Military Matters: Baltic defense realities

[Afro-European]

by William S. Lind
Washington (UPI) Sep 11, 2008
I recently returned from Estonia and the Baltic Defense College, where the Russian counterattack on the former Soviet republic of Georgia in the Caucasus had left a residual case of nerves.

They have little to fear in the short run, unless they duplicate Georgia's folly and attack Russia. But the question of how the three Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia might be defended is worth considering, both in itself and in terms of what it means for defending other small countries.
The worst option, which Georgia took, is to create a toy army. A handful of modern jet fighters, a battalion or two of tanks, a frigate for the navy, all add up to nothing. Against a great power, a toy army goes down to defeat in days, if not hours. Moreover, even a few modern jet fighters or tanks cost so much, there is no money left for a real defense. Unless the Baltic states want to fight each other, they should leave military toys to children.
Second, the Baltics could try to ally with other nearby powers strong enough to balance Russia. But this option exists only in theory.
Germany could fill the role but has lost all great power ambitions, while Sweden has been out of the game for two centuries. There could be benefit for all concerned in a union of the Baltic states and Finland under the Swedish crown, all retaining complete domestic autonomy but united for defense and foreign policy, but it is probably only historians who can see the potential.
A third option is to ally with distant great powers in order to balance the threat from a local great power. That is what the Baltic states have done through their membership in the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Unfortunately, while Central European states have attempted this over and over again for centuries, it never works. It may involve Western powers in war with Russia, or in the past with Germany, but it does nothing to protect the country in question. Poland is a recent example: Britain and France went to war with Germany in 1939 over Poland, but Poland remained an occupied country for 50 years.
NATO membership also increases the pressure to build a toy army, or to specialize in "niche" capabilities like water purification that serve NATO but not home defense. Both are roads to military irrelevance.
There is a model that would work for the three Baltic states and other small countries: the Iraqi model. Instead of creating a toy army, they should plan an Iraq-style insurgency against any occupier. This requires a universal militia like Switzerland's, where every male citizen knows how to shoot and how to build and emplace improvised explosive devices and where weapons and explosives are cached all over the country. In the three Baltic states, this would be a rural rather than an urban defense: Russia and its armed forces could take the cities but not the countryside. The "Forest Brothers" kept up just such a resistance to the Soviet presence well into the 1950s.
An Iraqi-model defense would not make it impossible for Russia to conquer the Baltic states. It could only make such a venture expensive for Russia -- hopefully, too expensive.
For long-term security, the Baltic states must approach the problem not just at the military but at the grand strategic level. What that means is that, like all small countries bordering a great power, they must accommodate the great power's interests.
The model here is Finland during the Cold War. Finland maintained complete sovereignty in its domestic affairs but was careful to accommodate the Soviet Union in its foreign and defense policies. It was a good neighbor to Russia, as the three Baltic states should strive to be good neighbors to Russia now. Their goal should be to create a situation in which it is more in Russia's interests for the Baltics to remain independent than to reincorporate them into the Russian empire.
I realize this advice is unpalatable to the Baltic peoples. Half a century of Soviet occupation has left a residue of hatred for all things Russian. But grand strategy must be based on facts and reason, not emotion. The most important fact is geography.
Geography dictates that the Baltic states must accommodate Russian interests, whether they want to or not. If they refuse, then the recent example of Georgia may have more relevance than anyone would wish. (William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation.)

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Mili...ities_999.html

[pekka elo]

This guy clearly has no deep insight into this corner of the world.

Firstly the Baltic states are already allied with great powers (NATO) and are part of a collective foreign policy (EU).

Secondly, a guerrilla defense is a poor option. Just not worth all the suffering and extensive loss of infrastructure. Some goofs have proposed in Finland too but such ideas are soon dismissed.

Third, Finland was by no means autonomous in its domestic affairs. The SU tampered in our government coalitions and economic affairs among other things. Neo-finlandization is the worst idea of all presented in the text. However the Baltic states should remember their size and refrain from overly provoking policies.

EDIT: Is that guy seriously proposing for Finland and the Baltics joining under the Swedish crown (3rd paragraph)? Wow, that's an old school concept.

[Somalimafia]

^^ This is what happens when somebody discovers tha intarwebs for the first time and decides to write something that sounds good to them.

[Afro-European]

^^ This is what happens when somebody discovers tha intarwebs for the first time and decides to write something that sounds good to them.

(William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation.)

[lightfire]

wow, this guy is clueless. Perhaps he was visiting Tartu defence college, but must have been drinking hard night before to make these conclussions. This is a level of "conclussion" unfit even for intraweb forums..

They have little to fear in the short run, unless they duplicate Georgia's folly and attack Russia.

fact check, when did Georgia attack Russian federation?

The worst option, which Georgia took, is to create a toy army. A handful of modern jet fighters, a battalion or two of tanks, a frigate for the navy, all add up to nothing. Against a great power, a toy army goes down to defeat in days, if not hours. Moreover, even a few modern jet fighters or tanks cost so much, there is no money left for a real defense. Unless the Baltic states want to fight each other, they should leave military toys to children.

So I gues this should be advised to Denmark as well, huh? The guy fails to understand some units of harware might have several other uses rather than be prepared to invade the great motherland... toy army, lol. Does he have any clue what he's talking about.

And yet, where does he see modern fighter jets and tanks in Baltic armies?

There could be benefit for all concerned in a union of the Baltic states and Finland under the Swedish crown, all retaining complete domestic autonomy but united for defense and foreign policy, but it is probably only historians who can see the potential.

yes, perhaps US should return to the British crown and bow to it in order to make strong alliance..any more bright idead, mr. historian?

A third option is to ally with distant great powers in order to balance the threat from a local great power. That is what the Baltic states have done through their membership in the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Unfortunately, while Central European states have attempted this over and over again for centuries, it never works.

exuse me, but have I failled to see any state actually attacking a NATO member? Or do the history books lie about the date of creation of NATO? For centuries? Wasn't that in 1949 the NATO was formed? Didin't Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary join NATO only in 1999?

It may involve Western powers in war with Russia, or in the past with Germany, but it does nothing to protect the country in question. Poland is a recent example: Britain and France went to war with Germany in 1939 over Poland, but Poland remained an occupied country for 50 years.

Poland is an example to remember from WWII, but we are talking about NATO, not paper alliances with not-ready-to-war France and Britain in 1939.

NATO membership also increases the pressure to build a toy army, or to specialize in "niche" capabilities like water purification that serve NATO but not home defense. Both are roads to military irrelevance.

ignorance is a bliss. Increases the preasure to build a toy army? Is he nuts? Please, elabore, mr. non-toy-one-man-army. NATo membership increases the preasure for standartisation and readiness to defend itself and to create capabilities to defend other members or participate in NATO's operations.

If it's watter clearing unit or SF dettachemnt, or medics, that country specialises for the operations - so be it. Why should we specialise in tank warfare if we don't have them, and other bigger countries have lots of them and specialise in that sphere?

Niche capabilities takes 1-5% of all your armed forces, how does that endanger the defence of your own country? It rather gives you not to specialise everywhere and to rely on your partners in the Alliance on certain things (Baltic air police is an example) - it saves money and lets you provide smth realy worth for NATO. For instance we specialise in that sphere - Special Forces, water clearing, logistics and medics for NATO. Those niches are quite speciffic and dare I say - usefull, no?

Otherwise, specialisation in all spheres for such countries leads to the toy army example, the author gives himself, since the budget won't take it.

There is a model that would work for the three Baltic states and other small countries: the Iraqi model. Instead of creating a toy army, they should plan an Iraq-style insurgency against any occupier. This requires a universal militia like Switzerland's, where every male citizen knows how to shoot and how to build and emplace improvised explosive devices and where weapons and explosives are cached all over the country. In the three Baltic states, this would be a rural rather than an urban defense: Russia and its armed forces could take the cities but not the countryside. The "Forest Brothers" kept up just such a resistance to the Soviet presence well into the 1950s.

again, ignorance due to the poor knowledge and perhaps, competence. Both geopolitical, demographical, cultural, mentality and other factors differ Baltic states from the same Switzerland.

As for defence, he know no shyte. Where would you propose the resistance within the countryside, genius? The terrain of the Baltic states does not give you an advantage. "Forest brothers" is all you know, but forget, that there are few forrests in Baltic states, few large enough to continue long resistance.

The one that took in the 1944-1956 was heroic stand, but doomed to fail. At first it was hard for the soviets due to the traditional tactics and incompetence, but later the spy network have crushed the resistance from the inside with the help of brutal physical force.

It did not give anything except to pay the debt of the 1940 non resistance, by showing force, character and unwillingness to comply. yes, in modern warfare you have IEDs, antitank weapons. But on the other hand you have potential enemies specialised units, modern inteligence capabilities, thus specialising armed forces for guerilla warfare ONLY is a fvcking mistake. It is true, that army should be trained for this as well, esspecialy the Home guard units, but not as an option of the army model.

An Iraqi-model defense would not make it impossible for Russia to conquer the Baltic states. It could only make such a venture expensive for Russia -- hopefully, too expensive.

and the iraqi model, I assume, has prevailed, yes? It was expencive first of all for the iraqis themselves.

For long-term security, the Baltic states must approach the problem not just at the military but at the grand strategic level. What that means is that, like all small countries bordering a great power, they must accommodate the great power's interests.
The model here is Finland during the Cold War. Finland maintained complete sovereignty in its domestic affairs but was careful to accommodate the Soviet Union in its foreign and defense policies. It was a good neighbor to Russia, as the three Baltic states should strive to be good neighbors to Russia now. Their goal should be to create a situation in which it is more in Russia's interests for the Baltics to remain independent than to reincorporate them into the Russian empire.

the guy has no idea, how international politics with Russia works. And how the russian politiacl, inteligence and economic figures work.

Accomodate great powers interests? plz elabore, wtf would that mean? remain independence being a S.Ossetia, Transniestr like states? Finlands example is unapropriate and does not fit. Finland had a unique situation, whereas nomatter how you strive to have good relations with Russia, it always bitches, always unhappy and put the preasure in one or other way.

It is the whole idea of this "great powers interests" that is flawed in the first place, since we've showed already - we do not want to be there ever again and we won't let that happen, since we will act accordinglly. If Russia understands, that our OWN interests are to be ignorred, it's a mistake. They are bitching about us, having our own oppinion and interests. Well, wake up already, we are independent and despite you don't understand this, we want good relations with ALL our neighbours. Our interest is history, the present and the future, if you don't like it - it's your problem, not ours.

realize this advice is unpalatable to the Baltic peoples. Half a century of Soviet occupation has left a residue of hatred for all things Russian. But grand strategy must be based on facts and reason, not emotion.

faill at factcheck again. Esspecially about that hatred towards all that is russian. We like russians a lot - all polls show that. Russian culture is also deeply respected, as well as certain points in the history. The understanding of russian people is much better, that of the ones from the west and we understand russians better, than westerners in many cases. The hatred remains ONLY to SINGLE thing: it's a mix of russian imperialistic ambitions, brute force, arrogance and that lack of culture, the government, some types of people represent and spread. That is a natural danger to us, already suffered from it enough and seing same shyte again - no thank you.

Geography dictates that the Baltic states must accommodate Russian interests, whether they want to or not.

fail at logic. Geography dictates neighbours, but not interests, ideology or governments. If russian interests are not hostile towards Baltics - we always welcome it. Like I said - culture, buisiness - always easy to deal with the russians here. While if it's hostile - we have our own interests and such threatenings just don't qualify for any desciption of "interest".

If they refuse, then the recent example of Georgia may have more relevance than anyone would wish.

So if we, sovereign nations, NATO and EU members don't comply with everything what Russia says, we're fvcked just like Georgia? please, cut this crap, althout it sums up the BS article anyway.

[PanzerMaster]

^^ This is what happens when somebody discovers tha intarwebs for the first time and decides to write something that sounds good to them.

Mr Lind, and many folks at www.sftt.org are not the last of the clueless...

www.sftt.org was responsible, years ago, of the changing of my mind regarding politics.

[lightfire]

Mr Lind, and many folks at www.sftt.org are not the last of the clueless...

www.sftt.org was responsible, years ago, of the changing of my mind regarding politics.

oh..eeerr..this Lind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Lind

no wonder he wrote the "article".

[JRT]

What a ****ty article, as lightfire duly pointed.

I wonder what those modern jets the Georgians are supposed to have are... The Su-25

[PanzerMaster]

oh..eeerr..this Lind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Lind

no wonder he wrote the "article".

sometime he get a little polemic, but is fun to read someone who thinks outside the box (right or wrong).

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

It sounds like something a junkie would write.

[Piggy]

Just my advice: Do not mix culture and military. Odd ideas can appear.

[monty1]

I think there is a way - sort of middle road - small mechanized force , covered by artillery, small air force (fighters), etc. supporting a large reservist force. Basically the Finland/Sweden territorial defence concept. But this relies on conscription system, which Lat./Lit. have abandoned.
The foremost responsibility of our defence is on us, the Baltic States, and NOT in NATO. We should be thinking of such future, where there is no NATO for example. If it all falls apart, then there is not much use of having the best water-purification specialists in the world (no offence to everybody involved in this work, but meant as critisism of defence planners).

Nor do i see much point in specialisation after all. And it definately does not strenghten NATO as whole. If one country specialises on EOD or something else and if due to the internal/international politics this one country stays away from a mission like A-stan, then the whole mission is without that said capability.

I don´t know about Lithuania, but at least in Est. the missions eat away a rather big part of def.budget. It has been said that one man on mission equals a whole platoon of reservists training in homeland.

The author is obviously dumbass , by proposing a purely guerilla warfare against Rus. Our population numbers cannot support such warfare against Rus., because their methods in dealing with insurgency are bit different.

[Wonsild]

In my opinion, in case of attack from Russia, Baltic States stand absolutely no chance of defending the countries by military means, whatever way of developing armed forces they choose: long border with Russia, flat terrain, high percentage of russian nationals amongst population, small defense budgets.

It means that their biggest and most effective defense mechanism should be - DIPLOMACY.

Be friends with both west and east, get involved as a bridge between west and east, become significant player in the russian energy transit to the west, so that NATO and EU feels that it's energy supply lines come under threat in case of russian invasion and it will give NATO and EU additional kick to get involved, properly involved not just words...

And of course big part of such a plan would depend on wise foreign policy towards Russia. I fail to see any benefits for Baltic states from trying to piss Russia off by continuously criticizing it's internal and foreign policy steps. Tough position on the Georgia? Why? Be silent since you do not have military means to defend yourself. Many fights start by words..

We have all seen what has happened with Georgia - if relations between countries were good, russians would never marsh into the Poti, Gori and Senaki. It would have been really limited operation - just South Ossetia.
But there was a number of events during the last few years in which Georgia behaved rather provocative: disarming russian peacekeepers, constant antirussian rhetoric, spygames, funny bombing raids by misterious russian aircrafts - all seen by russians as constant face slapping.

In fact, Medvedev did not have much choice - the hatred towards Saakashvili government amongst russian population and armed forces after number of humiliating events (see above), was so high that if he did not order troops into Georgia, his and Putin's position inside Russia would have been at risk - people do not like weak leaders. So, same might happen to Baltic states if those do not change diplomacy style.

[monty1]

In my opinion, in case of attack from Russia, Baltic States stand absolutely no chance of defending the countries by military means, whatever way of developing armed forces they choose: long border with Russia, flat terrain, high percentage of russian nationals amongst population, small defense budgets.

Oh there is definetely way to defend yourself - make the attack too costly for attacker.

It means that their biggest and most effective defense mechanism should be - DIPLOMACY.

Be friends with both west and east, get involved as a bridge between west and east, become significant player in the russian energy transit to the west, so that NATO and EU feels that it's energy supply lines come under threat in case of russian invasion and it will give NATO and EU additional kick to get involved, properly involved not just words...

Tried it once, didn´t work out . You have to be in one camp and nobody wants to be in Russia´s camp here.

And of course big part of such a plan would depend on wise foreign policy towards Russia. I fail to see any benefits for Baltic states from trying to piss Russia off by continuously criticizing it's internal and foreign policy steps. Tough position on the Georgia? Why? Be silent since you do not have military means to defend yourself. Many fights start by words.

Our foreign policy is dictated by principles. Something small countries cannot afford. But it´s all that´s left. It´s common misconception that we haven´t even tried to smooth our differences with Rus., but it´s not true. We´ve had Rus.-friendly goverments and anti-Rus. goverments, but in Rus. policies nothing has changed. The ball has been on their side since 1993 and nothing has changed.

We have all seen what has happened with Georgia - if relations between countries were good, russians would never marsh into the Poti, Gori and Senaki. It would have been really limited operation - just South Ossetia.
But there was a number of events during the last few years in which Georgia behaved rather provocative: disarming russian peacekeepers, constant antirussian rhetoric, spygames, funny bombing raids by misterious russian aircrafts - all seen by russians as constant face slapping.

How could you call it good relationships - somebody invades only a part of your country????

In fact, Medvedev did not have much choice - the hatred towards Saakashvili government amongst russian population and armed forces after number of humiliating events (see above), was so high that if he did not order troops into Georgia, his and Putin's position inside Russia would have been at risk - people do not like weak leaders. So, same might happen to Baltic states if those do not change diplomacy style.

So what should we do? The most famous problem - passport/citizenship issue is done- there is no need for russians for citizenship any more. They can travel to Rus. and EU with their current passports and don´t need any visas from neither side. What else ? No language demands ? So we would be back in 1989 when my grandmother died because ´soviet´ medic did not speak/understood est.language and therefore was useless with her stroke ?

[Alexandr]

article is nonsense.even from russiastrogn1111 point.
"William S. Lind is director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation" o_o thats kinda pervertive abuse on words meaning in this organisation name