nations in europe said in 1939. "No way we're getting inti troublle over Poland". That policy didnt exactely work out well. And for that reson NATO was created. Today european leaders are a little more realistic in their thinking... The conflict in georgia has surely reminded them of just that.

As for Finland: I dont think you guys have the policy of just "giving the russians a bloody nose and then give up". In case a of a major war between NATO and the russians you may try to stay neutral - but you will have to choose sides (forced or willing) and you will choose NATO.

That is a policy that is dictated by our own limits. At most we can give the Russians a bloody nose on our own turf but there is no way we get involved in large scale operatios outside our borders. Conscript army just isn't cut for it and neither do we have the resources. As for choosing sides I think it's a natural safety measure to concentrate troops on eastern border but I just don't see us starting anything even if some NATO country is attacked. Russians themselves have to drag us in.


Finns are a lot closer to NATO than to russia, for numerous reasons.Not close enough to join NATO and certainly not enough to die for it.


Edit: May I remind you of the (still not functional) EU battlegroups. Finns could easily be drawn into a conflict on the NATO side through the European Unions security policy the same goes for Sweden.Can those battle groups even be used without approval of all members? Anyway, I doubt that they'll be deployed in any place that goes against Russian interests too heavily since like I said, we are dependant of Russia.

[Abaddon]

Yes, this is exactely what all nations in europe said in 1939. "No way we're getting inti troublle over Poland".

Except for England, the Commonwealth, and France which declared war on Germany in response to the German invasion of Poland.

The sky isn't falling. Russia isn't Nazi Germany. Putin isn't Hitler. This isn't WWIII.

[Kitsune]

Even before the start of the unfolding events of the last few days in Georgia, my gut feeling was that NATO in case of Russian aggression against the Baltic states only would provide symbolic or at best limited military support, but I didn't see even the slightest possibility of Germany, France or any other major mainland European state entering an all-out war with Russia over a few small ex-Soviet nations.
As far as I am concerned (as a German), if the Russians would invade the Baltics, any NATO state or any EU member, it would and should mean all-out war (technically, the European Union is no defense alliance but I do not care about this, in my opinion it should be one and one that is preceding NATO in importance for us at that). And if the Russians use nuclear weapons at all, however small the warheads may be, the Western answer must also be nuclear - and that must be clear from the start. Essentially a bomb for a bomb. (At present Germany does no possess nuclear weapons herself but I make no secret out of it that I find it high time to reconsider this self-chosen helplessness).

Georgia is not yet a member of either NATO or EU, however, and it is another matter entirely wether it is wise to take on states as members whose admission needlessly angers Russia only to serve American interests, at present, seem to have a certain imperial ring to them.

But as far as the present state NATO and EU are concerned, our allegiance must be clear. On top of it, the whole matter should convince those who doubt it that Russia is (and actually never ceased to be) a potential threat and that it is high-time for especially Germany to face that fact. As said, there is no wisdom in needless provocation or in bringing a new Cold War about, but we need a significant increase of our military budget to create armed forces that are ready should the worst happen. After all, it does not help us to be peaceful if the Russians are not.

[Tykimies]

Get a grip. Nobody's going to risk a nuclear holocaust over small country like Estonia. It would be a limited conflict with conventional means.

:roll: Exactly to the point! Russians can't afford the risk of widely escalating conflict that would have effects on most parts of it's borders! Baltia ain't Caucasus!

[DaGreatRV]

Well even if NATO would choose not to intervene when for instance the baltic states would be invaded, the EU has the right to use NATO assets to intervene.


But realisticly speaking, russia would not be so stupid to attack a NATO or EU member. This ain't a Tom Clancy novel.


As was stated before, georgia is neither a member of NATO or EU, they were negotiating NATO membership as far as I know, so indeed, the time for Russia to intervene in this fashion was now. Before they could join NATO.

[IronFinn]

Lets not forget what happened after 9/11: Article 5 was invoked and ALL NATO-members promised to help the USA if they asked - and this was a not even an ordinary attack on a NATO member, but a terrorist attack. The USA did however not demand assistance from NATO but said that those who were willing could help. Most NATO members are in Afganistan today and have at some point been in Iraq to help the americans.


Unfortunately you seem to forget that US is "the" locomotive for this NATO train and whe US needs or ask for assistance NATO countries WILL help, in a form or another. Baltic states however, are another issue.

[Revolveri]

In my opinion EU or NATO would not tolerate Russia invading the Baltic states or Finland because it's EU backyard and it isnt a long way from the Baltics to Central Europe. USA doesn't want to lose one of its few firm allies in the world by letting Russia invade EU grounds either. But like many said Russia isn't stupid enough to risk it.

PS. I dont understand why Russia considers NATO a threat. Perhaps more like a threat to its influence rather than its lands?

EDIT: Oh yeah and I definitely think this is going to halt Finnish NATO talks. We'll see Georgia as an example that might happen to us as well. Though Finland will probably try to push deeper defence wihin EU.

[kosse]

EDIT: Oh yeah and I definitely think this is going to halt Finnish NATO talks. We'll see Georgia as an example that might happen to us as well. Though Finland will probably try to push deeper defence wihin EU.

I hope this opens the eyes of politicians to stop neglecting FDF and the needs of defense. Hopefully they'll start procurement of modern weapons systems for obsolete infrantry brigades and stop wasting money on helicopters and other expensive toys for deployments abroad.

[Jµµso]

I dont think Finland should join to NATO. It would be just execuse to make FDF more smaller and suitable for peacekeeping operations.

[Revolveri]

To be honest I think we should join NATO right now that the Georgia-Russian conflict is in everyone's mind. If Russia was foolish enough to attack Finland right after Georgia the international community just would't tolerate it.

Finland's army is puny compared to the Russian army. It's not WW2 anymore, the Russians won't be handed vodka everytime they launch an attack this time and Putin hasn't beheaded every skilled general like Stalin did. Finland wouldn't stand a chance alone, it's a harsh reality.

After we are in NATO, Russia wouldn't risk it anymore.

[muck]

Is NATO really committed to the defence of the Baltic states?
I think it is.
A full scale and allegedly unprovoked convential attack of Russia against a NATO member country on European soil would represent a clear and present danger to the felt security of us Europeans and thus would increase our readiness to respond in an appropriate manner.
The stance many Europeans show against the war in Afghanistan is no indicator for said readiness in a scenario like the one being discussed here. We are a bunch of lazy peoples largely not capable to identify and if necessary also battle an emerging threat. However, I think pure shock would made us respond properly if the threat is imminent and undeniable. Those who oppose the war in Afghanistan at the moment don't feel threatened by a gang of bearded thugs with Kalashnikovs hiding in the Afghan mountains, but they sure as hell will feel threatened by the possibility of being in the range of some armoured divisions of the Russian Army.

[The Dane]

Danish F-16's are patroling the Baltic skies the next couple of months.
The lituanian Iron Wolf brigade is an integrated part of Danish division.
Will we help the Baltic states if attacked, yes !

We'll not allow a Russian peacekeeping mission in the Baltic states.

[jokuvaan]

It would be just execuse to make FDF more smaller and suitable for peacekeeping operations.
No need to worry about that anymore, after war in Georgia entire European military spending will be re-figured upwards. Some fools thought that there wont be any nearby wars anymore, just peacekeeping and such.

Just some time ago, it was questioned why Finland has so big artillery force when "its not needed anymore". Makes fun reading now.

NATO has to defend its members or NATO days are over. More there are NATO members, less likely there will be any wars. So new members(who some cant find even from the map) are not just "pain in the @ss" like some think.

[Doublethinker]

Well, we'll see. I just wish small countries would not put all their eggs in one basket.
.

It is wise.

[kosse]

Just some time ago, it was questioned why Finland has so big artillery force when "its not needed anymore". Makes fun reading now.


There's an article in last week's Helsingin Sanomat international edition. My head started to hurt while reading it; the author actually took a stance that the amount of artillery was ridiculous. I hate it when people write articles in newspapers about things they have no clue about.

That said, I'm all for reducing the number of guns if they are replaced with sufficient number of self-propelled artillery. But that's never going to happen. We'll be using towed artillery in the next century too. Propably that good old soviet 122mm.

[Mr.K]

Ugh, the same old Nato vs Russia again. Europeans and americans are extremely pragmatic, knowing how much they care for "quality of life" they achived and the importace of a human life ,a war with Russia is the last thing they would need.
Russia on the other hand gives less significance to casualties. Nukes would be only used if Moscow would be attacked.
As for Finns they are better off on their own, they spend their budget they way they want it, and they have a total control of the commandment of their forces.
I don't see any reason for Russia to invade Finland, they can afford nokia phones already, trade relations were always good.

So far the new NATO members got some promises on papers and a mandate to fight someone a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The "coaliton of the willing" ended up being a "coaltion of welfare states".

[ilmakas]

Estonias economy is going through rough times. But if economy should happen to take a full nose dive and in the same time russia`s economy sails well on the wave of high oil prices, our local russians will turn into fifth column. There will be riots. Lets say we have to mobilize (mainly estonian) Defense League to quell them and considering that almost 100k of the russians have RusFederation passports, this will be a field day for the Kremlin controlled russian media. Does "we have a right to defend our citizens wherever they are" ring a bell? European politicians have already hard time to explain to their voters why ordinary Philippe or Günther needs to die for some obscure country. And now these petty fascists provoked the Russian Bear.

This of course is the worst case scenario. But reading local russian internet comments and some actions (Linter and his ilk) there is some ground to this.

[Revolveri]

Russia can be a very unpredictable country. Better to be safe than sorry and seek allies in NATO. If Russia is concerned of NATO being on its backyard then why should the rest of Europe not be concerned of Russia being the next door neighbour. EU should definitely find ways to not be so dependant of Russian gas, it's a big weakness in politics to be dependant on such an unpredictable country...

[MZKT]

That's why the invasion of Georgia happened now as opposed to later.

Aha, so it happened because georgia wasn't in the NATO, not because Georgia area bombarded russian citizens in Tshinvali?

Even if Georgia would be in the NATO, nothing wouls happen since NATO's Article 5 only demands commitment in case of an aggression against it's member, not in case if it's member is loosing an own aggression.

[Basillicus]

Russians are not saints, but they are not idiots. Why would they invade the Baltic nations?

Georgia conflict is about the control of Oil and Gas of Caucasus!

My thoughts exactly. The best defence the Baltics and northern Europe in general has is that we don't have oil, or anything else important for that matter that could be taken with force. There's no point invading us, the focus is in the south. There's a big game starting and it's about grabbing as much as the world's energy resources as possible. Who controls oil and gas controls the world.

IMO we should stay clear of NATO, it's becoming more and more obvious all the time. I don't like the idea that we would get drawn into this game because we have nothing to gain from it but much to loose. Not to mention that our guys would get killed because some idiot in e.g. Turkey or Georgia starts to fvck around. NATO was about defending democracy and freedom against commies, nowadays it's looking more like a tool for the USA & GB in their efforts to play their own power games. Let the big boys have their **** measuring contests, we have no reason to be part of any of it.

[Fenix]

If it was up to common men and guys who actually have to fight, I do not think there would be wars. But the fact is that these wars are brought upon us common people by the billionaires and politicians who will not be at the battlefield when the shooting starts.

This war makes perfect sense for the suits in Tbilisi who get a cut from the oil / gas tranported through the btc pipeline. Tbilisi guys realized kremlin wants a cut and did not want them to have one. Now they will take it anyway.

Also the price of oil is not sinking as fast as it would if this war would not have started.

Now who benefits from that?

Satan walks amongst us. Smiling a ****eating grin.

[Wall]

Not close enough to join NATO and certainly not enough to die for it.

Anyway, want it or not, I have strong feeling that we are joining to NATO in future.

[MichaelF]

This is the basis of the main objections to the eastward expansion of NATO.

It only slightly reduces the likelihood of Russian action (justified or otherwise) against the former Soviet states, but significantly increases the likelihood of the core NATO members being drawn into a frontier war they don't want any part of, risking the credibility of the Alliance if they refuse to assist.

Risking Western Europe to save Germany or Turkey from Russia makes sense. Risking Western Europe to save Latvia or Lithuania from Russia makes significantly less sense.

These decisions (expanding NATO to the Russian frontier) were made when Russia was essentially prostrate, with no eye to any time when Russia would be resurgent.

The idea of NATO membership for Georgia was....a bad idea. It's a small, weak country on the Russian frontier that's primary claim to fame is having been in the Russian crosshairs for almost 2 decades. What does it bring to the NATO alliance that's worth a general shooting war?
The same could be said about the Baltics (no insult to the fine people of those countries).

[La8pv]

Could one of you Estonians please translate this article for me? I was told that it says something about Russia threatening the Baltic countries if they pursue their protest. Something along the lines of: The same thing could easily happen to you too.

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/438205

[ilmakas]

Could one of you Estonians please translate this article for me? I was told that it says something about Russia threatening the Baltic countries if they pursue their protest. Something along the lines of: The same thing could easily happen to you too.

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/438205


Yes, russian ambassador to latvia said that negative (disparaging?) comments from Latvia could bring about very dire situation from what there is no escape. Well, my translation is not the prettiest but hopefuly you get the idea

[Kangars]

Well...Latvian nationalists gathered 1k crowd infront of Russian ambasy today. Screeming protests and so on. This hapenned 300m from my workplace. That is why Russinan ambassador is no happy.
Btw a small group of pro russian protestors was turned away by police saying :"This is not Russia, go to Russia and protest there":)

[joka]

For my own country I support independent defense policy. We have GDP large enough to buy all the weapons needed to give a bloody nose for Russia's if we want to..of course we can't hold out forever but I still trust heavy metal more than smoke and mirrors that NATO offers. In NATO we'd have a few very expensive light brigades geared for international missions and manned with professional soldiers..I'd rather see the money spent on something that can actually give that give a bloody nose for Ruskies. Small army with NATO "peacekeeping" AMVs isn't that.

I thought the war in Georgia would have debunked the illusions in Finland about what a conscript force running around with AK's can amount to in today's world. And no, we don't have the resources to properly equip a force the size of our reserve, at least according to the Chief of Defence, Juhani Kaskeala. Funny how the majority of Finnish officers think we need NATO membership, might they have some insight in to Finnish defence capabilities?



As for Finns they are better off on their own, they spend their budget they way they want it, and they have a total control of the commandment of their forces.
I don't see any reason for Russia to invade Finland, they can afford nokia phones already, trade relations were always good.

So Finland doesn't need NATO membership because Russia is not a threat. But we need a large scale reserve to maintain a "credible territorial defence" because..

This implies that if Russia was a threat we would need NATO membership. Isn't the whole point of defence policy to to build up a defence of some sort? What sane person would approach the issue of defending oneself with the assumption that the need of defending oneself isn't relevant? And if this is the case then why bother having any sort of defence policy at all?

[wholagun]

As far as I am concerned (as a German), if the Russians would invade the Baltics, any NATO state or any EU member, it would and should mean all-out war (technically, the European Union is no defense alliance but I do not care about this, in my opinion it should be one and one that is preceding NATO in importance for us at that). And if the Russians use nuclear weapons at all, however small the warheads may be, the Western answer must also be nuclear - and that must be clear from the start. Essentially a bomb for a bomb. (At present Germany does no possess nuclear weapons herself but I make no secret out of it that I find it high time to reconsider this self-chosen helplessness).

Georgia is not yet a member of either NATO or EU, however, and it is another matter entirely wether it is wise to take on states as members whose admission needlessly angers Russia only to serve American interests, at present, seem to have a certain imperial ring to them.

But as far as the present state NATO and EU are concerned, our allegiance must be clear. On top of it, the whole matter should convince those who doubt it that Russia is (and actually never ceased to be) a potential threat and that it is high-time for especially Germany to face that fact. As said, there is no wisdom in needless provocation or in bringing a new Cold War about, but we need a significant increase of our military budget to create armed forces that are ready should the worst happen. After all, it does not help us to be peaceful if the Russians are not.


Bravo !!!!

Yes EU/NATO countries need to boost their defense spending and look for more standardization. I hope this new Russian agression gives impetus for EU defense pact that would prop up NATO.

I also support you Kits on your call to reconsider getting Nukes. I was always an advocate for Poland to get Nukes.

[Kilgor]

Talking of military threats here, please don't forget the energy dependence threat. If Georgia falls, there goes the only independent pipeline from the Caucasus that isn't under Kremlin control.

[longmarch]

Little guys' hope.

[longmarch]

---------------------

[longmarch]

Big brother's encouragement.

[CPL Trevoga]

Wow, look at you guys. Bunch of supporters of genocidal Georgian president. Just to remind you that GEORGIA attacked Southern Ossetia. Russia was defending Ossetian civilians. It was most righteous war since WW2.

Democratic Russia is a peaceful country and at no point it's going to unjustly attack Baltics or any other peaceful people. People, just for you info, Stalin is 55 years dead.
F*ckin' Winter war is over yo.

[Glob]

Talking of military threats here, please don't forget the energy dependence threat. If Georgia falls, there goes the only independent pipeline from the Caucasus that isn't under Kremlin control.

There is already no oil pumping through that pipeline.

However EU always was a battleground in global conflicts (WWI WWII), so next global conflict is no exception. The reason NATO is accepted some eastern-europe countries into the the family is to move that battleground as far as possible from their boarders. We call it "second echelon".

Ask yourself why Germany and France was not so happy about accepting Georgia ? Simply because there is no threat coming from that way. Russian pipeline or not, doesn't matter who the seller is, EU will still be buying it and the prices is exact same for all the buyers, no free oil and gas for anyone. Although US has own plans for Georgia, a tool to keep Russia busy, and Georgia as a NATO member would be more effective but I guess it's another topic...

People need to start realizing that Russia needs EU and vice versa, although there still will be sellers besides Russia. So unless you're a tool in a wrong hands or start messing with the big boys business you will be perfectly safe.

[kosse]

I thought the war in Georgia would have debunked the illusions in Finland about what a conscript force running around with AK's can amount to in today's world. And no, we don't have the resources to properly equip a force the size of our reserve, at least according to the Chief of Defence, Juhani Kaskeala. Funny how the majority of Finnish officers think we need NATO membership, might they have some insight in to Finnish defence capabilities?


Georgians fought without modern weaponry and I don't think they even managed to mobilise the conscripts before the Russians were pouring over the mountains. So basically professional troops fought it and lost it in a few days before conscripts were in the game.

I still have firm belief that well trained coscript force with relatively modern weapons can make a difference (which FDF isn't at this point). We only spend about 1,5% of GDP on defense..that would propably need to be doubled in order to arm and train the troops properly. Nonetheless, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Maybe some day if we can tuomiojs and halonens out of politics..but there seem to be new generation of Russoviet fanboys and girls rising in politics :(

[Revolveri]

What about our foreign minister, Stubbe the smiley boy? :):):):) Isn't he in the National Coalition party? He's for NATO as far as I know.

[Adax]

Except for England, the Commonwealth, and France which declared war on Germany in response to the German invasion of Poland.

The sky isn't falling. Russia isn't Nazi Germany. Putin isn't Hitler. This isn't WWIII.
Declared war? And what happend then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War

In fact, Russia is acting like Nazi Germany and Putin uses the same arguments like Hitler - just look how he got Sutets from Czechoslovakia...


Wow, look at you guys. Bunch of supporters of genocidal Georgian president. Just to remind you that GEORGIA attacked Southern Ossetia. Russia was defending Ossetian civilians. It was most righteous war since WW2.
How dare Putin and Russia talk about genocide, when they have killed so many pople in Chechenya? It's just priceless show of russian hypocracy and double standarts.
Russia was defending Ossetians?
So that gives them right to kill Georgians?



Democratic Russia is a peaceful country and at no point it's going to unjustly attack Baltics or any other peaceful people. People, just for you info, Stalin is 55 years dead.
F*ckin' Winter war is over yo.
roflrofl Did you really wrote this? If is't not a sarcasm, it's really scary that some people belive such things...
Sorry for my offtopic but I coudn't resist to reply such russophiles.

[perdurabo]

Even before the start of the unfolding events of the last few days in Georgia, my gut feeling was that NATO in case of Russian aggression against the Baltic states only would provide symbolic or at best limited military support, but I didn't see even the slightest possibility of Germany, France or any other major mainland European state entering an all-out war with Russia over a few small ex-Soviet nations. The last few days certainly haven't changed anything in that regard. I'm in fact not even sure that US and UK would honour their commitment.

In my opinion the most likely scenario in such a turn of events is similar to what we have seen in Georgia. There will be some harsh rhetorics, meetings, angry letters, appointments of negotiators etc. Perhaps with additional promises of military support being "on it's way" and call for international sanctions.

Discuss.
if you count Poland into major mainland countries(almoust as meany citizens as Spain, and economy bigger than all economies of EU newcomers combined...) then i can't see how we wouldn't help its too close to our borders and agression on Baltics would be only startup to deal with us so this would end up preaty bad. Russians have brains so they won't risk closing shortest way to sell their oil, gas and other goods by changing central europe into wasteland (i know we wouldn't stand a chance aginst full scale Russian invasion but we could deal enough demage to make whole thing uneconomnical)

[Mamont]

In fact, Russia is acting like Nazi Germany and Putin uses the same arguments like Hitler - just look how he got Sutets from Czechoslovakia...BS. Did CZ attack german citisens with weapons? Did Sudetz fought for independance previously and was part of the international agreements? You're wrong on so many levels, beat it.

How dare Putin and Russia talk about genocide, when they have killed so many pople in Chechenya? Why not? It's not like several millions dead vietnamese stoppped US from talking about genocide either for example. Or dead Iraqis.. The moral ground for now is too politicaly motivated to be viewed as is.

It's just priceless show of russian hypocracy and double standarts.It seems Russia learned well from it's western partners, i don't know why you angry at them. Nor Russia started this game, nor it advances it.

Russia was defending Ossetians? Obviously.

So that gives them right to kill Georgians?Hm, do they really need to ask for the right? Georgians sealed their fate when they start bombarding the city. Besides, how else can you stop artillery and advancing tanks with infantry? Singing song and launching pigeons instead of shells?

Did you really wrote this? If is't not a sarcasm, it's really scary that some people belive such things...Hmm, it seems someone is still living in the past, and it's not CPL Trevoga...

Sorry for my offtopic but I coudn't resist to reply such russophiles.Yeah, the urge to throw a stone in the Russia's direction is unbeatable, we know, no need to appologise.


The way i see NATO is that the founding and most powerfull nations in the alliance are to wealthy and prosperous, i can hardly see how they willingly will be involved in a big scale war of any significant lenght if any of the Baltic states would be attacked. Either it would be a massive retaliation(however such could lead to the delivery of couple of cruise missiles to the capitals, at least in Europe) or more probably - in negotiations, because nobody would risk escalating conflict to nuclear level. But on the other hand any invasion or even stand-off attack of Baltic states is highly improbable, as there are too little to gain there..

[Atlantic Friend]

Even before the start of the unfolding events of the last few days in Georgia, my gut feeling was that NATO in case of Russian aggression against the Baltic states only would provide symbolic or at best limited military support, but I didn't see even the slightest possibility of Germany, France or any other major mainland European state entering an all-out war with Russia over a few small ex-Soviet nations. The last few days certainly haven't changed anything in that regard. I'm in fact not even sure that US and UK would honour their commitment.

In my opinion the most likely scenario in such a turn of events is similar to what we have seen in Georgia. There will be some harsh rhetorics, meetings, angry letters, appointments of negotiators etc. Perhaps with additional promises of military support being "on it's way" and call for international sanctions.

Discuss.

There would be a big difference : the Batlic States are members of NATO, Georgia is not. NATO would HAVE TO intervene, or disband.

The scenario you describe is highly unlikely, unless it would be the Baltic States starting the conflict (NATO remains a defensive alliance). But should Putin or his bright second Medvedev wake up tomorrow and decide there is no reason there should be an independent Lithuania, how could NATO NOT react ? That would be an invitation for a future move against Poland, Scandinavia, Bulgaria, Germany, the US itself.

[Atlantic Friend]

I doubt that they'll be deployed in any place that goes against Russian interests too heavily since like I said, we are dependant of Russia.

We would be doubly dependant of Russia if an hypothetical Russian aggression was not met by force and resistance. If we egaerly sold NATO members along the river for gas, then there would be an admission there is no alliance for anyone, and the only coherent option would be to immediately invite Russian forces to occupy our various countries - it'd spare these hypothetical Moscow leaders the trouble of blackmailing us later.

[Thor]

Wow, look at you guys. Bunch of supporters of genocidal Georgian president. Just to remind you that GEORGIA attacked Southern Ossetia. Russia was defending Ossetian civilians. It was most righteous war since WW2.

Democratic Russia is a peaceful country and at no point it's going to unjustly attack Baltics or any other peaceful people. People, just for you info, Stalin is 55 years dead.
F*ckin' Winter war is over yo.
South Ossetia was destabilized by Russian "peacekeepers" who started to arm rebels and most likely also acted as advisors in the field. These gangs then intensified a proxy war against Georgian forces, who eventually responded. It was a bait, nothing else.

Any attack on all or one of the Baltic states will be based on a similarly produced scenario. It won't strike as a lightning from a clear blue sky. There will be a long decline of relations, accusations of "genocide" on the ethnic russian minority, accusations of shelling/attacks of Russian positions from the other side of the border, supporting/harboring terrorists etc.

---

There are many things in this thread I plan to reply on, but I don't have time right now..

[CPL Trevoga]

How dare Putin and Russia talk about genocide, when they have killed so many pople in Chechenya? It's just priceless show of russian hypocracy and double standarts.
Russia was defending Ossetians?

So that gives them right to kill Georgians?

There is a saying in Russian, "Pany derutsia, a u holopov lby treshat." When lords are fighting, peasant heads hurt.

Chechnia was granted independence, but their Wahhabi leadership attacked Dagestan. Again it was aggression against Russian people. I'm just reminding you, in case you forgot.



roflrofl Did you really wrote this? If is't not a sarcasm, it's really scary that some people belive such things...
Sorry for my offtopic but I coudn't resist to reply such russophiles.

I can rolf about democracy in Poland too. Democracy and freedoms in Russia are real. I actually think that there is more Voli (freedom) in Russia, then in many established Western democracies.

[CPL Trevoga]

South Ossetia was destabilized by Russian "peacekeepers" who started to arm rebels and most likely also acted as advisors in the field. These gangs then intensified a proxy war against Georgian forces, who eventually responded. It was a bait, nothing else.

Russians are very clever then. I think it was Sakashvili (who lived in the US all his life) who got little too cocky with encouragement of Mr. Bush and Nato leaders. He thought Europeans were ready to die for him, otherwise he would not have conducted war of aggression against Southern Ossetia with such small force or he is insane.

[Kilgor]

South Ossetia was destabilized by Russian "peacekeepers" who started to arm rebels and most likely also acted as advisors in the field. These gangs then intensified a proxy war against Georgian forces, who eventually responded. It was a bait, nothing else.

Any attack on all or one of the Baltic states will be based on a similarly produced scenario. It won't strike as a lightning from a clear blue sky. There will be a long decline of relations, accusations of "genocide" on the ethnic russian minority, accusations of shelling/attacks of Russian positions from the other side of the border, supporting/harboring terrorists etc.

---

There are many things in this thread I plan to reply on, but I don't have time right now..

Mistreatment of Russian minorities. Such as recently posted "news" about Estonians feeding Russians rotten food , etc. The victim mentality must be re-enforced, and the military solution given as a guise for other goals.

[DS73]

Just some time ago, it was questioned why Finland has so big artillery force when "its not needed anymore". Makes fun reading now.


Old saying: "People who refuse feeding own soldiers feed foreign ones" (sorry my trans.).
It is funny that people who doesn't believe ithat NATO will defend Baltic states are some fines (?) and of course russians. The main purpose of NATO is to protect relatively small european countries from russian aggression. The start was given by russians who "changed criminal regimes" in Central and Eastern Europe in 47-49. People in these countries don't forget that.

[John Smith]

Could one of you Estonians please translate this article for me? I was told that it says something about Russia threatening the Baltic countries if they pursue their protest. Something along the lines of: The same thing could easily happen to you too.

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/438205

Sry about my english, but i do my best. Story itself:


“Remarks blaming a Russia in conflict might bring Latvia to the situation from where it’s not so easy to get out.” Said Russian ambassador in Latvia Vesnjakov in press conference today.

He repeated the Russian officials statement that Russian forces in S-Ossetia have only one purpose “to force a Georgia to make a peace” and they moved their forces in to the conflict zone to protect Russian citizens.

[Basillicus]

Russians are very clever then. I think it was Sakashvili (who lived in the US all his life) who got little too cocky with encouragement of Mr. Bush and Nato leaders. He thought Europeans were ready to die for him, otherwise he would not have conducted war of aggression against Southern Ossetia with such small force or he is insane.

Usually it takes two sides to start a fight. IMO Russians just outsmarted Georgians, provoked them to finally ingnite this conflict and therefore gave the Russians free hands to step in and do whatever they want. They've been harassing the Georgians long enough and I think there is very little doubt that they've been waiting this to happen all along. I don't think it was a coincidence that there just happened to be fully mobilized, powerful well armed Russian forces nearby ready to move in almost in a matter of hours and wage war against the Georgian troops. Georgians just didn't see that coming and gave the Russians acceptable reason to move their armor across the border and start their "peacekeeping" operation.

Don't make the mistake though to think that I have any sympathy for the Georgians. Their "imperialistic" attitude towards SO and Abhasia makes me sick, that kind of mindset doesn't belong to the 21th century.

[Thor]

Yeah, just like Finland was Imperialistic for not wanting to give up Karelia...

Or better yet, why don't you grant Åland full autonomy?

[kosse]

Buccaneering Finnish capitalists have reportedly violated still binding peace treaty between Finland and Soviet Union. Steel was discovered stolen from Russian railway tracks inside Finland that is part of the aforementioned treaty. It has begun..

[Slinky]

This is what i understand of the conflict

01.08
6 Georgian policemen are wounded in a bomb attack in South-Ossetia

02.08
6 civilians and 1 police officer got wounded in Georgian villages in S-Ossetia by gunfire

03.08
S-Ossetia announces the evacuation of ca 500 pople. Russian media starts a campaign against Georgia

06.08
Seperatists start an attack on Georgian villages in S-Ossetia. Georgian forces return fire. Casualties on both side

07.08
Nighttimes and daytime Georgian troops and officials gare attacked from Ossetian villages. Georgians return fire. Georgian announces a ceasefire, but still the seperatists continue the attack and demolish 1 village (there are fatalities)

08.08
>00.45 o'clock Georgian goverment announces that they are forced send troops in S-Ossetia
> Russian heavy armor enters S-Ossetia. Goverment says that they are protecting Russian citizens.
>The start of cyber-attacks by russian hackers on Georgian goverment websites.
>Georgian president announces mobilisation of troops and calls back 2000 soldiers stationed in Iraq

09.08
Fighting continues on Georgian soil. Russian fighters bomb Photh harbor, disabling it. in Gori living quarters are bombed
> Dmitri Medvedev announces the start of military operation in S-Ossetia
>State of war in announced in Georgia
>USA insists Russian to withdraw its troops from Georgia ASAP

10.08
Thbilisi international airport is bombed
>6000 Russian troops enter through Rok tunnel, in Otšamtšira harbor 4000 more soldiers land. Also battleships are moving towards Gerogian coast from Sevastopol.
>Georgia announces the withdraw of troops in S-Ossetia, russian denies that action.
>The Tbilaviastroi war factory is bombed.
>Bombing of Zugdidi city.

Russian has been planning this for long time. The facts that support that theory are:
the building and repair of railway stations and tracks in Abkhazskaya, for quick transport to Georgian border. Long time provoking in S-Ossetia to encourage Georgians to use weapons, so that they had an alibi for attack. The deployment of troops and armor along Georgian border (particulary in north Ossetia). The supply of heavy and light weaponsfor Ossetians.
etc This all reminds the situation in Finland in 1939. during Mainila provoktion. Georgia lacked in military intelligence and the leaders lacked expierience, and iron nerves to avoid the conflict. Now it is too late.

[Basillicus]

Yeah, just like Finland was Imperialistic for not wanting to give up Karelia...

Or better yet, why don't you grant Åland full autonomy?

Fail. People living in Karelia didn't want to be a part of SU or independent from Finland. Which is ofcourse little suprise as they were no different from the rest of the Finns, which is not the case with Ossetians and Georgians.

And what comes to Åland they can have full autonomy if they want for all I care. It's their little island, not mine, so they can do whatever they want with it.

[Revolveri]

Yep.. Åland is pretty much free to leave but they don't want to because they can't sustain themselves alone. Their exports are fish and potato chips and there's about only 40 000 Ålanders. Besides the men (or the women) in Åland don't have to serve any time in the army like regular Finnish guys.

EDIT: The island itself isnt important either because Finland has to keep it demilitarized. Of course in a war situation that could change...

EDIT2: Karelia has been Russian for a long time and most of the Finnish Karelians left it in WW2 if they wanted to be in Finland. SO and Abkhazia are Georgia's territory if the people there want to be Russian then they should move to Russia IMO.

[kosse]

Or better yet, why don't you grant Åland full autonomy?

I'm not sure what autonomous rights they are missing but they are already priviledged compared to ordinary Finns. Finland guarantees that the island stays monoethnic with special legislation..something they could not do if they were independent EU member as it would be viewed as racist. As long as they enjoy minority status in Finland they get to keep their priviledged position. Ordinary Finns can't vote, make business or buy property on the islands before living there for a long time. I think they are happy with their situation but if they change their mind I doubt nobody's stopping them either from getting their independence.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

ToIn the Cold Wars the red line for NATO was the West/East German border. All member country would defend it. To the Soviets, the red line was Moscow, the Warsaw Pact satellites were merely space to be traded and destroyed, battles to be fought over.

Now almost 2 decades later, those countries and former Soviet republics are facing a very uncomfortable truth: though they may have switched allegiance, they have not really bettered their position. They are still counted as lesser allies, to be traded and sacrificed if necessary.

An alliance not willing to defend its allies is worth less that the paper it is written on. An alliance that incorporates land that it is willing to trade/sacrifice/make exception to makes an alliance weaker, not stronger. NATO only has itself to blame, it has weakened itself by spreading east and has lost credibility if not outright caused the beginning of its end. Some say that might have been Kosovo, but...

Western europe and the USA (to a lesser extent, they are more concerned about stationing ABM bases close to Russia to protect continental north America) will trade the east for gas, because the gas keeps them warm at night in winter and cooks their food, while having that cut off over the other "half" of europe will not.

This is not flame bait (to the EE and FSR members), but cold hard reality of geopolitics. It sucks.

May I suggest that from the way things are, if NATO or the EU wont defend EE and the FSRs, that a new alliance be formed by those nations?

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

EDIT2: Karelia has been Russian for a long time and most of the Finnish Karelians left it in WW2 if they wanted to be in Finland. SO and Abkhazia are Georgia's territory if the people there want to be Russian then they should move to Russia IMO.

Should we be consistent and ask the same of the Albanians in Kosovo?

[Wall]

Democracy and freedoms in Russia are real.
It depends how much there is freedom and will democracy work..

[Tykimies]

Buccaneering Finnish capitalists have reportedly violated still binding peace treaty between Finland and Soviet Union. Steel was discovered stolen from Russian railway tracks inside Finland that is part of the aforementioned treaty. It has begun..


That was so funny news today! They sead also in the news that mentioned Salla railroad tracks hasn't never been used since the writing of Paris peace treaty. I thought we had that particular paper allready in trashbin? :)

[sgthanzo]

We would be doubly dependant of Russia if an hypothetical Russian aggression was not met by force and resistance. If we egaerly sold NATO members along the river for gas, then there would be an admission there is no alliance for anyone, and the only coherent option would be to immediately invite Russian forces to occupy our various countries - it'd spare these hypothetical Moscow leaders the trouble of blackmailing us later.

Aside from the Georgians, the biggest loser of Russia's 19th century-style juggernaut is the European Union itself.

Russia flexed its muscles and the European Union did nothing. The French president (as current head of the EU) shuttles around selling 'agreements' that look good in paper but carries no additional thunder to make Russia understand the consequences of its actions.

Putin has dark intentions for Russia -- and for Europe. Unless the EU steps up to the plate to demand withdrawal to the pre-August 7 line (and back it up by force (NATO)) Russia will take advantage of how impotent the European Union has become; and it will unleash its bigger, more bullish plans across the continent.

For once, I'd like to see the U.S. sit this out and let the Europeans handle its own affairs...

[Basillicus]

For once, I'd like to see the U.S. sit this out and let the Europeans handle its own affairs...

Why do you think this is our affair in the first place? It's debatable if Georgia is even part of "Europe" or not, and anyway they have been butt buddies more with the USA (troops in Iraq etc.) rather than EU. And anyway I don't see any reason why the EU should risk anything for Georgia since they can blame themselves at least as much as the Russians for the situation where they are in.

[klip]

No offence, but you are totaly wrong.

If the rest of NATO would not honour their commitment reagrding an Article 5 (The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all) - the NATO alliance would in reality cease to exist.

Article 5 doesn't give a guarantee of a military action, it gives only this:

...such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

The same as in 1939 it will depend on cold political calculations regardless of the signed treaties. Then in '39 Polish government was stupid enough to step into agreements with UK and France and to take the first strike of the German army. I hope we won't repeat that mistake in Poland again.

[kosse]

Article 5 doesn't give a guarantee of a military action, it gives only this:

...such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

The same as in 1939 it will depend on cold political calculations regardless of the signed treaties. Then in '39 Polish government was stupid enough to step into agreements with UK and France and to take the first strike of the German army. I hope we won't repeat that mistake in Poland again.

Registered october 2005 and now you post for the first time? Good post anyway :)

[IronFinn]

Fail. People living in Karelia didn't want to be a part of SU or independent from Finland. Which is ofcourse little suprise as they were no different from the rest of the Finns, which is not the case with Ossetians and Georgians.

And what comes to Åland they can have full autonomy if they want for all I care. It's their little island, not mine, so they can do whatever they want with it.

I don´t quit get the idea that Georgians would be the bad guys here. ANY country, would it be new or old, do not want to parts of it to break away. Its simple as that.

And as for the Ahvenanmaa, they can break away at that day when hell freezes over.

[klip]

Thanks, I was surprised by the 2005 too ;).

Anyway, we have now in Poland a discussion about American missile defence base and I don't see it wise to host it in Poland. Georgia is/was(?) USA ally and they ended with American words and Russian troops on their soil.

We are in NATO, but is this enough ? I doubt it. Without really close bilateral military-political relationship (like Israel has with USA) there's no chance to count on others help. End even with such treaties a country should be ready to defend it by itself.

[kosse]

Thanks, I was surprised by the 2005 too ;).
We are in NATO, but is this enough ? I doubt it. Without really close bilateral military-political relationship (like Israel has with USA) there's no chance to count on others help. End even with such treaties a country should be ready to defend it by itself.

Well, I doubt even Israel is counting on US help..sure, they will receive weapons but it's their own soldiers who will do the fighting and dying for sure in any potential conflict with neighboring states. To assume anything else is naive at best in my view.

[oldsoak]

IMHO, NATO should not be committed to the Baltic states. Very few countries in NATO are prepared to commit to the real cost of a credible defence and have the political will to put their money where their mouth is. With the exception of former warpac countries like Poland, Czech republic etc, we should stay out of places like Ukraine, Latvia etc that were formerly SSR states. Do we really want to be dragged into a confrontation with Russia over some breakaway state who would bring no net gain to NATO or the EU ?

[MichaelF]

As Oldsoak pointed out, is attempting to save Georgia, a State which may be congenitally doomed, worth risking the integrity of an Alliance meant to provide collective security for Western and Southern Europe?

Mission creep can very easily kill NATO.

Again, NATO members going to war to protect Germany, Norway or Turkey makes sense (as the strategic situation resulting from the conquest of those countries would seriously threaten the remaining members).
NATO members going to war to save Georgia...makes little sense. Risk the security, quality of life and, possibly, the entire population of a dozen major nations, to bail out a country that doesn't really matter to them (in any real sense).

[lightfire]

IMHO, NATO should not be committed to the Baltic states. Very few countries in NATO are prepared to commit to the real cost of a credible defence and have the political will to put their money where their mouth is. With the exception of former warpac countries like Poland, Czech republic etc, we should stay out of places like Ukraine, Latvia etc that were formerly SSR states. Do we really want to be dragged into a confrontation with Russia over some breakaway state who would bring no net gain to NATO or the EU ?

Then perhaps it should not be committed to other members?

A breakaway state? They ARE NATO members, you want this or not. In other words, should NATO defend Iceland - it's a piece of rock with no army, why should WE then..? Or Luxemburg - it's tiny..US has been attacked in 9/11 - why should NATO react, indeed..?

Please, before asking such questions concider your values and what Alliance NATO is.

[Andrew Chalmers]

Whether NATO will commit itself militarily against an aggressor depends on the circumstances of the political environment, how the conflict began, and whether it will end.

Georgia and Russia both were instigators, but it was Georgia's recent incursion into the capital of S. Ossetian conflict that gave Russia the pretext or pushed Russia over the edge (depending on your POV).

NATO will never let its foreign or military policy to be hijacked by smaller states (whether they are members or not). To some observers - Georgia appears to have been trying to use its relationship against W. Europe and USA as some sort of deterrence against Russia (while Georgia actively provoked Russia).

Politicians in immature young democracies... whether in S. Korea, Taiwan, etc... tend to drift towards ultranationalism until voters lose their taste for grand ideals and look for pragmatic benefits. Too bad for the Geogians... they never got that chance to mature.

[MichaelF]

Then perhaps it should not be committed to other members?

A breakaway state? They ARE NATO members, you want this or not. In other words, should NATO defend Iceland - it's a piece of rock with no army, why should WE then..? Or Luxemburg - it's tiny..US has been attacked in 9/11 - why should NATO react, indeed..?

Please, before asking such questions concider your values and what Alliance NATO is.

We don't consider our values. Only our interests.

We would defend Iceland because it's a perfect strategic point to project naval aviation power across the North Atlantic, and provides the centerpiece of the GIUK gap.

Luxembourg gets defended because...well....Germany and the Netherlands get defended. Since Lux is behind them, it made sense to include it in the alliance, for logistical and strategic reasons.

The argument, that you seem to be missing while you make ethos statements, is that those new members have fundamentally weakened the NATO Alliance. France and Germany aren't going to go to war with Russia over Georgia (and probably not over the Baltics).
By not coming to the aid of NATO members (such as the Baltic states), the Alliance is undercut. Perhaps not fatally (as everyone knows the difference in importance between Latvia and Denmark), but damaging nonetheless.

IOW, we brought those nations into the alliance because we could not because we should have. No eye was given to the (inevitability of) a resurgent Russia, who would not tolerate NATO intrusion on its frontier (especially as it was promised that such would not occur), or belligerence from its traditional vassal states.

[oldsoak]

Then perhaps it should not be committed to other members?

A breakaway state? They ARE NATO members, you want this or not. In other words, should NATO defend Iceland - it's a piece of rock with no army, why should WE then..? Or Luxemburg - it's tiny..US has been attacked in 9/11 - why should NATO react, indeed..?

Please, before asking such questions concider your values and what Alliance NATO is.

To put it simply - how does Iceland benefit NATO ? Very strategic bit of rock - GIUK gap and all that. Luxemburgh - well within EU boundaries, cant really be attacked without going through quite a few NATO states. The attack on US in 9/11 constituted a major terrorist outrage against the major contributor to NATO. I would argue that NATO needs to limit its members to stable, mature states which have a reasonable investment in defence and who fit in with our goals and ideals. Ultimately NATO is about defending itself and not a means of settling old scores.

- b*gger , beaten to it ! :lol:

[Basillicus]

I don´t quit get the idea that Georgians would be the bad guys here. ANY country, would it be new or old, do not want to parts of it to break away. Its simple as that.

And as for the Ahvenanmaa, they can break away at that day when hell freezes over.

I doubt our government would start shelling towns in Åland and send some coastal jaegers to storm their positions if they would declare independence. The situation would be solved peacefully and in a civilized manner long before things would go to that. Violence seldom works in these situations. The day our DF will be tasked to start any conflict I will burn my military passport and leave this country or alternatively stay and try to overthrow the government.

[The Dane]

Okay, for those who don't think that NATO is commited to defend the Baltic states i have one question.

The skies over the Baltics is patrolled by different NATO countries fighterjets.
If Russia decides to attack any of the Baltic countries, do you then think that the NATO fighters just will return to their own countries ?

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

If you bring some Jaffa with you, I'll pay for your ticket here

[lightfire]

We don't consider our values. Only our interests.


And the interest of NATO is not to defend it's members?



The argument, that you seem to be missing while you make ethos statements, is that those new members have fundamentally weakened the NATO Alliance. France and Germany aren't going to go to war with Russia over Georgia (and probably not over the Baltics).

That is an estimation, that has been repeated for some time. Nevertheless it remains an estimation, NOT a fact. The ability to defend Baltic states in military way is no less simpler than of Iceland, yet it's not hopeless as it is attempted to be shown here. Or are you refering the military might?

No agression would come just of a sudden if we talk of Russia as of enemy. As it was mentioned before, NATO member states have aircrafts constantly patrooling over Baltics.

How would you imagine any enemy agression/occupation of Baltic states without removing those jets and NATO personnel? And if attacked this NATO contingent of let's say Germany, France or Spain would be left alone?

And the point you are missing here is mixing Georgia and baltic states. those are different. georgia, you know it, is not a NATO member, and Alliance has not pledged to defend it in case of agression.



IOW, we brought those nations into the alliance because we could not because we should have.

and yet you have, thus commitments are to be kept, right? Or are we talking, I beg your pardon for mentioning this, Ribentrop - Molotov pact again? No offence really.


I would argue that NATO needs to limit its members to stable, mature states which have a reasonable investment in defence and who fit in with our goals and ideals. Ultimately NATO is about defending itself and not a means of settling old scores.

So what is exactly are you suggesting? Not to keep the commitments, that all NATO members share, or expell some nations from NATO, because they are ex-soviet block states?

Oh, and about reasonable investment in defence...what is exactly the role of NATO these days, agian? And which countries are not commiting to NATO opperations? Or are we still talking about the defending of Fulda gap (which would mean, those pesky Baltic states have destroyed all master strategy plans..).

Again, no offence, yet your comments surprise me. I do realise about interests, however there is always a line, some people should not forget about it. This line is AFAIK an attack on any NATO member state. No friendship with gas/oil suplier is worth of security Alliance breakup.

[IronFinn]

I doubt our government would start shelling towns in Åland and send some coastal jaegers to storm their positions if they would declare independence. The situation would be solved peacefully and in a civilized manner long before things would go to that. Violence seldom works in these situations. The day our DF will be tasked to start any conflict I will burn my military passport and leave this country or alternatively stay and try to overthrow the government.

Anything is possible and if you do not want to uphold your oath then it is up to you. We are in different camps when it comes to that then.


Minä tahdon kaikkialla ja kaikissa tilanteissa, rauhan ja sodan aikana puolustaa isänmaani koskemattomuutta, sen laillista valtiojärjestystä sekä valtakunnan laillista esivaltaa. Jos havaitsen tai saan tietää jotakin olevan tekeillä laillisen esivallan kukistamiseksi tai maan valtiojärjestyksen kumoamiseksi, tahdon sen viipymättä viranomaisille ilmoittaa.

edit: sorry for the off topic comment.

[Kippari]

Well, I'm kinda with Basillicus here, no point to start forcing people to live under your rule when they clearly don't want to. Besides, there's nothing more in Åland to me but the Taffel Chips factory.:)
I could allow us to sell the Archipelago to the Swedish, but damn if they tried to nick our chips, there'd be couple of armies of troops headed to Swedish border in no time.p-)

[wholagun]

I dont' think we can talk about NATO without bringing in the EU. For the most part all the NATO members are EU members. Its almost like an added layer of protection, as the attacked EU member would be front and center in demanding other countries support them. Let's not forget the EMU, once all the Baltics are in the EMU and further integrated into the EU single market, any attack on a Baltic state will send the EURO down and hurt European Stocks and damage the stability of those markets.

NATO is really the ultimate BLUFF. If it is European unity and security will be set back decades if not a century b/c it will create mistrust and state will not forget (for the second time) being tossed to the Bear by the West.

[Basillicus]

Anything is possible and if you do not want to uphold your oath then it is up to you. We are in different camps when it comes to that then.

A lot of bad stuff is caused by people blindly following oaths, religious texts etc. without thinking WTF they are really about to do. E.g. that oath you quoted includes all kinds of BS about "lawful government" etc. Well, laws do not define what is right and what is wrong eventhough some people tend to think so. Next day we could have a commie government giving lawful orders to detain "capitalists" or nazi goverment giving lawful orders to exterminate "racially impure" citizens. Would you as an oath follower do you part for these kinds of "lawful governments" or not?

[kosse]

Anything is possible and if you do not want to uphold your oath then it is up to you. We are in different camps when it comes to that then.

You might not find many comrades in that camp of yours, no offense.

Anyway, I'm starting to get a feeling that the oath is losing it's meaning. Finland is the home of Finns - the only one we have. If the authorities want to bring in hundreds of thousands immigrants without really listening to the people in my eyes they have betrayed me and my country - my oath does not bind me to such rulers who want to undo the nation state. We'll see how it turns out but I sure as hell hope that it will not come to that.

[MichaelF]

Okay, for those who don't think that NATO is commited to defend the Baltic states i have one question.

The skies over the Baltics is patrolled by different NATO countries fighterjets.
If Russia decides to attack any of the Baltic countries, do you then think that the NATO fighters just will return to their own countries ?

Quite possibly.

To turn it around: Do you think NATO will go to war with Russia over a few fighter jets?

[lightfire]

Quite possibly.

To turn it around: Do you think NATO will go to war with Russia over a few fighter jets?

Imagine RuAF attacking USAF C-17 in Georgia right now. Do you think US would do nothing..?

It would answer in similar means by downing several russian jets at very least.. That leads to eventual escalation. This is why, Russia wouldn't risk it.

[IronFinn]

I knew I would get a nice bunch of replies but this fast!? p-)


Well, I'm kinda with Basillicus here, no point to start forcing people to live under your rule when they clearly don't want to. Besides, there's nothing more in Åland to me but the Taffel Chips factory.:)
I could allow us to sell the Archipelago to the Swedish, but damn if they tried to nick our chips, there'd be couple of armies of troops headed to Swedish border in no time.p-)

Selling the islands would be a hard decision but IF I had to do it I would sell it to Russia just to spite Ahvenanmaa and piss off Sweden ;).


Basillicus: A lot of bad stuff is caused by people blindly following oaths, religious texts etc. without thinking WTF they are really about to do. E.g. that oath you quoted includes all kinds of BS about "lawful government" etc. Well, laws do not define what is right and what is wrong eventhough some people tend to think so. Next day we could have a commie government giving lawful orders to detain "capitalists" or nazi goverment giving lawful orders to exterminate "racially impure" citizens. Would you as an oath follower do you part for these kinds of "lawful governments" or not?

You kind of have a point there BUT, keeping the nation together (even with force) is not a act of "evil" but a simple move to uphold our national unity. What would come of it if every province, city or backwater village would declare independency when they would feel like it?



kosse: You might not find many comrades in that camp of yours, no offense.

None taken. I knew that I would end up alone in this end. This country is filled with PC infested three huggin social aunts with flower hats who seem to have a problem with patriotism. p-)

[tluassa]

Russians know very well that the power has shifted from them to Nato, Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, the Czchechs, all have switched sides. Nato is now directly at Putins door, that is why he tried to gain back some influence in his backyard before he is completely surrounded. That is why he is putting pressure on the Ukraine as well. Moscow is now closer to the frontline than Berlin is, and the Russians face a European Union of 491,000,000 inhabitants, while they are only a mere 140.000.000 left. They wont have anyone to sell their oil to either, and loose 40 - 70 percent of their trading partners. Very costly for a few Baltic territories.

[walford]

NATO is a paper tiger and Putin knows this; he would not have ordered this assault if he wasn't positive that he'd get away with it.

Via economic pressure, intimidation and brutal violence, Putin is serving notice to his neighbors that they can take the uncertain security of NATO membership or the certainty that they will be "protected" as vassals under a new Russian Empire. Having the "near abroad" serving as buffer states under their control has been traditional Russian strategic doctrine since the Tsarist days -- they certainly will not tolerate any sort of independent states nearby.

And who will be there to challenge them? NATO? As Continental Europe inexorably slouches toward Islamization, it hardly has the will to defend itself; they certainly aren't going to stick their necks out for anyone else. Britain and the U.S. are over-extended elsewhere.

This was a calculated move and Putin is playing to win. He knows very well that he has nothing to fear from anyone about this. He can pick off his neighbors one by one and no one will stop him.

He is helping America's enemies as well. He is selling weapons to Venezuela and, along with China, is helping Iran thwart the sanctions by making up for lost revenue and upgrading their military.

Plain and simple, Russia is one of the major enemies of peace and freedom in the world.

[klip]

Okay, for those who don't think that NATO is commited to defend the Baltic states i have one question.

The skies over the Baltics is patrolled by different NATO countries fighterjets.
If Russia decides to attack any of the Baltic countries, do you then think that the NATO fighters just will return to their own countries ?


No one knows. Even if they return fire and defend themselves that doesn't have to be followed by any reaction from other NATO members. We must remember that Europe is highly dependent on Russia's oil and gas and this is an important factor in political calculations. And we have democracies in Europe where public opinion of other countries may not be happy to sacrifice their energy costs and life for some eastern european ones.

[Andrew Chalmers]

NATO is a paper tiger and Putin knows this; he would not have ordered this assault if he wasn't positive that he'd get away with it.

Putin ordered this? Medvedev is not in the picture?


Plain and simple, Russia is one of the major enemies of peace and freedom in the world.

So how should we deal with this threat? Regime Change?

[walford]

Putin ordered this? Medvedev is not in the picture?What difference does it make?


So how should we deal with this threat? Regime Change?Russia is handling this by securing regime change of its neighbors and the Finlandization of Western Europe.

[Andrew Chalmers]

What difference does it make?

Touche - I guess every Russian leader is the same eh?


Russia is handling this by securing regime change of its neighbors and the Finlandization of Western Europe.

That does not answer the question of how NATO should approach this threat you describe.

[MichaelF]

And the interest of NATO is not to defend it's members?

Only members that can be reasonably defended. The addition of peripheral (both in the geographic and the strategic senses) members may have undermined the Alliance, putting it into the position of failing it's committments or fighting expensive (or disasterous) conflicts which do not serve its members interests...





So what is exactly are you suggesting? Not to keep the commitments, that all NATO members share, or expell some nations from NATO, because they are ex-soviet block states?


Only commit to protecting the interests of the core members of the Alliance.

Again, the core members will come to the aid of, say, Turkey or Norway, because the core member's interests would be harmed by Russian domination of Turkey or Norway. The same can not be said of Latvia (or, demonstrably, Georgia).

Why should German, never mind American or British, boys go get killed to protect Lithuanians (fine people though they are) or Georgians? How does that improve or secure the interests and safety of their homes and families?
On the contrary, getting into a shooting war with Russia, with the possibility of escalation, actively endangers the German (US/UK/etc) homelands. For what? Latvia? Georgia?

It's not worth risking the fates of a Billion human beings.

[MichaelF]

Imagine RuAF attacking USAF C-17 in Georgia right now. Do you think US would do nothing..?

It would answer in similar means by downing several russian jets at very least.. That leads to eventual escalation. This is why, Russia wouldn't risk it.

It's also why we made absolutely sure, by talking to the Russians beforehand, that they weren't going to plink our birds.

It's a two-way street.

Had they said "any nonRussian aircraft in the AO is considered hostile", those C-17s would never have taken off.

[walford]

That does not answer the question of how NATO should approach this threat you describe.I'm not talking about what should be; I'm talking about what is and what is most likely.

Consider this: Western civilization is at an ebb; the glory days have come and gone. Only a minority of the world's population has ever lived under limited representative government; the rest languish under one-party regimes held into place by force, limit free speech, free press, have no habeas corpus, etc. etc.

Right now, freedom is under assault by Russia, China and the Islamic world. All most Westerners can conceive of is if we heal ourselves and atone for our sins, the bad people will leave us alone. We are being bred out by people who have no conception of tolerating anything other than their way of life.

The chance of freedom and Western civilization surviving this century are less than even and shrinking with each passing year.

What is going on in Georgia and what is looms for Russia's other neighbors is only a part of that process.

[ilmakas]

I believe that when Russia would attack Estonia and Latvia, then NATO would not get involved, but if it would attack Lithuania, then it would. My reasoning is that Lithuania is the biggest one out of the three, it also seems that Lithuanians are highly motivated and they can put up pretty good resistance. This means that conflict will escalate and Poland will get involved and after that NATO.

Also quite a lot of Russian citizens live in Estonia and Latvia, so it is not a problem to fabricate a reasonable casus belli against them.

[wholagun]

I believe that when Russia would attack Estonia and Latvia, then NATO would not get involved, but if it would attack Lithuania, then it would. My reasoning is that Lithuania is the biggest one out of the three, it also seems that Lithuanians are highly motivated and they can put up pretty good resistance. This means that conflict will escalate and Poland will get involved and after that NATO.

Also quite a lot of Russian citizens live in Estonia and Latvia, so it is not a problem to fabricate a reasonable casus belli against them.

I think that is an important issue that has thus far been overlooked. Poland and to a lesser extent the Czech Rep and Slovakia has a vested interest in the Baltics and Ukraine. It would most likey generate some type of response by the country or countries

[Basillicus]

You kind of have a point there BUT, keeping the nation together (even with force) is not a act of "evil" but a simple move to uphold our national unity. What would come of it if every province, city or backwater village would declare independency when they would feel like it?

If you need to use force national unity doesn't even exist anymore. It's not something you can force, it has to start from the people themselves. And if every province and city wants to break away there has to be something horrible wrong with the nation itself, and it probably should be dissolved anyway. Sort of like the case with the USSR.

People are not for the state but it is the other way around. If the people feel the nation isn't good for them or is even oppressing them they should fight against it, first politically and if it won't change things then with force. The government has a responsibility to listen to the people, serve them and do what is best for them.

[MichaelF]

If you need to use force national unity doesn't even exist anymore. It's not something you can force.

The Confederate States of America would beg to differ....

The Union Army proved to be a fairly good glue. YMMV.

[lightfire]

Only members that can be reasonably defended.


And who decided who can and who can not be defended in NATO?



The addition of peripheral (both in the geographic and the strategic senses) members may have undermined the Alliance, putting it into the position of failing it's committments or fighting expensive (or disasterous) conflicts which do not serve its members interests...

So, fighting for Iceland would be cheeper and less disastrous? Again - who says that? You aren't a military council of NATO, you haven't seen their plans, have you?



Only commit to protecting the interests of the core members of the Alliance.

Please, name ALL of the core members, we could all know..


Again, the core members will come to the aid of, say, Turkey or Norway, because the core member's interests would be harmed by Russian domination of Turkey or Norway. The same can not be said of Latvia (or, demonstrably, Georgia).

Poland. You forgot Poland.

And as of interests, it was already mentioned - western investments, western military personel - in case of war all of that would be harmed by the.. (whoops, you named it) Russian domination.


Why should German, never mind American or British, boys go get killed to protect Lithuanians (fine people though they are) or Georgians?

Again, do not put georgians here, they are NOT NATO members, is it so hard to understand..as for why - why should lithuanian boys go get killed in Afghanistan or any other NATO mission for the americans or british? Because this is NATO and no one talks about core or periferial members when there's commitment to the Alliance.



How does that improve or secure the interests and safety of their homes and families?

yea, some people ask the same question in my country - how does NATO mission in Afghanistan help to improve or secure the interests and safety of their homes and families. Care to explain them?


On the contrary, getting into a shooting war with Russia, with the possibility of escalation, actively endangers the German (US/UK/etc) homelands. For what? Latvia? Georgia?

Again you with your Georgia, what's tha matter with you?p-) As for what - again, for those commitments and interests all members have and I've mentioned. In fact, NATO has never been tested on this scale, so we can speculate here till the death, but I remember one danish profesor I was talking too.

He said, smth similar was in their country after the war and after the creation of NATO. They were asking - are the americans really going to help us in case of full soviet invasion?Would they risk to defend a land with no mountains and few natural obstacles appart from islands?

Well, would you question that today as well?


It's not worth risking the fates of a Billion human beings

correct, this is why Russia wouldn't go un such a foley.

[oldsoak]

Couple of points -

NATO decides what is defendable and what isnt. Everything is determined by resources availiable and the ability to supply them . No one throws good money after bad.


Iceland is easier for the USN and USAAF to supply and defend than the UK or even mainland Europe. Look at the distances involved.

All core members would be those at the time of the formation of NATO.

Quite bluntly, NATO was originally created with one threat in mind. That threat was militarily, geographically and diplomatically very well defined at the time. Now that the distinctions are blurred and the cold war is "over", NATO countries are reluctant to get involved in areas outside the EU and CONUS unless the threat is seen as very real or the risk of missiles landing on their towns is low

btw Afghanistan is far more understandable to a lot of people in the UK than Iraq. They can see the threat if Poland or Slovakia was invaded, they probably could not find Latvia or Georgia on a map.

Denmarks position at the mouth of the Baltic is very strategic and therefore worth defending. It would be used to block the entry into the North sea for the Baltic fleet. Holland and Belgium have vital port facilities necessary for resupply of NATO forces in ETO.

[monty1]

Estonia´s and Finland´s position is somewhat similarily unique - it can close the waterway to St.Petersburg. Much talk has been about the pipeline in Georgia transporting 1% of worlds oil production. Every day another 1% passes the Finnish Gulf (maybe even more, cannot remember exactly)

Another point to think about, finns - Georgian army (ground forces) were on par, if not better equipped than Finnish army and was much more concentrated on somewhat similar terrain (mountain vs. forests, both are channelling terrain) ....

And about baltic states armies and their capabilities - Est.Lat.&Lit. started from scratch in 1991. Since we were not successor states of Sov.Union, we could not claim Sov.equipment on our soil. Therefore Rus. took everything out by 1994 (maybe some of their equipment went ´missing´, but that was it). So Baltics started out from scratch, with almost non-existing funds. Then , when NATO membership became viable, NATO said that it brings along commitments as well . You have to participate activly. Therefore Baltics have to be part in An-124 leasing scheme , my own country coughing up 60m.USD in 10 years, go to missions in Iraq/A-stan etc. Our armies are basicly organised as light brigades , without any heavier equipment , since it would not be needed in ´current conflicts´. Now the ´conflicts´ has changed and we have to start changing , what´s already in place , again. And the deployability, however small the units are , is eating away the resources - one officer in local mil.forum estimated that 1 man on mission to Iraq/A-stan equals 1 platoons training expenses on home .
But at least all the politicos now have hopefully waken up and some changes are in motion soon...
The reason why the armies are so small (and Lat. and Lit. going away from conscription) is - because that´s what it takes to get NATO membership.

[kosse]

Another point to think about, finns - Georgian army (ground forces) were on par, if not better equipped than Finnish army and was much more concentrated on somewhat similar terrain (mountain vs. forests, both are channelling terrain) ....


You have no idea what you are talking about.

[lightfire]

Couple of points -

NATO decides what is defendable and what isnt. Everything is determined by resources availiable and the ability to supply them . No one throws good money after bad.


Thank the looord, and I already thought it's you, not NATO decides, what's worth to defend and how ;)


Iceland is easier for the USN and USAAF to supply and defend than the UK or even mainland Europe. Look at the distances involved.

If Iceland is invaded and thus captured, how's that easier for NATO to recapture it, rather than Baltic states. Navy? you have baltic sea. Russian sub/navy/air threat? You'd have it anyways - either in Atlantic, or in Baltic sea, if we are talking about such hypothetical situation then..



All core members would be those at the time of the formation of NATO.

And the reason for that would be...?I mean, wait...drop out all new members our live hapilly ever after in your very own "Core" (new name of NATO, xe :))?
Or just NOT to defend existing members by creating secrect "Core" within NATO?


btw Afghanistan is far more understandable to a lot of people in the UK than Iraq. They can see the threat if Poland or Slovakia was invaded, they probably could not find Latvia or Georgia on a map.

You underestimate abilities of Mass media. Yes, some people can't find even their own countries on the world map, but what can you do...? BTW, you realise Latvia for instance is nearby to Poland. What would Poland do? What would drunk british turists in Riga do in face of invasion by the russian hords p-)


Denmarks position at the mouth of the Baltic is very strategic and therefore worth defending. It would be used to block the entry into the North sea for the Baltic fleet. Holland and Belgium have vital port facilities necessary for resupply of NATO forces in ETO

Baltic states, in case of REAL new Cold War would be a buffer to the same Germany, Poland etc. They also have large and capable ports - Talinn, Riga, Ventspils, Klaipeda - all strategically important to controll Baltic sea. Lose the ground there and have 1939-1940 all over again except Germany..

[lightfire]

Another point to think about, finns - Georgian army (ground forces) were on par, if not better equipped than Finnish army and was much more concentrated on somewhat similar terrain (mountain vs. forests, both are channelling terrain) ....


eerm, well you should realy get more info about FDF...:roll:


Our armies are basicly organised as light brigades , without any heavier equipment ,

I don't know, what's the situation in Latvia and estonia, but lithuanian main brigade is mechanised, looking for some heavier equipment at the moment.


The reason why the armies are so small (and Lat. and Lit. going away from conscription) is - because that´s what it takes to get NATO membership.

No, it was not the condition for NATO membership, there is no such requirement. More proffesional and deployable soldiers - that's priority and necessitty of modern days, handling sophisticated equipment.

[oldsoak]

Eh ?
Iceland is practically impossible to invade without control of the Atlantic. Whoever holds Iceland ( thats NATO right now ) has the ability to make sure invasion wont take place because you cannot control the Atlantic without Iceland.

I've no problems with NATO not having any new members. How do you think we managed without new members in the cold war ? I like Poles and Czechs, I really do and they are very mature politically and they are pragmatic. No problem with them or the Finns in NATO. Try to get Georgia in ? with their ability to antagonise the neighbours ? No. The same for Croatia and Bosnia.

The closer European ports are to the US and Canada, the more important they are.

What is needed is a buffer of neutral states between NATO and the Russians. That way, the chasnes of misunderstandings or posturings by loose cannon will be minimised.

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

Well kosse, MARPAT does add to your coolness factor. You could have T72s and AKs and technicals, but with MARPAT you have a fully professional army, and one of the best equipped.

[kosse]

Well kosse, MARPAT does add to your coolness factor. You could have T72s and AKs and technicals, but with MARPAT you have a fully professional army, and one of the best equipped.
And American 4x4 SUVs. Without them there is no win! If you're gonna ride, ride in style. Not in some stupid steel APC!

[lightfire]

Eh ?
Iceland is practically impossible to invade without control of the Atlantic. Whoever holds Iceland ( thats NATO right now ) has the ability to make sure invasion wont take place because you cannot control the Atlantic without Iceland.


Tom Clancy reference inevitablep-) Impossible is nothing. Russian airborne units are still quite capable.


I've no problems with NATO not having any new members. How do you think we managed without new members in the cold war ? I like Poles and Czechs, I really do and they are very mature politically and they are pragmatic. No problem with them or the Finns in NATO. Try to get Georgia in ? with their ability to antagonise the neighbours ? No. The same for Croatia and Bosnia.

So what do you have againts Baltic states?

Oh and..you've probably polish brothers Ducks..And for Georgia...well, it shouldn't be in this thread at all. It does iritate it's neighbour but it's antagonized by it more. While S.Ossetia at least untill last week was not a neighbour but the part of Georgia.

And when did Croatia have any troubles with neighbours? The Balkan wars...



What is needed is a buffer of neutral states between NATO and the Russians. That way, the chasnes of misunderstandings or posturings by loose cannon will be minimised.

Well, you see, Russia gives no s*it about neutrality just like USSR or nazi Germany did. Neutral state is a week state without allies, thus such kind opf buffer would not survive. Finland and Sweden are different cases.

[The Dane]

I don't know, what's the situation in Latvia and estonia, but lithuanian main brigade is mechanised, looking for some heavier equipment at the moment.


The Iron Wolf brigade ?

What are they looking for ?
IFV's, SPH's ... ?

[lightfire]

The Iron Wolf brigade ?

What are they looking for ?
IFV's, SPH's ... ?

Yes, the one, that is the part of Danish division. At the moment its looking for IFVs, self-prop artilery support, maybe direct fire support (on IFV basis). The rest in APCs and other vehicles.

[MichaelF]

And who decided who can and who can not be defended in NATO?

Politicians. The people least suited to do so. Hence our current situation.


So, fighting for Iceland would be cheeper and less disastrous?

Yes. We have naval and air superiority in the North Atlantic. You've been reading too much Tom Clancy.


Please, name ALL of the core members, we could all know..

Germany, Turkey, Greece, Norway, Spain, Portugal, UK, USA, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy and France.

Poland. You forgot Poland.

No, I didn't. Poland might have been a bridge too far, as it has historical conflicts with Russia, as well as national interests in the Baltics, which might embroil the larger alliance in an otherwise nonvital conflict.

And as of interests, it was already mentioned - western investments, western military personel - in case of war all of that would be harmed by the.. (whoops, you named it) Russian domination.

You fail to differentiate between irritants ("wow, there's some cash down the drain") and strategic interests ("oops, the Russians now control the eastern North Atlantic, now that they own Norway").

Again, do not put georgians here, they are NOT NATO members, is it so hard to understand..
And yet, they are the subject of the current NATO debate. I also listed them seperately from the Baltic NATO States. That you have difficulty parsing sentences is not my fault.

as for why - why should lithuanian boys go get killed in Afghanistan or any other NATO mission for the americans or british?
Because NATO decided to.
Also, it's somewhat less likely that the Taliban will storm Vilnius because of Lithuanian involvement in Afghanistan. It's somewhat more likely that attempting to fend off Russia from Lithuania might cause the deaths of millions of Poles and Germans.

Risk > Reward. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.


yea, some people ask the same question in my country - how does NATO mission in Afghanistan help to improve or secure the interests and safety of their homes and families. Care to explain them?
Denies islamic terrorists a safe haven and supportive state. As was the status quo, pre-9/11. Should it have been a NATO mission? Probably not. Another example of mission creep that has brought added stress to the Alliance ("France and Germany are sitting safe in their FOBs up North, while brave American and British boys do all the fighting in the South", etc).


Again you with your Georgia, what's tha matter with you?p-)
It's in the news. Along with the "whither NATO" question.


They were asking - are the americans really going to help us in case of full soviet invasion?Would they risk to defend a land with no mountains and few natural obstacles appart from islands?

Because we'd (likely) eventually have to fight the Soviets, and it was better to do so in a place where falling ordnance could only kill Europeans.

.

Defending 500 Million people in Western Europe is on a slightly higher level of Risk/Reward valuation than risking 500 Million people to defend a couple Million, in a battle we wouldn't likely win (the other guy having both the homefield advantage and closer proximity to his own logistics points).

[The Dane]

Yes, the one, that is the part of Danish division. At the moment its looking for IFVs, self-prop artilery support, maybe direct fire support (on IFV basis). The rest in APCs and other vehicles.

Cool... :)
Can't wait to see what you end up with !

[Thor]

Another point to think about, finns - Georgian army (ground forces) were on par, if not better equipped than Finnish army and was much more concentrated on somewhat similar terrain (mountain vs. forests, both are channelling terrain) ....
Wrong. However I would not worry too much about Finland even if they only had skis and bolt-action rifles.

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

And American 4x4 SUVs. Without them there is no win! If you're gonna ride, ride in style. Not in some stupid steel APC!
But of course. I mean, steel APCs are a Euro invention, so it's obvious fail.

[lightfire]

Defending 500 Million people in Western Europe is on a slightly higher level of Risk/Reward valuation than risking 500 Million people to defend a few hundred thousand, in a battle we wouldn't likely win (the other guy having both the homefield advantage and closer proximity to his own logistics points).

Ahem , population of Baltic states is around 6 mln. The first who would risk - that's the russians (may I remind you, I didn't start this Clancy talk) attacking NATO members. They should have ABSOLUTE confidence NATO won't react. To achieve this you'd need Saakashvili with his gambles multiplied in hundreds..


Politicians. The people least suited to do so. Hence our current situation.

eerr..what situation exactly? As far as I remember there haven't been political discussions within CORE NATO members to defend Core states only..


Yes. We have naval and air superiority in the North Atlantic. You've been reading too much Tom Clancy.

I haven't. You have USAF bases in Germany, Bulgaria (future), that is near proximity. To achieve superiority over Baltics shouldn't be harder. Pluss, you'd have to transport supplies over Atlantic anyway, and then - over the roads of Central Europe. How's that harder?


No, I didn't. Poland might have been a bridge too far, as it has historical conflicts with Russia, as well as national interests in the Baltics, which might embroil the larger alliance in an otherwise nonvital conflict.

So anyone, who has smth fuzzy in the past with Russia should be excluded from NATO? or only the neighbours?Would Russian takeover of Czech republic also be concidered as "non-vital"? Or there's a line between ol'good Iron curtain?



You fail to differentiate between irritants ("wow, there's some cash down the drain") and strategic interests ("oops, the Russians now control the eastern North Atlantic, now that they own Norway").

No I don't, I simply try to avoid Chemberlenian logics and the idea of paprer Alliance only for the "Core brothers". Attack on USAF F-16 in Zokniai - would you call that as irritation?


And yet, they are the subject of the current NATO debate. I also listed them seperately from the Baltic NATO States. That you have difficulty parsing sentences is not my fault.

Debate yes. Joining NATO in very near future - I don't think even the biggest optimists would think about this. The idea was to give them the guidlines towards NATO, no need let them join BEFORE they fix with their own country, disputed teritories etc. Turkey, Greece have those disputed teritories, but ... eerr..you've put them in your "Core" list, didn't ya.. And you didn't list them separatelly, read your posts again - "Baltic states or Georgia"


Because NATO decided to.

that's right and you give the impression it wouldn't decide to fight over Baltics, while they decide on Afghanistan..


Also, it's somewhat less likely that the Taliban will storm Vilnius because of Lithuanian involvement in Afghanistan. It's somewhat more likely that attempting to fend off Russia from Lithuania might cause the deaths of millions of Poles and Germans.

Well, if that requires..besides, lithuanians would die also and there are only 3.5mln of us. While I personally don't whine, when lithuanian boys spill blood in Afghanistan over what NATO told them.


Risk > Reward. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

So we now risk for nothing, only because "The Core" might have peace with the Bear even with full scale invasion of NATO member states?


Denies islamic terrorists a safe haven and supportive state. As was the status quo, pre-9/11. Should it have been a NATO mission? Probably not. Another example of mission creep that has brought added stress to the Alliance ("France and Germany are sitting safe in their FOBs up North, while brave American and British boys do all the fighting in the South", etc).

I was rather sarcastic, since I have no need for explanation, yet change "Islamic terorists" to "russian hordes" (NOTE: when again, we speak about such a subject - hence the name of the thread) and you can tell this to the "Core" europeans, why should their boys die for some countries of Baltic states, that are NATO members and being invaded by Russia.


It's in the news. Along with the "whither NATO" question.

Paris Hilton is in the news, but it's not the topic of this thread. We are talking about the invasion of NATO countries and are orther members ready to respond. You aren't willing or ready. OK, everyone might have different possition. While any NATO country is invaded I for once feel, that my country SHOULD respond, no question about it.


Because we'd (likely) eventually have to fight the Soviets, and it was better to do so in a place where falling ordnance could only kill Europeans.

Sure, however may I remind you, that I am that european as well.

[Wall]

Another point to think about, finns - Georgian army (ground forces) were on par, if not better equipped than Finnish army and was much more concentrated on somewhat similar terrain (mountain vs. forests, both are channelling terrain) ....

Like Thor and Kosse said, this "information" is wrong. You are underestimating finnish ground forces.

[IronFinn]

If you need to use force national unity doesn't even exist anymore. It's not something you can force, it has to start from the people themselves. And if every province and city wants to break away there has to be something horrible wrong with the nation itself, and it probably should be dissolved anyway. Sort of like the case with the USSR.

People are not for the state but it is the other way around. If the people feel the nation isn't good for them or is even oppressing them they should fight against it, first politically and if it won't change things then with force. The government has a responsibility to listen to the people, serve them and do what is best for them.

Well, you cannot have concensus all the time. There are allways people who are not happy about current situation and are ready to overthrow the goverment. Should we bend over backwards to please each and every nutcase who is rebelling against everything? No, we can´t. People are not for the state but it doesn´t mean that state has to bow for every minority which has grazy ideas.

[monty1]

I have said nothing about Finnish manpower quality . If you read closely , you notice I mentioned equipment . Georgian T-72 have/had BMS, i´m not aware of finnish Leo-2 having it? How can the 122mm. 2S1 (the biggest SPH finns have) be compared to Dana ? Admit that i have forgotten about CV-9030, but the rest is still similar to Georgia - BMP-s. Have the finns as much (or little) UAV-s as Georgians ? How good is situational awareness compared to Georgians ?
As i said , i have no doubts about finnish warrior skills. And definately finns would benefit hugely from fighter cover, that georgians had not.

As of Lithuania - very good news. Are there any more public info about it ? But i´d wish you hadn´t lose the conscription.

About NATO demands - currently we (Baltics) have not forces needed to defend our territories (as Finland does, for example), but have some light infantry /lightly mechanized force, not suitable for conflict of Georgian style. I think all three baltic states would have to think very seriously about some things.

/A week later, Lord Robertson spoke
before the Bulgarian National Assembly
and unsurprisingly devoted a large part
of his address on the topic of enlargement.
For the first time in his tenure, he
assured that “others will follow” Poland,
the Czech Republic and Hungary into
NATO.22 But more significantly, he outlined
in no uncertain terms what was expected
of applicants.
“They must be ready to make the reforms
which are needed. They must tackle
the crucial issues, such as defence reform,
without delay. They must not shy away
from taking tough and painful decisions
and must allocate sufficient resources to
their reforms. Fine words are not enough.
They must be backed by deeds.”23
A few months later, in May the exact
same words were spoken at the Joint
Wilton Park/Atlantic Council Conference
in Slovenia.24 There, Lord Robertson indicated
that the relationship between applicants
and NATO in the framework of
the MAP would become more “interactive
”.25 Later at the Slovak Foreign Policy
Association, he reiterated the applicants’/

[kosse]

I have said nothing about Finnish manpower quality . If you read closely , you notice I mentioned equipment . Georgian T-72 have/had BMS, i´m not aware of finnish Leo-2 having it?
What's this Azalia? Anyway, I doubt that you can make old T-72 as good as Leo2A4 no matter how much you upgrade it (or at least it won't be feasible).


How can the 122mm. 2S1 (the biggest SPH finns have) be compared to Dana ?We have 2S5 too. And huge number of tower artillery ranging from 122mm to 155mm. Over 1000 tubes total. And our MLRS is not limited to BM-21..we have US M270 too. Plus AMOS although still in relatively small numbers. Anyway, artillery definitely isn't the weakest link of the equation.


Admit that i have forgotten about CV-9030, but the rest is still similar to Georgia - BMP-s. Have the finns as much (or little) UAV-s as Georgians ? How good is situational awareness compared to Georgians ?
As i said , i have no doubts about finnish warrior skills. And definately finns would benefit hugely from fighter cover, that georgians had not.
Well, it's not really that similar to Georgia. We have totally different AT and AA capabalities. NLAW, Euro-Spike, TOW2A/B, APILAS etc. For AA BUK-M1 (being replaced), Crotale NG, ASRAD-R, RBS70, Marksman etc. So, lot of more or less modern systems able to punch holes in armor as well as bring down aircraft..in addition we have craploads of good old sergeis and oerlikons so lazily flying Su-25s are not going to rape us for sure like they did the Georgians. Decent air defences alre guarantee that armored units can do their job..

We, unlike Georgia, also have enough APCs to truly have mobile operational forces.

[oldsoak]

Tom Clancy reference inevitablep-) Impossible is nothing. Russian airborne units are still quite capable.



So what do you have againts Baltic states?

Oh and..you've probably polish brothers Ducks..And for Georgia...well, it shouldn't be in this thread at all. It does iritate it's neighbour but it's antagonized by it more. While S.Ossetia at least untill last week was not a neighbour but the part of Georgia.

And when did Croatia have any troubles with neighbours? The Balkan wars...



Well, you see, Russia gives no s*it about neutrality just like USSR or nazi Germany did. Neutral state is a week state without allies, thus such kind opf buffer would not survive. Finland and Sweden are different cases.



Have you any idea of the problems involved for the Russians in trying to gain air supremacy over Iceland, in the face of the USAAF, flying from Icelandic bases, when the Russians nearest base is thousands of miles away ? Thats before you get to drop your airborne troops.

What do I have against the baltic states ? - nothing. I just do not see the desperate need for them in NATO and especially not if it raises tensions. In the future possibly. Sweden and Finland are very mature states, Poland as well.

Georgia should be kept out of NATO until the question of S Osettia etc is settled. We dont need members with potential for civil war or conflict with neighbours. Croatia ? wasnt there a war fought out in FRY ? Do you think the Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks etc have really kissed and made up for ever and ever ? The criteria of joining NATO should be a demonstratable period of political, economic and military stability.
Neutral buffer states do survive - Yugoslavia managed it until the death of Tito.

[Kjallakr]

Currently there are no US aircraft based in Iceland. Only intermitten deployment of NATO "air police" to Keflavík. RAF bases in Scotland are probably the most likely source of friendly air cover, NoAF will probably be too busy.

Nonetheless, Russian amphibious capabilities are probably insufficient to take Iceland, with or without any serious allied air cover.

A direct trip of over 1000 km over pretty serious ocean will mean that even the most spetsnaz of morskoi pekhota will not be up to "full fighting capability" as they land (they'll probably be rather seasick). And I don't believe Russia will be able to land much more than a single battallion in one trip. Probably insufficient to take the capital area against a determined resistance (police, cg and irregular). Houses not made of steel reinforced concrete are the exception in Iceland, and the highways are not as wide as in Baghdadp-) Although Iceland lacks AT weaponry. But I guess .50 cal is suitable enough for light naval infantry armour.

[Thor]

Start looking toward the skies. Russia has several air-assault divisions and one brigade.

[Kjallakr]

ok, if we don't shoot them down with out 40mm bofors, we might have a problem, unless they fall down in the wilderness and die of exposure the night after

[The Dane]

I'll fight till the bitter end for the Balts...
http://www.youtube.com/v/2eMkth8FWno
p-)

[monty1]

What's this Azalia? Anyway, I doubt that you can make old T-72 as good as Leo2A4 no matter how much you upgrade it (or at least it won't be feasible).

We have 2S5 too. And huge number of tower artillery ranging from 122mm to 155mm. Over 1000 tubes total. And our MLRS is not limited to BM-21..we have US M270 too. Plus AMOS although still in relatively small numbers. Anyway, artillery definitely isn't the weakest link of the equation.

Well, it's not really that similar to Georgia. We have totally different AT and AA capabalities. NLAW, Euro-Spike, TOW2A/B, APILAS etc. For AA BUK-M1 (being replaced), Crotale NG, ASRAD-R, RBS70, Marksman etc. So, lot of more or less modern systems able to punch holes in armor as well as bring down aircraft..in addition we have craploads of good old sergeis and oerlikons so lazily flying Su-25s are not going to rape us for sure like they did the Georgians. Decent air defences alre guarantee that armored units can do their job..

We, unlike Georgia, also have enough APCs to truly have mobile operational forces.

Of all the artillery , only 2S1 and MLRS (and AMOS) have armor , i.e. cover . Lives of the crews of all the rest depend on enemy´s counter-battery quality (and range) and how fast they are in shoot´n´scoot tactics. I hope that Leo-2A4 has possibility to upgrade with BMS, but AFAIK so far it´s not done. Also - germans moved from leo-2A4 to A5/A6 configurations, because they considered A4 underarmored and undergunned to deal with more modern Sov./Rus. tanks.
You (and most of the world) are still lacking in small UAV-s , and about the air defences - Russia used no EW (arguably , because it would have shutted down most air traffic over neighbouring areas of Turkey, Ukraine, Armenia and Rus. itself).
With all this i think there is room for thought, especially considering that you are doing much, much better than any other Rus. neighbour...

[Thor]

Also - germans moved from leo-2A4 to A5/A6 configurations, because they considered A4 underarmored and undergunned to deal with more modern Sov./Rus. tanks.
Not true. We have not upgraded to L55 for the simple reason that it hasn't been deemed necessary. Frontal penetration is possible at the maximum firing ranges up here. The Americans also still use their L44 (designated M256) in the Abrams. Though when you fight in the desert it might be a good idea to upgrade.

[kosse]

Of all the artillery , only 2S1 and MLRS (and AMOS) have armor , i.e. cover . Lives of the crews of all the rest depend on enemy´s counter-battery quality (and range) and how fast they are in shoot´n´scoot tactics.

Well, like I said artillery isn't perfect but there's plenty of it. We can afford to lose artillery pieces and crews without too much performance loss.


I hope that Leo-2A4 has possibility to upgrade with BMS, but AFAIK so far it´s not done. Also - germans moved from leo-2A4 to A5/A6 configurations, because they considered A4 underarmored and undergunned to deal with more modern Sov./Rus. tanks.I tried to ask before what this BMS system is but did not get an answer. So?

How is 2A4 undergunned compared to A5 since they both use the same main gun?

Armor might not be the best but those tanks were cheap and at least they are upgradable..and I still think they beat the crap out of some A or B model T-72.



You (and most of the world) are still lacking in small UAV-s , and about the air defences - Russia used no EW (arguably , because it would have shutted down most air traffic over neighbouring areas of Turkey, Ukraine, Armenia and Rus. itself).
With all this i think there is room for thought, especially considering that you are doing much, much better than any other Rus. neighbour...We have Ranger UAVs.

[monty1]

Not true. We have not upgraded to L55 for the simple reason that it hasn't been deemed necessary. Frontal penetration is possible at the maximum firing ranges up here. The Americans also still use their L44 (designated M256) in the Abrams. Though when you fight in the desert it might be a good idea to upgrade.
Americans moved to heavier penetrator , M829A3 to get the similar effect. AFAIK nobody else uses it. On the other hand , shorter ranges mean that opponents tanks have similar advantage and 125mm. would be still effective. I visit this board very rarely, so i have no idea , who you are by nationality, but i guess Swedish ?

[monty1]

Well, like I said artillery isn't perfect but there's plenty of it. We can afford to lose artillery pieces and crews without too much performance loss.

I tried to ask before what this BMS system is but did not get an answer. So?
mea culpa, translation from russian website got me over-exited. they claimed that T-72 SIM had Rafael BMS amongst other thingies. Took an hour to search, but nothing else can confirm it.

How is 2A4 undergunned compared to A5 since they both use the same main gun?
A4 is underarmored compared to A5 and undergunned & underarmored compared to A6.

Armor might not be the best but those tanks were cheap and at least they are upgradable..and I still think they beat the crap out of some A or B model T-72.
what about T-80, T-90 ? In right conditions, sure. Flank shots, ambushes. What about other scenarios? But you are right - they are better than nothing (which is what we have)

We have Ranger UAVs.
7 of them, right ? Not seven sets (UAV-s + GCS), but 1 set , 7 UAV. How long they will last in more serious conflict? But nevertheless one of the greatest inventions of our time :)

edit: OK, israeli-weapons says there were 2 more options, so this improves the situation.

[Wojtop]

Seeing very bold and nervous reaction of Polish president in case of Georgia one can safely assume that in case of Russian intervention in any of Baltic States few dozens of Polish SU-22, Mig-29 and F-16 will be on the way to strike Russian columns some 15 minutes after the invasion.

I guess that possibility to give instant support to our neighbours in case of need is one of reasons why Polish Army wants to buy more new F-16s instead of deeply modernizing ground forces.

I'm far from being content with our President being kind of trigger-happy when dealing with Russian interventions but seems like that's the way his mind works. I only hope no Russian warmonger will ever come up with idea of attacking Baltic States or Ukraine, it would be a disaster.

[CPL Trevoga]

Seeing very bold and nervous reaction of Polish president in case of Georgia one can safely assume that in case of Russian intervention in any of Baltic States few dozens of Polish SU-22, Mig-29 and F-16 will be on the way to strike Russian columns some 15 minutes after the invasion.

I guess that possibility to give instant support to our neighbours in case of need is one of reasons why Polish Army wants to buy more new F-16s instead of deeply modernizing ground forces.

I'm far from being content with our President being kind of trigger-happy when dealing with Russian interventions but seems like that's the way his mind works. I only hope no Russian warmonger will ever come up with idea of attacking Baltic States or Ukraine, it would be a disaster.

Russians are not war mongers. Historically it's you people who are the war mongers, the Polish Pany, Nordic/Germanic. I aslo would like to remind you that we, Russians were able to crush any aggressors.

Russia will never attack Poland Wojtop, because we feel bad for Polish people, with president that you have, you already have been punished enough by God as it is. :)

[muttbutt]

Russians are not war mongers. Historically it's you people who are the war mongers, the Polish Pany, Nordic/Germanic. I aslo would like to remind you that we, Russians were able to crush any aggressors.

Russia will never attack Poland Wojtop, because we feel bad for Polish people, with president that you have, you already have been punished enough by God as it is. :)
He didn't say Russians in general he implied an individual, but way to paint huge swaths of people on the other side like that.

flame on!!:roll:

[Wojtop]

Russians are not war mongers. Historically it's you people who are the war mongers, the Polish Pany, Nordic/Germanic. I aslo would like to remind you that we, Russians were able to crush any aggressors.

Russia will never attack Poland Wojtop, because we feel bad for Polish people, with president that you have, you already have been punished enough by God as it is. :-)


Blah, another flame war? Where are you Mongols when Russians need to be reminded their own history and taught a lesson of humility? :)

I never said that Russians are warmongers. Honestly I like you people for being direct and tough. I just don't get how you can love tyrans, trust them and defend them. There are some dangerous warmongers in your government and that's a pity for everyone around including you.

As for the Polish President he's sh1te but he got a clone to support him. It makes him almost a super-hero. ;),

[CPL Trevoga]

Blah, another flame war? Where are you Mongols when Russians need to be reminded their own history and taught a lesson of humility? :)

I never said that Russians are warmongers. Honestly I like you people for being direct and tough. I just don't get how you can love tyrans, trust them and defend them. There are some dangerous warmongers in your government and that's a pity for everyone around including you.

Who is supporting tyrants? Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev are very likable and presentable guys, democratically elected. Mr. Putin being cooler of course. It is your, so called "freedom loving" Sakashvili just started a war and is a bad guy here.

There should be no wars in Europe people. Anybody who starts one, should be punished with death.

P.S. I do feel bad for Polish people. You guys deserve better presidents. :(

[lightfire]

Have you any idea of the problems involved for the Russians in trying to gain air supremacy over Iceland, in the face of the USAAF, flying from Icelandic bases, when the Russians nearest base is thousands of miles away ? Thats before you get to drop your airborne troops.

.

As it was already pointed out, there are no USAF in Iceland at the moment. Nor do they have potent air defences (40mm Boffors - ain't sirius buisiness..). And russian airbourne units are quite capable and long range.


What do I have against the baltic states ? - nothing. I just do not see the desperate need for them in NATO and especially not if it raises tensions. In the future possibly. Sweden and Finland are very mature states, Poland as well.

Need for THEM in NATO is security, since Russia has ever been an agressor and a threat to peace here. However one must stay firm WHO raises those tensions. Russia does, while I don't see Baltic states armies invading great motherland to "restore constitutional order"..


We dont need members with potential for civil war or conflict with neighbours.

ahem - Turkey and Greece. Hell, even Belgium..p-)


Croatia ? wasnt there a war fought out in FRY ? Do you think the Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks etc have really kissed and made up for ever and ever ?

The war is over, mkey? They don't like each other, just like the french don't like germans, that doesn't mean they are gonna start a new war. FRY is no more and Serbia is moving towards EU just like Croatia. Not without reasons I gues..


Neutral buffer states do survive - Yugoslavia managed it until the death of Tito

It was communist neutral state, not within Soviet borders.

[oldsoak]

This is the last time I post on this topic

USAAF in Iceland - sorry if the cold war was before your time, but I suggest you google it. Since the cold war "faded" the USAAF reduced its numbers. As soon as tensions increase, the numbers will increase. Airborne invasions wont start until air superiority has been established - which is very unlikely given the distances involved and the speed with which the US can re-inforce Iceland.

I'm sorry, but I dont see the Russians in quite the same way you do. Maybe it was I had the opportunity of attending a very interesting talk in how the Russians viewed NATO given by the army. It was quite interesting to see us from their viewpoint.

Turkey and Greece kicking off ? Yes I remember Cyprus. I even remember the UK giving Turkey an ultimatum on the conflict. The relationships between Greeks and the Turks are lot more stable than those between certain Balkan countries and certain Black sea ones. We actually think there is potential for conflict over Kosovo which will spread as we line up behind our respective "allies".

I held up FRY as an example of how the Baltic states should be non-aligned now that the USSR is no more. That way NATO and Russia are not in each others back yards. We should also let the cold war memories die down before we attempt to engage them in any military
alliance.

[lightfire]

This is the last time I post on this topic

USAAF in Iceland - sorry if the cold war was before your time, but I suggest you google it. Since the cold war "faded" the USAAF reduced its numbers. As soon as tensions increase, the numbers will increase. Airborne invasions wont start until air superiority has been established - which is very unlikely given the distances involved and the speed with which the US can re-inforce Iceland.


Where have you been last few years? Perhaps you haven't noticed the tension between the West and Russia is growing. As for increased numbers of USAF - they can do the same in Baltic states. The point is not only to stregthen the defences, but detere possible hostilie actions.

Any buildup either against Iceland, or against Baltics states would not come unnoticed by the US.


I'm sorry, but I dont see the Russians in quite the same way you do. Maybe it was I had the opportunity of attending a very interesting talk in how the Russians viewed NATO given by the army. It was quite interesting to see us from their viewpoint.

I am quite familiar of the russian view of NATO and Baltic states, thus I have no illusions about Russian-NATO love, some westerners imagine.




Turkey and Greece kicking off ? Yes I remember Cyprus. I even remember the UK giving Turkey an ultimatum on the conflict. The relationships between Greeks and the Turks are lot more stable than those between certain Balkan countries and certain Black sea ones.

And this statement is based on what exactly? How did your measure " alot more stable"?


We actually think there is potential for conflict over Kosovo which will spread as we line up behind our respective "allies".

So, what does Croatia have to do with Kosovo here? Or is it ignoration - "aaah, all them Balkans are the same.."


I held up FRY as an example of how the Baltic states should be non-aligned now that the USSR is no more. That way NATO and Russia are not in each others back yards. We should also let the cold war memories die down before we attempt to engage them in any military
alliance.


It because, as I've pointed out already, Russia does not respect neutrality, only force. While Baltics IS NOT their back yard, but their NEIGHBOURS. For some, it is very difficult to understand, but that's THEIR problem, not ours, US, NATO etc.

[Kjallakr]

Seriously if Russia tries to invade Iceland with airborne forces. Chances are that they'll loose all of the Il-76 used in such a operation on the way back at least. A train of Russian transport aircraft that suddenly appears on radar 300 nm from Iceland and before that seen on Norwegian radar (or any other NATO radar network) is a bit conspicuous and slow. Even Tornadoes from Scotland should have little problem of intercepting them on the way back. And if there is an "air police" squad of 4 F-16s from Poland or something, they might get shot down a bit earlier.

Also the forces employed will not be reinforceable or retrievable. And they might lose the battle anyway against Icelandic forces.


During the Cold War, the ground threat from the Soviet Union on Iceland was only considered to be spetsnaz deployed from submarines or boats that would sabotage important installations and or incite local communists.

Also Iceland isn't just in NATO, there is a bilateral defence treaty with the United States.

[widi243]

Currently there are no US aircraft based in Iceland. Only intermitten deployment of NATO "air police" to Keflavík. RAF bases in Scotland are probably the most likely source of friendly air cover, NoAF will probably be too busy.

Nonetheless, Russian amphibious capabilities are probably insufficient to take Iceland, with or without any serious allied air cover.

A direct trip of over 1000 km over pretty serious ocean will mean that even the most spetsnaz of morskoi pekhota will not be up to "full fighting capability" as they land (they'll probably be rather seasick). And I don't believe Russia will be able to land much more than a single battallion in one trip. Probably insufficient to take the capital area against a determined resistance (police, cg and irregular). Houses not made of steel reinforced concrete are the exception in Iceland, and the highways are not as wide as in Baghdadp-) Although Iceland lacks AT weaponry. But I guess .50 cal is suitable enough for light naval infantry armour.

And as I read in some polish newspaper first mission of our F 16 will be a air cover over Iceland in 2010.

[Alexandr]

Seriously if Russia tries to invade Iceland with airborne forces
Sorry to dissapoint,but we are not invadind far from our borders,only neighbours lands.Invasion in Iceland will be possible when Norway and UK will be conquered rofl.And dont worry - it will never happedns - we got no chanse against UK and Scandinavian Inshallah Jihad suicidal bombers brigades .:roll:

[Kjallakr]

Sorry to dissapoint,but we are not invadind far from our borders,only neighbours lands.Invasion in Iceland will be possible when Norway and UK will be conquered rofl.And dont worry - it will never happedns - we got no chanse against UK and Scandinavian Inshallah Jihad suicidal bombers brigades .:roll:

Indeed. However as you may notice, that was a point in this thread, whether NATO would or could honour its commitment to Iceland.

Even still, in the highly unlikely event that RF managed to subdue Norway and invade the UK, it would most likely destroyed such big parts of RF's naval capability and giving enough time for Icelandic total mobilization that mounting an invasion of Iceland could be as equally futile as before.

[kosse]

Even still, in the highly unlikely event that RF managed to subdue Norway and invade the UK, it would most likely destroyed such big parts of RF's naval capability and giving enough time for Icelandic total mobilization that mounting an invasion of Iceland could be as equally futile as before.

Is there something to mobilise in Iceland? I though you did not have an army.

[Kjallakr]

Is there something to mobilise in Iceland? I though you did not have an army.

We don't have a standing army. On the other hand we have guns, ammo and enough trained people to raise a significant force given the months that it will take to defeat the aforementioned countries.

For example we have 4000 active somewhat disciplined volunteer "civil"-defence/rescue people with most of the required survival skills for our highlands in wintertime (a hellish place). In war they'll be mobilized to do whatever the government says, along with the 14000 inactive ones. Add 400 capital area police and 400 in the countryside, 50 anti-terrorist/special forces/swat guys and 200 coast guard.

Iceland has around 50,000 small arms in civilian hands (almost solely rifles and shotguns) in addittion to a state-secret amount of small arms in the governments hands.

[Alexandr]

I think - when you have Bjork - you dont need army.This woman > all our nuclear arlsenal.

[lightfire]

A train of Russian transport aircraft that suddenly appears on radar 300 nm from Iceland and before that seen on Norwegian radar (or any other NATO radar network) is a bit conspicuous and slow. Even Tornadoes from Scotland should have little problem of intercepting them on the way back. And if there is an "air police" squad of 4 F-16s from Poland or something, they might get shot down a bit earlier.
.

You are very optimistic. You believe invassion force of airbourne transport planes would go without air cover? In a well planed surprise attack neither 4 F-16, nor Tornadoes from Scotland would do any serious damage. Just like, 4 Air Polcice F-16 over Baltcs.Later - possible. And that's just the case - any attack on those fighters would irritate NATO to perform powerfull responce.


Also the forces employed will not be reinforceable or retrievable. And they might lose the battle anyway against Icelandic forces.

Again - optimism. You believe elite russian airbourne divissoins, supported with BMDs, artilery, mobile AA defences would suffer icelandic volunteers? No offence to them, yet they are no match for russian troops. Reinforcement is difficult, but then again - in that case were are talking about full scale war between NATO and Russia, where every side can make unexpected moves. May I remind you - Russians are masters of unexpectence to the West.



During the Cold War, the ground threat from the Soviet Union on Iceland was only considered to be spetsnaz deployed from submarines or boats that would sabotage important installations and or incite local communists.

such conciderations lead to overconfidence and thus mistakes.


Also Iceland isn't just in NATO, there is a bilateral defence treaty with the United States

True, now it seems, Poland is trying to achieve/already achieved same relations.

[Kjallakr]

You are very optimistic. You believe invassion force of airbourne transport planes would go without air cover? In a well planed surprise attack neither 4 F-16, nor Tornadoes from Scotland would do any serious damage. Just like, 4 Air Polcice F-16 over Baltcs.Later - possible. And that's just the case - any attack on those fighters would irritate NATO to perform powerfull responce.
You mean that RF would risk its tanker assets with a number of refuelable fighters for such an operation. Perhaps, but still on the way back at least they would suffer. Decreasing Russian capabilities for more viable operations.




Again - optimism. You believe elite russian airbourne divissoins, supported with BMDs, artilery, mobile AA defences would suffer icelandic volunteers? No offence to them, yet they are no match for russian troops. Reinforcement is difficult, but then again - in that case were are talking about full scale war between NATO and Russia, where every side can make unexpected moves. May I remind you - Russians are masters of unexpectence to the West.
How many Il-76 are you thinking about? 100? 1000?
Russia could at most send a lightly equipped brigade here by air and that is perhaps a stretch. It could still be defeated.


such conciderations lead to overconfidence and thus mistakes.
Perhaps.

According to polls around 70% of Icelanders support a standing army. The problem is that only 45% of the supporters of the party that has the office of the defence minister support it.

[Hukatus]

Who is supporting tyrants? Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev are very likable and presentable guys, democratically elected. Mr. Putin being cooler of course. It is your, so called "freedom loving" Sakashvili just started a war and is a bad guy here.

There should be no wars in Europe people. Anybody who starts one, should be punished with death.

P.S. I do feel bad for Polish people. You guys deserve better presidents. :(

well how come russia has a right to stop break away regions like chechnya but Georgia is somehow denied to keep it break away regions. s.ossetion militia sure seem to act like mob of bandits or thugs protected by russian "peace keepers" forcefully taking vehicles at gunpoint form joirnalists and UN/OSCE monitors...

[lightfire]

You mean that RF would risk its tanker assets with a number of refuelable fighters for such an operation. Perhaps, but still on the way back at least they would suffer. Decreasing Russian capabilities for more viable operations.


They could, since surprise factor wouldn't endanger them on massive Allied retaliation, so even 2 flights of transport armadas are quite possible on very best circumstances. Fighter cover is essential, thus how many fighters russians could scramble into the air and detere sporadic Allied bites, depende on their success on the ground.

A bit different in Baltics situation. Russians would need to go far. But so wouldn't NATO from their bases in Poland, Germany and elswhere in Europe. Allied air power would be the first to strike and I realy doubt, russian wouldn't strike first in Poland.

Poles most likelly come first with their F-16s and Migs, that means russians would need to take them out in a preemptive strike. Which means granted war. Not neceserrilly WWIII as everyone fears. Limited conflicted with convetional means is still possible until there's a dead end leading either to nuclear exchanges or truce.


How many Il-76 are you thinking about? 100? 1000?

I won't gues how many do they have and how many are still flying but your estimation of one brigade is a bit underestimation, may I say. They are capable to transport three regiments at one time. That includes firepower, wich Iceland does not posses and even any Allied invassion force would have trouble with.



According to polls around 70% of Icelanders support a standing army. The problem is that only 45% of the supporters of the party that has the office of the defence minister support it.

yes, but my point, no matter how brave they are, it wouldn't help much in your country. Remember again against who those fresh reservists with no or limited military training would have to fight...

[Kjallakr]

They could, since surprise factor wouldn't endanger them on massive Allied retaliation, so even 2 flights of transport armadas are quite possible on very best circumstances. Fighter cover is essential, thus how many fighters russians could scramble into the air and detere sporadic Allied bites, depende on their success on the ground.
You don't need a massive retaliation, a single Tornado could down 4 transports or almost 300 troops or 16 light apc. These transport armadas would most likely not be aware of a threat coming from the south if they are heading west, so a Tornado could be guided using ground based radars and only divulge its presence when in range to launch missiles.



I won't gues how many do they have and how many are still flying but your estimation of one brigade is a bit underestimation, may I say. They are capable to transport three regiments at one time. That includes firepower, wich Iceland does not posses and even any Allied invassion force would have trouble with.
With all of their equipment and armour?




yes, but my point, no matter how brave they are, it wouldn't help much in your country. Remember again against who those fresh reservists with no or limited military training would have to fight...
I think you seriously overestimate the airborne troops skills, especially if they are going to be fighting in the sort of terrain around the Icelandic capital area. As well as the hunger factor, when they run out of food, and the ammunition resupply problems.

[ting]

Will Nato defend the Baltic States? Yes of course they will. Most likely there are already plans in the drawer and units already earmarked.

The nature of Nato`s command structure makes it practically impossible to refuse defending any NATO country.

[signatory]

NATO can't defend the Baltic states only attempt to reclaim that territory... so the question will be, what NATO countries will volunteer their men and equipment in such a riskful operation? I seriously doubt much initial help other than passive support.. hopefully something that could gradually over the weeks and months build up to include offensive sea and air units... if the world is still around that is.

[Atlantic Friend]

For once, I'd like to see the U.S. sit this out and let the Europeans handle its own affairs...

If you consider Russian domination over Europe (what you are predicting) a strictly European business, then I'd suggest you write your Congressmen and President to disband NATO. Because that's pretty much NATO's raison d'être, come to think of it.

So if your dream is to watch things quietly on TV, then by all means act and work so it can be true. Until then, I can write you some form of affidavit saying you are excused from any country in which I may be involved, and that there is no need for you to ever do anything to save my hide.

Also, since you consider it is a strictly European affair that the US shouldn't be bothered about, then why criticize what the EU (which is not a military alliance, and which is heavily criticized by the US every time it tried to set up some kind of military instrument because , oh noes, it would be against NATO !) does/has done ?

[SoSo]

We have to defend the Baltic countries, no matter how geographically untenable their position. It's not even a question: failure to do so would render NATO, and our whole system of alliances across the world, meaningless. Look how much damage our abandonment of Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam did to our credibility after 1975.
The best way to defend the Baltic countries is to maintain garrisons of NATO troops there, and squadrons of aircraft, as a deterrent. Being willing to open fire on Latvian troops is one thing; a willingness to fire on US forces is something else, because you are risking a wider war, which no one wants.
Is our adversary ready to use nuclear weapons to occupy the Baltic countries? Is the US willing to use them to keep them out? And, are the Baltic nations militarily indefensible without the use of nuclear weapons?

[ting]

NATO can't defend the Baltic states only attempt to reclaim that territory... so the question will be, what NATO countries will volunteer their men and equipment in such a riskful operation? I seriously doubt much initial help other than passive support.. hopefully something that could gradually over the weeks and months build up to include offensive sea and air units... if the world is still around that is.

That depends on the scenario. But remember roads go from Poland to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia etc... The question is what kind of problems Kaliningrad would inflict on movement of troops from Poland. Also if their is sign of trouble, the baltics can quickly be reinforced with mechanized/armor units by sea.

I have no doubt that any NATO country would be defended and if need be retaken.

Also their is no question of voluntering units. Units are afaik already earmarked for the Duty.
I think Multinational Corps North East will be in charge and will requesition units from the force pool as needed/available.

http://www.mncne.pl/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Corps_North_East

[lightfire]

The best way to defend the Baltic countries is to maintain garrisons of NATO troops there, and squadrons of aircraft, as a deterrent. Being willing to open fire on Latvian troops is one thing; a willingness to fire on US forces is something else, because you are risking a wider war, which no one wants.


yes and no. There is already NATO air police mission in Zokniai, in Lithuania. Constantly rotating NATO jets from USA, germany, UK, Belgium, Denmark, Turkey, Poland, Spain, France etc have not only 4 fighters ready but also around 100 personel. Small number, but politically - enough to detere. Hit them, and you hit the country, who's fighters and personel are in Zokniai.

However, any additional NATO troops or bases would not only anger Russia more (escalation), but also endanger themselves. Nobody actually wants to be in the hitzone. It's true, so close to Russia, small units are vulnarable to missile, air, SF strikes. So, basing more fighters than a squadron is IMHO a bad idea. Air police or a aquadron is enough. Yet "Patriots" or smth similar, as an answer to russian tactical missiles in Kaliningrad and Belaruss would be nice.

These are the times, when political confrontation is very real, therefore it's not the russians only who might be agressive.



Also if their is sign of trouble, the baltics can quickly be reinforced with mechanized/armor units by sea.

That is true, but only with the condition of ports intact or under conrol of NATO. They'd be one of the first key targets and one of the first defenssive lines for us. It's not 1940s anymore and to capture or disable ports could be both a very dificult and yet an easy task, depending on situation. Having ports under control, NATO could land large reinforcements in three key areas, taking control of the baltic sea first.

[Chimera]

We have to defend the Baltic countries, no matter how geographically untenable their position. It's not even a question: failure to do so would render NATO, and our whole system of alliances across the world, meaningless. Look how much damage our abandonment of Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam did to our credibility after 1975.

It would be even more damaging than that. The Baltic countries are already in NATO and EU, failing to defend them would be the end of alliances as you said, but also the collapse of the main goal of the European construction (peace), and above all, the end of the West as we know it. Isolated european countries, US influence would disappear, etc. The values that has shaped and brought our western societies to its current level would be gone.

But why Russia would suddenly decide to invade Estonia or one of his neighbors and how couldn't they THINK of the consequences of it?

[lightfire]

It would be even more damaging than that. The Baltic countries are already in NATO and EU, failing to defend them would be the end of alliances as you said, but also the collapse of the main goal of the European construction (peace), and above all, the end of the West as we know it. Isolated european countries, US influence would disappear, etc. The values that has shaped and brought our western societies to its current level would be gone.


Well, I wouldn't be so dramatic, yet serious consequences certainlly inevitable in such case (NATO decides not to defend Baltic states). Western societies have showed they can live with Russia if interests requires that. Yet it's not to be trusted, rather to be sacrificed.


But why Russia would suddenly decide to invade Estonia or one of his neighbors and how couldn't they THINK of the consequences of it?

Well, firstly they like to risk, secodlly, they calculate it in such way, they might get away with this. Reasons always can be invented, for instance russian speaking minorities acting as rebels - being armed by Russia and then "peackeeping force" eneters..It's a small teritory, but for some it means a lot.

[daily666]

Very interesting thread.

On the subject of defending the Baltics.

As signatory mentioned, it would be impossible to defend the republics against a Russian advance for a simple reason- time. The Russians would occupy those States before anything could be done from the rest of NATO. Considering all three of them have very small armies (IIRC none of them have any armor) Russians would cover all three countries in 1 or 2 days. This makes it impossible to perform any kind of strong military transfer of say, Polish, German, Czech tank battalions in this time.

To be completely honest I don't think Wester European NATO members would like to retake the occupied territories, with the exception of UK and Norway maybe. Poland would do whatever it takes but I think in the vision of total helplessness of it western partners we would call it a day and make some hard compromies with the Russians. All the world would look at the USA, again.

On Iceland
Iceland is absolutely crucial to defense of Europe! the GIUK line is the key, which means that Russia would have to start by invading Norway alongside, or before getting into Iceland. This would let them control the Northern Atlancit shipping routes and vastly improving their effectivens against much better equipped and trained NATO Naval forces. This would also hamper US Carrier group operations and arms shipping.

So if you guys think that the US would let Scotland based Tornados or Typhoons defend NATO Keflavik against the Russian actions you're totally wrong. The thing is range. UK fighters don't have range and speed to attack enemy so far up north in the Norwegian Sea.

Old map but shows that I mean:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/GIUK_gap.png

I think large amount of USAF and RAF fighters would be in Keflavik hours after any sign of hostilites.

[Thor]

I don't think we should overestimate Russia's resources. They definitely have the capacity, and potentially the will to invade the Baltics to "liberate" the Russian minority etc. They would be able to do this because of the limited scope of the operation and lack of NATO resources available for an immediate response, and possibly due to the Russian will to gamble on the lack of European will to defend the Baltics other than on paper.

Iceland might also become a target at some point because of it's strategic position and Russia's arctic adventures. But in that respect I see a greater danger to Svalbard (islands directly to the north of Norway). It is sovereign Norwegian territory, but with it's status regulated in the Svalbard Treaty, and it also has a small Russian population. There is also an ongoing dispute in which Russia doesn't recognize Norwegian claims. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Norway regularly boards Russian fishing vessels and also that Russia recently sent a Cruiser to patrol the area.

All these issues could, as I see it, be mitigated by having NATO troops present in border countries and territories. Not necessarily any huge contingents but let's a brigade sized Baltic task force with mixed European and American personnel and so forth.


Hey, let's not forget Poland either. I'd actually say that Poland is the ace up Europe's sleeve right now. I don't know much about the status of their armed forces but I believe in their will to stay vigilant towards an politically ambitious Russia on the rise.

[tecumseh11]

Who came up with the idea of letting the Baltic states into NATO?

[Thor]

Who came up with the idea of letting the Baltic states into NATO?
NATO just like EU brings stability to Europe. bringing Eastern Europe into the EU was a political move, in the same way they didn't become NATO members because of what they can contribute militarily, but because of the historical opportunity to bring stability to this part of the world.

[CPL Trevoga]

well how come russia has a right to stop break away regions like chechnya but Georgia is somehow denied to keep it break away regions. s.ossetion militia sure seem to act like mob of bandits or thugs protected by russian "peace keepers" forcefully taking vehicles at gunpoint form joirnalists and UN/OSCE monitors...

Come on buddy. I thought of you as much more serious student of history. Your logic is slightly flawed. Let's look at history of Estonia. It was called Estland (not Eesti), that a German btwy. Estland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reval_Governorate was a province of Russian Empire. So do you think that Estonian independence illegal and wrong?

Just a reminder that South Ossetia is was ripped out from Ossetia artificially by Stalin.

Your implications that Russian peace keeper are not " peace keepers" is just wrong. Somebody could say that your participation in Afghanistan is not really a nation building effort, but a mission to support heroin production.

[Thor]

Your implications that Russian peace keeper are not " peace keepers" is just wrong. Somebody could say that your participation in Afghanistan is not really a nation building effort, but a mission to support heroin production.
Of course you were not real peacekeepers. Do you for a second believe that anyone thought different of Russian troops just because they wore angelic blue helmets (or similar) on their heads? Partisanship, crimes, destabilization, arming and training of separatists etc. is what the world saw and remembers.

[CPL Trevoga]

Of course you were not real peacekeepers. Do you for a second believe that anyone thought different of Russian troops just because they wore angelic blue helmets (or similar) on their heads? Partisanship, crimes, destabilization, arming and training of separatists etc. is what the world saw and remembers.

Buddy, these are good "separatists." Ossetians are good Christian people, Russians and Georgians a good Christian people. Anybody who starts a war among Christian people should not be supported.

I'm starting to think that you become Muslim and taken Mahmud as your new name, judging by your negativity towards Christian people.

I don't know what was going through the mind of Mr. Medvedev during this conflict, but more incline to believe him, than that Mr. Sasha (The Crazy) Sakashvilli. Google his tie-eating habit.

[lightfire]

Please, no Ossetia vs Georgia BS in this thread, you already have at least several those.


Very interesting thread.

On the subject of defending the Baltics.

As signatory mentioned, it would be impossible to defend the republics against a Russian advance for a simple reason- time. The Russians would occupy those States before anything could be done from the rest of NATO. Considering all three of them have very small armies (IIRC none of them have any armor) Russians would cover all three countries in 1 or 2 days. This makes it impossible to perform any kind of strong military transfer of say, Polish, German, Czech tank battalions in this time.


Well, first of all I wouldn't write down our armed forces. They are small for sure. They have no tanks or attack fighters. But as we have seen those are useless against russian advance, since they can always throw more and destroy what is left of your armour and Air Force.

Firepower and fire support is important indeed, but proffesionalism of soldiers, motivation is a key, nontheless. In this, dare I say, we surpass georgians.

Some give us 1-2 days. IRC our objectives is to hold 2 weeks before any NATO reinforcements arrive. That means NATO air support/CAS, SF and ground action. Polish Lithuanian border is indeed vulnarable and short, yet very important. Same, or even more important, as I've said before is to keep the ports. laipeda, for instance is the only port that does not freeze during the winter.

The terrain is not very favorable for warfare, since there aren't many natural obstacles. But for insurgency as we've seen in Iraq, cities (unfortunatelly) suit well.

We have loads of antitank weapons (crates of RPGs, CGs, Javelins), some AA defences (Stingers, RBS-70) relitevelly good skills with small arms (loads of AKs for a bad day, by 2010 enough G-36 for the whole army, a lot of M-14 for marksmen), enough explosives and good experienced officers/NCOs to lead the resistance.

As for manpower, depending on the events and speed of mobilisation, we have trained 120 000 reserve force (I'm one of them :) ). I don't know about estonian and latvian side.

[Flamming_Python]

Please, no Ossetia vs Georgia BS in this thread, you already have at least several those.



Well, first of all I wouldn't write down our armed forces. They are small for sure. They have no tanks or attack fighters. But as we have seen those are useless against russian advance, since they can always throw more and destroy what is left of your armour and Air Force.

Firepower and fire support is important indeed, but proffesionalism of soldiers, motivation is a key, nontheless. In this, dare I say, we surpass georgians.

Some give us 1-2 days. IRC our objectives is to hold 2 weeks before any NATO reinforcements arrive. That means NATO air support/CAS, SF and ground action. Polish Lithuanian border is indeed vulnarable and short, yet very important. Same, or even more important, as I've said before is to keep the ports. laipeda, for instance is the only port that does not freeze during the winter.

The terrain is not very favorable for warfare, since there aren't many natural obstacles. But for insurgency as we've seen in Iraq, cities (unfortunatelly) suit well.

We have loads of antitank weapons (crates of RPGs, CGs, Javelins), some AA defences (Stingers, RBS-70) relitevelly good skills with small arms (loads of AKs for a bad day, by 2010 enough G-36 for the whole army, a lot of M-14 for marksmen), enough explosives and good experienced officers/NCOs to lead the resistance.

As for manpower, depending on the events and speed of mobilisation, we have trained 120 000 reserve force (I'm one of them :) ). I don't know about estonian and latvian side.

roflrofl

Lightfire it seems you are already set up to go to war :D

[Mamont]

"Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours..."(c)

[JRT]

Since this is my 1st post to MPnet I'll try to make it worthy...

It is possible that NATO as a whole could not reach a unanimous decision about what to do if one of the Baltic states came under aggression from Russia. Therefore I started to wonder what the actions of individual member states could be and how that would reflect in the whole alliance. In this totally hypothetical scenario the most difficult one to defend, Estonia, is under attack.

Scenario:

Thousans of russian speaking citizens, some w/ russian passport, some w/o, living in town of Narva in Eastern Estonia start rallying for better conditions and rights. The demonstrators clash with Estonian police, with two demonstrators dying. Tensions rise and whole russian minority of 300 000 in Estonia starts roaming in the streets. Estonian armed forces are called to keep the country safe but things only get worse when a soldier is shot and fire is returned toward a crowd, killing many. Leningrad MD moves the 138th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade to Estonian border and 6th Air army starts to fly over Estonia. Belgian F-16:s from Lithuania try to clear the skies and fire warning shots in front of Su-27's, operating from Lodeynoje Pole. Sukhois return fire, shooting down one F-16 before returning to Russia. President Medvedev states that Estonia is aggressive towards russian population and he must protect the lives of all Russians, whereever they may be. 138th MRB and 76th VDV start moving towards Estonia, with reinforcements coming from Moscow MD. What will different NATO members do?

Latvia & Lithuania

Balts have long and strong historical ties, both politically and militarily. Both Baltic states would definately call in reserves and man their eastern border. Both would most likely send aid to struggling Estonian Defence Forces, but that aid is likely to be no more than 1 battalion each.

Poland

Poland is the key player in the security of Baltic States. Not only does it lie close, but it has long ties with the Balts and have same feelings toward Russians. This was reflected when heads of states from Poland and Baltic states showed their support on Georgia in aug '08. Poland has more than 10 highly mobile and capable brigades, and dispatches 1-2 of them northwards. Polish F-16's and MiG 29's start patrolling over Baltic States, engaging Russian jets. Poland and Lithuania fight a war of attrition in Kaliningrad area.

Norway

Norway is in a situation where it cannot expect to stop a Russian advance on its soil alone. So, it cannot leave other small NATO nations fight alone, or the whole alliance might fall apart, thus sending highly mobile special forces and a small air force component to show solidarity within the alliance.

Denmark

Denmark is rather safe behind Baltic states, Baltic sea, Poland and Germany. Even so, Denmark will not stand by and watch Russia attack another NATO ally in the baltic sea region. Denmark sends a contingent of F-16's and navy ships to fight in the Baltic states. War has spread to Latvia & Lithuania too.

UK

Brits have never been so close with russians. Their love was not so deep even in WWII when they had the same enemy. It was again questioned with the Litvinenko case. UK 1st Armored Division starts moving from Germany to Poland and thrust Northwards. RAF joins the Alliance in air combat over the eastern baltic.

Germany

Germany has long had good relationships with Russia. Germany buys lot of its energy from Putin boys and does not wish to irritate them too much, when the Russians say their feud is only with the so-called neo-fascist Estonians. However it is difficult for Germans to stay foot, since they do not take lightly leaving Poles to fight alone. Hard to say where Germany would go.

BENELUX

Belgians are already in it, since they lost their fighter in the beginning. Belgium has not much else to offer but F-16's. Netherlands has however a significant land force to move to Eastern Poland, as well as naval assets, and small countries defend each other.

Southern Europe

Southern Europe might just stay away from all this, perhaps giving logistical and material support to the alliance. Turkey will naturally man their northeastern borders but France opts to stay out, and so does Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece.

US Forces in Europe

In the end it is Washington who comes to the big decision: Fight alongside the NATO members already in it, or leave out and break the whole alliance they themselves put up in the last 60 years or so. I know where I'd put my money.

It's always nice to speculate, not having seen the real plans NATO has for this situation. It's propably fair to say no-one here is absolutely right in his assessment...

[JRT]

And what about Finland and Sweden, in the same situation?

Finland

Finland would definately call in reserves and start refresher training. Finland would have the option to block or seriously harrass the Russian fleet at Kronstadt by minings and RBS-15 but is not likely to do so, as long as there is not a shooting war with the Russians. Finland would most likely follow it's policy of non-alignment, and (rather cowardly) not make a stand for it's fellow EU member state and brother nation.

Sweden

Sweden has a whole different picture. Sweden lies relatively safe behind the Baltic states, Finland and Norway. Sweden has done a bit the same as Germany with Poland, moved it's defences eastward to the Baltic states by arming them. Swedish air force and navy is quite capable in Baltic sea standards and can seriously wreak havoc on the Russians, operating only 500 km from mainland Sweden. Sweden also has a mobile, easy-to-send-abroad land force, but I am not sure if it does have the transport or the will to leave homeland empty. Many in Sweden hope the government respects the non-alignment policy, while many hope they do something in the name of EU solidarity. Sweden would be more likely to participate.

[muttbutt]

And what about Finland and Sweden, in the same situation?

Finland

Finland would definately call in reserves and start refresher training. Finland would have the option to block or seriously harrass the Russian fleet at Kronstadt by minings and RBS-15 but is not likely to do so, as long as there is not a shooting war with the Russians. Finland would most likely follow it's policy of non-alignment, and (rather cowardly) not make a stand for it's fellow EU member state and brother nation.

Sweden

Sweden has a whole different picture. Sweden lies relatively safe behind the Baltic states, Finland and Norway. Sweden has done a bit the same as Germany with Poland, moved it's defences eastward to the Baltic states by arming them. Swedish air force and navy is quite capable in Baltic sea standards and can seriously wreak havoc on the Russians, operating only 500 km from mainland Sweden. Sweden also has a mobile, easy-to-send-abroad land force, but I am not sure if it does have the transport or the will to leave homeland empty. Many in Sweden hope the government respects the non-alignment policy, while many hope they do something in the name of EU solidarity. Sweden would be more likely to participate.
If "Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece." sit it out, that's EU solidarity shot to hell anyway....:|

[Thor]

Sweden

Sweden has a whole different picture. Sweden lies relatively safe behind the Baltic states, Finland and Norway. Sweden has done a bit the same as Germany with Poland, moved it's defences eastward to the Baltic states by arming them. Swedish air force and navy is quite capable in Baltic sea standards and can seriously wreak havoc on the Russians, operating only 500 km from mainland Sweden. Sweden also has a mobile, easy-to-send-abroad land force, but I am not sure if it does have the transport or the will to leave homeland empty. Many in Sweden hope the government respects the non-alignment policy, while many hope they do something in the name of EU solidarity. Sweden would be more likely to participate.
It is very simple. We will not go to war with Russia over the Baltics. And, dare I say, neither will Russia go to war with us over the Baltics.

We do have a very agile Air Force and Navy, a cut above the rest even by NATO standards and the Baltics is practically in our backyard. I think the Russians are much aware of that and will go to lengths to keep us out of a potential conflict (especially since we are not a NATO member anyway) and that notion will be totally mutual.

We will however, regardless of the incumbent government at the time, not be neutral and we will definitely support the attacked nation. Maybe even in a major way like we did with Finland. Perhaps even by supporting a NATO operation. We will however not engage directly in the war unless we are attacked in a blatant way.

[Wall]

(rather cowardly)
Explanations?

[signatory]

Thor is pretty spot on.

To begin with, Finland and more so Sweden would/could play an important role when it comes to providing land, sea and air information having sensors that does cover the Baltic states.

The Swe-Fin sea picture is fused together and the Swedish air defense system is NATO compatible so much they even use English and nato methodology for communications. The Swedish sigint, elint and AEW aircraft even today routinely fly outside that coastline. They look and listen well beyond the Baltic states.

[JRT]

Explanations?

After all, they are

- as a nation closest to Finns linguistically, mentally and historically
- fellow EU members
- a country that sent its troops to the aide of Finns in 1939
- a country whose efforts in combat could be helped by Finns very easily, just by closing the Gulf of Finland from Russia's Baltic fleet.

...and 'cos Finns would like NATO to help Finland but Finland doesn't want to help NATO in combat over continental Europe. That, for me, is cowardice.

[pekka elo]

The Swe-Fin sea picture is fused together and the Swedish air defense system is NATO compatible so much they even use English and nato methodology for communications. The Swedish sigint, elint and AEW aircraft even today routinely fly outside that coastline. They look and listen well beyond the Baltic states.

Finland has similar land-based intelligence capabilities which, I believe, we would happily share with the Balts and other countries. We are in a good position to monitor Russian communications.

If Finland and Sweden had the guts, they could attempt to enforce a no-fly-no-sail zone on the Finnish Gulf and nothern Baltic sea. Germany would probably help with that.

PS. I think the Finnish-Swedish sea surveillance system is brilliant. We have a view from the North Sea all the way to St. Petersburg harbour. I'd much like to see more co-operation of this kind.

Good armchair vibes. Me likes.

[lightfire]

Since this is my 1st post to MPnet I'll try to make it worthy...




thanks, it was quite interesting and argumented.




Latvia & Lithuania

Balts have long and strong historical ties, both politically and militarily. Both Baltic states would definately call in reserves and man their eastern border. Both would most likely send aid to struggling Estonian Defence Forces, but that aid is likely to be no more than 1 battalion each.

Well, it's a bit different for Latvia and Lithuania. And it depends on the position of Belaruss. Latvia has a disputed border with Russia and russians can easily draw their own scenario there as well. (while in Lithuania they can do that trick in tows where russian speaking population is significant, in Visaginas for instance, where 80% are russian speaking. Of cource they are a bit different, but that's a whole another talk). Border is a danger to defend, knowing strength or capabilities of russian armed forces.

Now what they can send is not just one batalion each, but rather one brigade each - with logistical elements, air defences, antitank units, artilery. Plus, special forces would go there first of all and those are half a batalion strength.


Poland and Lithuania fight a war of attrition in Kaliningrad area.

Now here is a fuzzy thing. It depends on battlegroup in Kaliningrad and it's actions. Unlikelly they'd wait to be eaten or risk attrition.

[JRT]

Thor is pretty spot on.

To begin with, Finland and more so Sweden would/could play an important role when it comes to providing land, sea and air information having sensors that does cover the Baltic states.

The Swe-Fin sea picture is fused together and the Swedish air defense system is NATO compatible so much they even use English and nato methodology for communications. The Swedish sigint, elint and AEW aircraft even today routinely fly outside that coastline. They look and listen well beyond the Baltic states.

Swedish Lulis air picture is not however NATO-interoperable and cannot fe fused with NATO RAP, same goes with Finland. Air picture that cannot be used for fighter controllers is pretty useless. Besides, the only Swedish radar that covers the Baltic states below 10km altitude is the Erieye.

Finnish radar picture over Estonia would be good, but it is not NATO-interoperable, so not much to gain from there. Finnish SIGINT and radar picture in 6th Air Army AOR would naturally come useful for NATO in intelligence terms, if Finland would be willing to give the information.

[JRT]

Now here is a fuzzy thing. It depends on battlegroup in Kaliningrad and it's actions. Unlikelly they'd wait to be eaten or risk attrition.

I'd imagine forces in Kaliningrad would have 2 options in this imagined scenario:

1) Stay in defencive positions and hold the Kaliningrad Oblast and protect the fleet at Baltijsk.

2) Try to cut the Via Baltica and prevent NATO reinforcements moving northwards

Since option 2 would leave much of Kaliningrad's own defence empty, I'd imagine they would just like to wait until things cool around in the North rather than expose to Polish counterattack on Kaliningrad proper. I doubt that NATO forces would try to take Kaliningrad unless faced with no alternatives.

Russia really has a bit of dilemma in the defence of Kaliningrad and the Baltic fleet harbouring there.

[lightfire]

I'd imagine forces in Kaliningrad would have 2 options in this imagined scenario:

1) Stay in defencive positions and hold the Kaliningrad Oblast and protect the fleet at Baltijsk.

2) Try to cut the Via Baltica and prevent NATO reinforcements moving northwards

Since option 2 would leave much of Kaliningrad's own defence empty, I'd imagine they would just like to wait until things cool around in the North rather than expose to Polish counterattack on Kaliningrad proper. I doubt that NATO forces would try to take Kaliningrad unless faced with no alternatives.

Russia really has a bit of dilemma in the defence of Kaliningrad and the Baltic fleet harbouring there.


That depends on who controls the Baltic sea. Russians have pretty strong group in Kaliningrad. Russian fleet in the baltic sea would chalenge anyone.

Russians in Kaliningrad are also capable both to defend itself and launch operations to Lithuania. It does not need to attack Poland directlly.

Russian armoured columns could push for key border towns, like Lazdijai and Alytus, wich defended by 2-3 battalions. That would cut off supply roads and railways.

Klaipeda is an obvious target, Kaunas, just like Gori - as well. Yet I'd doubt we'd sit and do nothing or run away like georgians. South of Lithuania is a fine place for ambushes, and counterattacks, so the russian risk should be very well calculated.

[muttbutt]

LF...mate how is you military kitted out with ATGWS and MANPAD SAMs?...the Georgians didn't seem to have MANPAD's or they might have taken a heavier toll on those Frogfoot's?

[JRT]

More importantly, do you have the Giraffe 75 / similar with those MANPADS like Latvians do? Having MANPADS without LLAPI is ok for towelheads but not for an army with a pride p-)

[lightfire]

Well, I'd say we need MORE of those.


We have dozens of RBS-70 (+Giraffe Mk-IV),

http://www.kam.lt/image.php?Image=RBS_ir_radaras_copy.JPG


Stingers (dual mount+radar)

http://www.kam.lt/image.php?Image=AMT7Z5181_news_main_1.jpg

and 40mm Boffors for AA role (yes, Girrafes also). That could spook Froggots away, but smth of medium range is required. Though we have decent fighter cover - 4 NATO aircraft ain't much but always could be multiplied from Poland and Germany.

For Antitank role we have Javelins (30 launchers only, but future is bright), loads of Carl Gustavs (latest mods), still lots of RPGs wich we don't use, few BILLs, recoilless rifles (well conceived ambushes would be the only use of them, if any..personally I don't like that thing).

[JRT]

It's always worth to have something to drill holes on BMP's, BTR's and BMD's, even if it lacks the punch to knock out a T-72 ERA.

But, did the norwegians give you any radars with those RBS-70's or are they relying on eyesight only?

[muttbutt]

More importantly, do you have the Giraffe 75 / similar with those MANPADS like Latvians do? Having MANPADS without LLAPI is ok for towelheads but not for an army with a pride p-)I don't know, yes Radar is nice, but a lot of the problems seemed to be infantry and armour getting caught beyond their SAM coverage and they had nothing to defend themselves with, some of the video I have seen show's the Frog's going in pretty low, they didn't seem to be worried, MANPAD's might have made them think twice. IMHO

[perdurabo]

Russians in Kaliningrad are also capable both to defend itself and launch operations to Lithuania. It does not need to attack Poland directlly.


I can't imagine scenario with you beeing attacked and us not rushing in to help you.

[JRT]

I don't know, yes Radar is nice, but a lot of the problems seemed to be infantry and armour getting caught beyond their SAM coverage and they had nothing to defend themselves with...


Well, that's just poor planning and soldiering p-) The problem with MANPADS w/o radars is that no MANPAD crew can stay focused and alert 24/7, they need A) early warning and B) direction of the target to be an effective system altogether. With no radars, you have MANPAD crews that are not ready when the Su-24 comes at 300ft altitude or they are looking the wrong way and do not have the reaction time to turn around.

[Basillicus]

It's always worth to have something to drill holes on BMP's, BTR's and BMD's, even if it lacks the punch to knock out a T-72 ERA.

Exactly, I think it's often forgotten that perhaps most of the enemy armor that will be faced is not very well armored after all. There's no point to use some million dollar ultra high tech heat seeking computer aided super missile to take out crappy BMP that can be handled with a simple LAW.

[lightfire]

hm, I posted pics with Girafes, hope that helps :) Pluss we have mobile EADS radars and that's connected to NATO radar netwrok.


I can't imagine scenario with you beeing attacked and us not rushing in to help you.

well, as I said, it depends on situation. Russians simply wouldn't risk to go just yet. They'd wait for some war, Poland might be in, or create such situation polish forces wouldn't be able to rush simply like that. Deception and the right moments - russians master that. Yet I'd hope for polsih help, no question about that.

[lightfire]

Oh yes, I forgot we have loads of latest AT4s as well. That's for the BMPs :)

[perdurabo]

hm, I posted pics with Girafes, hope that helps :) Pluss we have mobile EADS radars and that's connected to NATO radar netwrok.



well, as I said, it depends on situation. Russians simply wouldn't risk to go just yet. They'd wait for some war, Poland might be in, or create such situation polish forces wouldn't be able to rush simply like that. Deception and the right moments - russians master that. Yet I'd hope for polsih help, no question about that.
i found one situation -Poland is under even bigger attack than Lithuania then realy we just wouldn't have spare troops, in other cases we are fouls that belive in knighthood and that we have to support friends in need (i hope that stupid thing beatwin us in 1920ties has ended long time ago and we are friends like we where long time before)

[Atlantic Friend]

Since this is my 1st post to MPnet I'll try to make it worthy...

It is possible that NATO as a whole could not reach a unanimous decision about what to do if one of the Baltic states came under aggression from Russia. Therefore I started to wonder what the actions of individual member states could be and how that would reflect in the whole alliance. In this totally hypothetical scenario the most difficult one to defend, Estonia, is under attack.

Almost every NATO member's reaction will depend on the exact cause of the conflict. If out of the blue, Russian tanks roll over the Estonian border and start a war of annexation, then no NATO country will have much choice. Every concession will make the Russian bear stronger and...closer.

The worst-case scenario is if a NATO member fires the first shots (what happened in Georgia, however sympathetic one can be to Tbilisi's plight) and triggers the war. NATO had never been meant to be an offensive alliance, as it relies on sovereign, independent nations defending a common geographical territory. Anyone who doubts it simply has to look at the operations where NATO was involved - or when the US thought of involving NATO - in offensive operations in ex-Yugoslavia or during the Iraq crisis.

If your hypothetical Estonia triggered the war, I doubt there would be unanimous support - and indeed why should there be ? - even from nations who do not love/need/fear Russia.

That's the reason we should be very grateful that Georgia wasn't integrated into NATO before. Because we would either be at war, or NATO wouldn't exist anymore.

[lightfire]

If your hypothetical Estonia triggered the war, I doubt there would be unanimous support - and indeed why should there be ? - even from nations who do not love/need/fear Russia.

That's the reason we should be very grateful that Georgia wasn't integrated into NATO before. Because we would either be at war, or NATO wouldn't exist anymore.

This is a fuzzy situation as well. Provocations are easy to create. Add the russian propoganda machine you get mixed evaluations who started it. The world is not so primitive to believe "finnish artilery shelling" in 1939, yet one needs very little to find pretext. Indeed, that'd be a test to Estonian (put any other random nation) government, how they respond to provocations. The story with the Bronze soldier has showed, that russians are capable to provocate. And they didn't have any weapons at that time.

[JRT]

This is a fuzzy situation as well. Provocations are easy to create. Add the russian propoganda machine you get mixed evaluations who started it. The world is not so primitive to believe "finnish artilery shelling" in 1939, yet one needs very little to find pretext. Indeed, that'd be a test to Estonian (put any other random nation) government, how they respond to provocations. The story with the Bronze soldier has showed, that russians are capable to provocate. And they didn't have any weapons at that time.

Indeed. As shown in the Georgian case, when Russia shouted long enough how the Georgians started all this even most of the west bought it. Not a single time has it been mentioned in any of Sergei Lavrov's speeches how the ossetians fired upon georgian troops and villages with russian weapons for a week before the army of Georgia did something about it. Georgia lost the information war as well as the shooting war, and thus stands alone and is at the moment at the mercy of russians.

Russia has a good media machine that small nations find it difficult to counter. Sometimes wars are won or lost in the media instead of the actual battlefield. With good information warfare Russia could isolate a single NATO member from the alliance, helping its operation tremendously.

[NowPlaying]

For anyone who is interested in a potential military conflict in Baltics I suggest to read this.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG112.pdf

Page 65.
European Theater: A Russia-Baltics Game
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1553/dscn0828gm2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1553/dscn0828gm2.47ab982528.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=411&i=dscn0828gm2.jpg)

[ilmakas]

'Troop surge' strategist Fred Kagan calls for beefed-up Baltic defences against Russia


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2609100/Troop-surge-strategist-Fred-Kagan-calls-for-beefed-up-Baltic-defences-against-Russia.html


"We need to help these countries develop sophisticated air defence and anti-tank capabilities that don't pose any offensive threat to Russia, but promise the possibility of very high casualties were they to attempt what they did in Georgia," said Mr Kagan in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph.
"Nato has to make a fundamental decision here about its legal and ethical obligations, and the only way we can really fulfil them is to help these countries defend themselves in advance of an attack."
His comments follow growing concern within the Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - that Russia could engineer confrontations with them as it has with the government in Tbilisi.

[Rittmester]

I can see that a Russian invasion of any Baltic state would activate the NATO treaty if the USA at some point commit to a war declaration. NATO is lead by the US, and only the US administration is heavy enough to rally the alliance. With the long history of the alliance and the deep inner structure, relative high popular support, the common doctrines; the allied countries would go to war on an auto pilot. It is common national law in all countries. A refusal will cause a wote of no confidence, as this administration is breaking its own laws.

Of course, we would see a lot of political distress over it, and people would demonstrate pro and (mostly) contra in the streets. Some left-wing administrations will hesitate, but crumble under pressure. Maybe by sticking other lables than "war" in the headlines. Still, all will mobilize, and all will send fit forces into the pool during the stages of escalation in the political game.

If, say, Estonia were invaded, I guess the Russians would occupy it pretty fast and fortify their position. Russia doesn't have the capacity to go for all it's European neighbours at once, so the conflict will for their part be aimed at the region. Other frontiers will be defensively rigged (by both sides).

NATO will at first challenge the Estonian airspace and quickly beef up the Baltic and Atlantic naval forces in a show of force and resolve. Turky will close the Black sea. A massive build up of land forces in Poland will gain time for diplomatic pressure (like in Saudi Arabia 1990).

Now, a "go" to liberate Estonia is a matter of time if there is no pull back. Russia will get info under the table that NATO won't advance towards Moscow; that this is a local war, not a "total all-out". This will be the insurance against their first use of nukes.

If Russia is totally dumb, it will get hammered from the air and its forces thrown out of Estonia. The NATO advance will be halted at the Russian border to calm the nerves in the Kremlin.

Then, Russia has lost everything, 0 political points left and all it's prestige long gone. European countries will have a gas shortage, but will curve around that problem with ease.

NATO - Russia: 1-0

thank God the old KGB gang isn't totally dumb.

[Snoshi]

Indeed. As shown in the Georgian case, when Russia shouted long enough how the Georgians started all this even most of the west bought it. Not a single time has it been mentioned in any of Sergei Lavrov's speeches how the ossetians fired upon georgian troops and villages with russian weapons for a week before the army of Georgia did something about it. Georgia lost the information war as well as the shooting war, and thus stands alone and is at the moment at the mercy of russians.

Russia has a good media machine that small nations find it difficult to counter. Sometimes wars are won or lost in the media instead of the actual battlefield. With good information warfare Russia could isolate a single NATO member from the alliance, helping its operation tremendously.

X2.. Good post.. Remindes me of HZB use of media in 2006 war where they covered up own casulties and over reported civilian casulties.

[lightfire]

I'd say, start Operation Mainbrace II to clear the doubts.

[signatory]

Sweden is doing another set of surplus sales to the three Baltic states. Details is not available I'm afraid...

Currently there's some 250 mint condition BMP-1s (video (http://www.fmv.se/BMP1/pbv501_main.html)), bunch of BO-105 helicopters, 4x4 vehicles and all kinds of other stuff ready to be shipped.

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/1877/a/23552

In addition, there's smaller numbers of modern equipment like CV90, Leo-II more unofficially for sale (but attempts has recently been made to Denmark and Greece)

Maybe it's all cr4p. We have to wait and see...

[walford]

Indeed. As shown in the Georgian case, when Russia shouted long enough how the Georgians started all this even most of the west bought it. Not a single time has it been mentioned in any of Sergei Lavrov's speeches how the ossetians fired upon georgian troops and villages with russian weapons for a week before the army of Georgia did something about it. Georgia lost the information war as well as the shooting war, and thus stands alone and is at the moment at the mercy of russians.

Russia has a good media machine that small nations find it difficult to counter. Sometimes wars are won or lost in the media instead of the actual battlefield. With good information warfare Russia could isolate a single NATO member from the alliance, helping its operation tremendously.The root of von Clausewitz' thesis for successful warfare is to demoralize the opponent and sap his will to continue. This can be done with inferior firepower and numbers, which is why those who mean to destroy Western civilization have a good chance of winning; our collective will to preserve our way of life wanes along with our birthrates.

But I digress.

It is arguable that Russian has a superior PR machine, but what is far more notable is Western Europe's continued deference to the Bear since the USSR's collapse.

If it is found that Russia is doing things to her immediate neighbors that may require a NATO response, well, that would be upsetting, wouldn't it?

The media is perfectly capable of finding out what has been going on the ground in Georgia -- and what looms in other border states -- but they don't want to know.

Russia has alternated between subtle and explicit threats as to what would happen if anyone interfered with their adventures in the Near Abroad and Western Europe has flinched every time.

[perdurabo]

main question is what will Russia achieve with counquering Baltics? Too mutch to loose too litle to gain, while in Georgia the had enough gains and almoust no looses. Russians ain't stupid they can calculate what is more profitable.

[walford]

There is no need for conquest. Russia can indeed reasonably aspire to having the Near Abroad to be politically/militarily neutralized through explicit and implicit threats.

[sepheronx]

Napoleon tried it, and so did Hitler, and neither of them could do it. NATO may be large in terms of countries involved, but so many of them are either poor or do not have a large personnel of equipment/men, and could not withstand an invasion by Russia. It would be pretty much that USA and France would be pretty much the only two countries that could withstand. Germany would pack a hard punch, but would succumb due to the lack of numbers.

Also, the aspect arises. Who powers most of Europe? Russia does. Who also provides a lot of income to and from Europe? Russia. So they would have to think over if it is worth to lose a vital partner in technology and oil/gas over a country that has non of that, one that is on financial crisis. NATO is not dumb either, and as much as it is meant for the defense of Europe from USSR, it was only the vital partners of it that would actually survive an onslaught from the Soviets, and now the Russians. yes, they are moving coser to the borders, but that means more soldiers whom are poorly trained and more to die. Poland is a strong nation, but I am talking about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Those countries, definately NATO would not totaly defend, due to that they benifit nothing from them. NATO would have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Finland is not a NATO member, so that is out of the question. Don't totaly understand why everyone is talking about it so much.

Also, NATO countries are not even at agreanse with each other. Greece and Turkey are bashing their skulls at each other over Cyprus. Germany and Italy invested a lot into Russia, especially in buisness, so they would be very speculative towards the idea of attacking Russia. And in the final process, once Russia has nothing to lose, they would devistate the world with their missiles. There is only so much a missile shield can do, and those shields have already and opposition, the Iskanders and other ground to ground anti-radar/missile shield.

[Niels]

Germany would pack a hard punch, but would succumb due to the lack of numbers.
Germany's armed forces are bigger than France's.

[Herman the II]

Napoleon tried it, and so did Hitler, and neither of them could do it. NATO may be large in terms of countries involved, but so many of them are either poor or do not have a large personnel of equipment/men, and could not withstand an invasion by Russia. It would be pretty much that USA and France would be pretty much the only two countries that could withstand. Germany would pack a hard punch, but would succumb due to the lack of numbers.


Wut? Do you really believe that Russia could succeed a strike through Belarus/Ukraine and Poland towards Germany? All that against NATO? That idea is not even worth debating about..

[sepheronx]

Wut? Do you really believe that Russia could succeed a strike through Belarus/Ukraine and Poland towards Germany? All that against NATO? That idea is not even worth debating about..

Well, believe it or not.....Belarus IS Russia's ally. So they can already pre-emptively, place forces there. Also, Ukraine has quite the forces and right now, political, they are in debate whom side to go with. If chosen Russia, then now you got Ukraine to deal with. Not to mention other nations out their willing to back Russia. If you think Russia is alone on the battlefield, then you are wrong. Poland does not have the man power nor the military equipment to defeate Russia. They will hurt them, but not defeat them. It will only hold them back so long. Also, Estonia, Lithuania, and Estonia would fall pretty quickly, as their forces are really disorganized and not well equiped either, so Russia can easily set base their too. At this point, they are getting close to Germany already.


Germany's armed forces are bigger than France's.

In terms of military equipment, or in number of troops?

I notice in this debate, it is Russia vs the world. When more like it is Russia/Belarus/Syria/Kazakhstan/Armania vs The World. As the other nations are not as well developed and militarily prepared, like Poland in an essence, they can still pack a punch if given advanced military equipment.

[Herman the II]

If you really believe that Russia could perform offensive operations against NATO as deep as Germany or France you are free to do so. I'm not going to debate about it, its simply absurd. Go ahead..

[sepheronx]

If you really believe that Russia could perform offensive operations against NATO as deep as Germany or France you are free to. I'm not going to debate about it, its simply absurd. Go ahead..

Hmm, and if you think Russia is as small and weak as you do, then go ahead, think that. As seen before, like the Canadians, the tactics are to bomb first, then go in later. Russia has more then enough military equipment in terms of artillery and missiles to make a quick scourge on the lands of these countries and then attack. It is a good tactic, take out what is hidden first, and in large bunches, then invade. Also, it could be in an aspect that they CAN invade pre-emptively too. So they can possibly attack much like the Blitzkrieg style and get in before the enemy really even noticed.

[Snoshi]

Hmm, and if you think Russia is as small and weak as you do, then go ahead, think that. As seen before, like the Canadians, the tactics are to bomb first, then go in later. Russia has more then enough military equipment in terms of artillery and missiles to make a quick scourge on the lands of these countries and then attack. It is a good tactic, take out what is hidden first, and in large bunches, then invade. Also, it could be in an aspect that they CAN invade pre-emptively too. So they can possibly attack much like the Blitzkrieg style and get in before the enemy really even noticed.

Man.. Really.. :roll:

[muttbutt]

Hmm, and if you think Russia is as small and weak as you do, then go ahead, think that. As seen before, like the Canadians, the tactics are to bomb first, then go in later. Russia has more then enough military equipment in terms of artillery and missiles to make a quick scourge on the lands of these countries and then attack. It is a good tactic, take out what is hidden first, and in large bunches, then invade. Also, it could be in an aspect that they CAN invade pre-emptively too. So they can possibly attack much like the Blitzkrieg style and get in before the enemy really even noticed.
LOL.....They had well documented problem's Vs Georgia how would they do Vs a Poland never mind Germany?

[perdurabo]

Napoleon tried it, and so did Hitler, and neither of them could do it. Poles and Mongols did it p-)

[The Dane]

Hmm, and if you think Russia is as small and weak as you do, then go ahead, think that. As seen before, like the Canadians, the tactics are to bomb first, then go in later. Russia has more then enough military equipment in terms of artillery and missiles to make a quick scourge on the lands of these countries and then attack. It is a good tactic, take out what is hidden first, and in large bunches, then invade. Also, it could be in an aspect that they CAN invade pre-emptively too. So they can possibly attack much like the Blitzkrieg style and get in before the enemy really even noticed.

You have no idea what your talking about...

Russian army: 400.000

..up against

Poland: 76.000
Germany: 136.000
France: 150.000
Czech : 27.000

plus all the other Nato members armies.

[daily666]

Hmm, and if you think Russia is as small and weak as you do, then go ahead, think that. As seen before, like the Canadians, the tactics are to bomb first, then go in later. Russia has more then enough military equipment in terms of artillery and missiles to make a quick scourge on the lands of these countries and then attack. It is a good tactic, take out what is hidden first, and in large bunches, then invade. Also, it could be in an aspect that they CAN invade pre-emptively too. So they can possibly attack much like the Blitzkrieg style and get in before the enemy really even noticed.

"Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks."


You have no idea what your talking about...

Russian army: 400.000

..up against

Poland: 76.000
Germany: 136.000
France: 150.000
Czech : 27.000

plus all the other Nato members armies.

Polish Army is 124.000 active duty personnel. 76.000 is the Land Forces only.

[Herman the II]

Polish Army is 124.000 active duty personnel. 76.000 is the Land Forces only.


If I'm not mistaken all the numbers Danskeren posted represent only the Land Forces. However Russia could never assemble all its troops on one border, consider all the other hot-spots and the overwhelming area they have to cover. As said, a Russian offensive against core NATO members is out of question.

[perdurabo]

124 000 of whole milit. is for P time for W time we can get numbers up to 1 milion without mutch stress.

[The Dane]

If I'm not mistaken all the numbers Danskeren posted represent only the Land Forces. However Russia could never assemble all its troops on one border, consider all the other hot-spots and the overwhelming area they have to cover. As said, a Russian offensive against core NATO members is out of question.

Yup and agreed..

[lightfire]

Napoleon tried it, and so did Hitler, and neither of them could do it. .

what's your point? NATO invading the great motherland again? capitalism did it and prevailed..oh wait..


NATO may be large in terms of countries involved, but so many of them are either poor or do not have a large personnel of equipment/men, and could not withstand an invasion by Russia.

that is why they are united in NATO, helo? It's not like 1948 out there..


It would be pretty much that USA and France would be pretty much the only two countries that could withstand. Germany would pack a hard punch, but would succumb due to the lack of numbers.

and your argument for that is...where?


Also, the aspect arises. Who powers most of Europe? Russia does.

fail. It does sell gas and oil, up to 30%.


Who also provides a lot of income to and from Europe? Russia.

wat?Would you like to come to Europe or at least take a look at european economics again?


So they would have to think over if it is worth to lose a vital partner in technology and oil/gas over a country that has non of that, one that is on financial crisis.

could you please elaborate, essp those two parts.. http://forum.istorija.net/images/emoticons/sm32.gif


NATO is not dumb either, and as much as it is meant for the defense of Europe from USSR, it was only the vital partners of it that would actually survive an onslaught from the Soviets, and now the Russians. yes, they are moving coser to the borders, but that means more soldiers whom are poorly trained and more to die.

as for dumbness..you realy make Canadians look bad. Boone shouldn't be proud of you. What on earth did you want to say there? Have you actually noticed, that USSR is no more for about 18 years and NATO still lives? And what soldiers are poorly trained exactly? What is your basis for the point? hear rumors perhaps...?



Poland is a strong nation, but I am talking about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Those countries, definately NATO would not totaly defend, due to that they benifit nothing from them.

clueless as you are, you might as well take some interest in those countries and their participation, before posting dumb posts. "Definatelly" isn't even a term I 'd risk to confirm you mentality, thus you might be as well ignorant and missinformed.


NATO would have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

..if they fail to defend it's members, yes.


Finland is not a NATO member, so that is out of the question. Don't totaly understand why everyone is talking about it so much.

since you have no idea how politics work and what is the situation of Finland besides it is not a NATO member.


Also, NATO countries are not even at agreanse with each other. Greece and Turkey are bashing their skulls at each other over Cyprus.

yes, and they'd surelly go to war with each other when any major crisis within NATO borders arrise...:roll:



Germany and Italy invested a lot into Russia, especially in buisness, so they would be very speculative towards the idea of attacking Russia.

again, please be honest..where did you come up with this paranoia "NATO attacking Russia"?


And in the final process, once Russia has nothing to lose, they would devistate the world with their missiles.

are we all doomed yet?



There is only so much a missile shield can do, and those shields have already and opposition, the Iskanders and other ground to ground anti-radar/missile shield

yes, so better raise the white flag, before it's too late..

what a dumbass.

[walford]

If you really believe that Russia could perform offensive operations against NATO as deep as Germany or France you are free to do so. I'm not going to debate about it, its simply absurd. Go ahead..Hmm, and if you think Russia is as small and weak as you do, then go ahead, think that. As seen before, like the Canadians, the tactics are to bomb first, then go in later. Russia has more then enough military equipment in terms of artillery and missiles to make a quick scourge on the lands of these countries and then attack. It is a good tactic, take out what is hidden first, and in large bunches, then invade. Also, it could be in an aspect that they CAN invade pre-emptively too. So they can possibly attack much like the Blitzkrieg style and get in before the enemy really even noticed.You both are missing the point. Russia need not invade every neighbor to be able to influence their policies -- both domestic and foreign -- thus trumping the will of the citizenries therein as expressed through their elected governments.

It's called Might Makes Right.

Russia has shown that it will use force to impose its will upon others and there are few who think that there will be any help from the West to thwart it. So the 'pragmatists' in Russia's desired orbit will do the sensible thing and try their best to anticipate what Moscow wants when formulating policy.

During the Cold War, there was a significant cadre in the West who defined any policy that the Soviets would not approve of as by definition provocative and even war-mongering.

Their intellectual descendants continue to have influence.

[Wrangel]

Poles and Mongols did it p-)

They never conquered all of Russia.Poland occupied some parts,and Mongols most of parts,but never all parts of Russia.

By the way,back then Russkies didn't had shining toys like today:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/ff/5228-769639.jpg/300px-5228-769639.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:5228-769639.jpg)

[eskachig]

This thread is retarded. Russia had a superior media machine vs Georgia? Were we watching the same news? Post war analysis showed that Georgia succeeded in getting its version of the story out there to a far better extent. Non-nuclear war against NATO in Europe? What are all of you smoking?

[tafka10]

Russians would cover all three countries in 1 or 2 days.

They wouldnt be able to drive across estonia in 1 day without any opposition never mind when being engaged so thats a bit absurd.

[Snoshi]

And this thread is ressurected! Flame on! :)

[tafka10]

And this thread is ressurected! Flame on! :)

sincere apologies :)

[Snoshi]

sincere apologies :)

Nah, its ok. It just good to look at the date of the thread. :)