• If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly
    159 replies, posted
I honestly doubt Russia really wants to have the Baltic states, though I understand the fear.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;49665022]I honestly doubt Russia really wants to have the Baltic states, though I understand the fear.[/QUOTE] Russia treats the baltic states almost like they're temporarily not under russian control.
[QUOTE=Saxon;49664977]I'm merely just saying that hypothetical scenarios like this are silly because no one is going to risk a confrontation with a nuclear power, but sure man whatever.[/QUOTE] nukes would never be used unless it's an unwinnable defense of the homeland otherwise do you think NATO and Russia would start flinging nukes and destroy the entire world because of a few Baltic states?
War games are so stupid.
[QUOTE=Flameon;49665096]War games are so stupid.[/QUOTE] Any particular reason why?
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665001]what russia has done is a drop in the water compared to the US[/QUOTE] idk about that, bud. pretty sure America never purged its own population. Unless you count the native Americans but what country hasn't fucked over the indigenous population
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49665132]In all reality I don't think an [B]actual[/B] war would result from a few baltic states being invaded. It'd probably go a little something like this: Russia invades, NATO gets pissed, the European members of NATO realize their military truly isn't up to snuff to deal with it, the US has a massively hard time justifying the conflict to it's already war weary populous-and thus sends very little if any more forces. The whole conflict devolves into another crimea, where Russia just claims that they don't know what's going on, and everyone else just kinda ignores the elephant in the room.[/QUOTE] pretty much. western military action these days are directly tied to popular support and it'll take quite a few concessions before they decide to do anything about russia. if someone attacks an ally, neighbor, or the country itself support goes up and then the military can be used more freely (U.S., France). when the support dies down the military is forced to pull back even if it's strategically stupid to do so. however countries like russia can just do aggressive shit all the time and the poll numbers keep climbing. it's really a balancing act between representing the public's interests, who are largely misinformed about war in general, and the interests of military leaders. russia doesn't have that problem. it's not an inherently bad system despite that though, since military checks are a "western" ideal.
[QUOTE]To deter Moscow, the U.S. will need to deploy heavy armor on a large scale...[/QUOTE] And that is the problem. Nobody in NATO besides the US meets their readiness obligations. They expect the US to do all the heavy lifting, and then laugh at us when we can't afford domestic social programs because we spent all our money being there military for them.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49664625]And then the US Navy arrives in the Baltic Sea and their advance is met with a barrage of cruise missiles followed by the air power of basically every carrier within range. This is then followed by the B-2 bombers arriving and carpet bombing their positions. Not to mention what happens when the drones arrive. You have tanks? Adorable. We have unmanned aircraft with Hellfires. They are cheap and we have shit tons. Sure you can advance under AA coverage, but that means running your defense radar and attracting HARM missiles. Russia doesn't have the air power to do this. We own the skies. The report only covers the short term results. We know they can advance quickly. They know that doing so would be suicide after 72 hours. SO THEY WONT DO IT. No sense wasting the funding to deploy armored brigades.[/QUOTE] You don't think they factored this in?
[QUOTE=Flameon;49665096]War games are so stupid.[/QUOTE] No, not really, it allows for the detection of problems like these so that they can be fixed. [quote]However, the war games also illustrated there are preemptive steps the United States and its European allies could take to avoid a catastrophic defeat and shore up NATO’s eastern defenses, while making clear to Moscow that there would no easy victory. A force of about seven brigades in the area, including three heavy armored brigades, and backed up by airpower and artillery, would be enough “to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states,” it said. The additional forces would cost an estimated $2.7 billion a year to maintain.[/quote] Like so.
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665018]Nato itself is an aggression to russia Maybe russia is increasing its spending on military because NATO literally surrounds russia?[/QUOTE] whens the last time nato annexed another country's territory lmao
[QUOTE=GunFox;49664625]And then the US Navy arrives in the Baltic Sea and their advance is met with a barrage of cruise missiles followed by the air power of basically every carrier within range. This is then followed by the B-2 bombers arriving and carpet bombing their positions. Not to mention what happens when the drones arrive. You have tanks? Adorable. We have unmanned aircraft with Hellfires. They are cheap and we have shit tons. Sure you can advance under AA coverage, but that means running your defense radar and attracting HARM missiles. Russia doesn't have the air power to do this. We own the skies. The report only covers the short term results. We know they can advance quickly. They know that doing so would be suicide after 72 hours. SO THEY WONT DO IT. No sense wasting the funding to deploy armored brigades.[/QUOTE] I love arm chair generals. It says right there in the article there getting an airbase created, AKA the pilots that could easily b take down drones. And then there is the Russian Baltic Fleet.
[QUOTE=Jund;49665210]whens the last time nato annexed territory lmao[/QUOTE] not necessarily annexed, but they have expanded into former soviet states, and that is understandably making russia (who is trying to reassert itself) weary.
[QUOTE=Saphirx;49665230]not necessarily annexed, but they have expanded into former soviet states, and that is understandably making russia (who is trying to reassert itself) weary.[/QUOTE] through diplomatic channels as a defense measure against russia's past and possible future abuses unless russia plans on joining nato they're not going to lose territory to it (i mean actual territory, not what russia think is its territory)
[QUOTE=Saphirx;49665230]not necessarily annexed, but they have expanded into former soviet states, and that is understandably making russia (who is trying to reassert itself) weary.[/QUOTE] Yeah but those states wanted to join NATO
NATO is turning into a shitty dota 2 game where you keep losing because your opponent is like a group of level 15 guys with instant respawns while you and the rest of your NAToes are level 3s and this guy Captain Freedom is level 25 but can't tank the damage from the opposing team like jesus christ, this nato shit won't work if we only have america doing all the shit
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;49664584][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNAK21fcVzU[/media][/QUOTE] I don't think you're aware of Russia's nuclear capabilities, not only that but they have something called the 'dead hand' system which launches all nukes Russia owns in all directions.
[QUOTE=Saphirx;49665230]not necessarily annexed, but they have expanded into former soviet states, and that is understandably making russia (who is trying to reassert itself) weary.[/QUOTE] No, I fucking hate this mentality that "NATO expanded into Eastern Europe", it was WE who desperately wanted to get into NATO, and we kept on getting rejected, when we were thrown out we climbed back in through the window and kept on pleading that NATO accept our membership.
[QUOTE=Turing;49665307]No, I fucking hate this mentality that "NATO expanded into Eastern Europe", it was WE who desperately wanted to get into NATO, and we kept on getting rejected, when we were thrown out we climbed back in through the window and kept on pleading that NATO accept our membership.[/QUOTE] Exactly, NATO isn't some bogeyman that makes Eastern/Central-European countries join, they WANT to join People say the same shit about the EU for some reason, and the EU doesn't even have anything to do with militaries. And again, countries WANT to join the EU. Why the fuck does Russia care that NATO or the EU has countries on it's 'doorstep', this isn't the Cold War anymore. Russia just doesn't like that it's losing it's influence on it's neighbours.
Would probably atleast want a NATO base in my eastern bloc country after seeing how Russia cut up Ukraine
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49664934]The point is most European NATO countries--including wealthy countries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Netherlands don't even meet the 2% of GPD pledge--yet the expectation is for the US to spend even more money to protect the Baltic countries instead of those countries stepping up. [/QUOTE] I realize that in typical american fashion, the solution for a problem is to throw money at it, but the pledge is utterly meaningless. Firstly, it was introduced in 2006, so we're not talking about a pillar of NATO strategic master plan. Secondly, as many countries pointed out after it was introduced, it's not about how much money, but rather how you spend it, and who spends it. So a France, an Italy, a Spain (not really seeing how the Netherlands, which are barely bigger than Estonia, have any relevancy in this), a Germany spending from 1.2% to 1.8% of their GDP [B]right[/B] is going to achieve much more than simply pumping money into the defense budget with no ratio or logic behind it. Not to mention that R&D costs are heavily diluted among the Big 4 considering how many joint projects there are right now. It's not like every country meeting their holy quota will stop Russia from steamrolling in the Baltics if they want to. They will reach Tallin in a day no matter how much you spend on your defense budget. What is even more puzzling is that you actually think that european countries would actually station brigades there... pretty much indefinitely? I distintly remember the Baltics and Poland bitching constantly about Greece and being among the hardliners on how the Greeks were untrustworthy profligates, refusing to participate in the migrant quota project on a principle (!), but suddenly since Greece is meeting the holy quota, they should send soldiers and materiel, paid by their taxpayers, to countries that have been actively tried to sabotage them politically and institutionally. Italy, you're letting all the migrants through and we've been sabotaging your attempts at negotiating for Greece and for less austerity, but now we need your soldiers and your aircraft carriers. France, we need your Rafale and your nukes, but you can keep the migrants. So basically some countries get shafted (France) some countries gets especially shafted (Italy and Greece having to basically pay the immigrant entry fee for the entirety of Europe), while others get the free protection while simultaneously using their political capital to shit on the countries that are supposed to defend them.
War is costly, cooperation is profitable.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;49665364'] (not really seeing how the Netherlands, which are barely bigger than Estonia, have any relevancy in this)[/QUOTE] The Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade and the Commando's are a big part of NATO's Rapid Reaction Force afaik [QUOTE]Since 1 January 2015, the Netherlands, together with Germany and Norway, is providing the striking power to NATO’s interim Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF). This so-called spearhead is the new rapidly deployable part of the NATO Response Force. The VJTF allows NATO to respond to threats rapidly, decisively and with flexibility.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49665164]idk about that, bud. pretty sure America never purged its own population. Unless you count the native Americans but what country hasn't fucked over the indigenous population[/QUOTE] that was the soviet union... not modern russia i dont really see the point of this message
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;49665364']I realize that in typical american fashion, the solution for a problem is to throw money at it, but the pledge is utterly meaningless. Firstly, it was introduced in 2006, so we're not talking about a pillar of NATO strategic master plan. Secondly, as many countries pointed out after it was introduced, it's not about how much money, but rather how you spend it, and who spends it. So a France, an Italy, a Spain (not really seeing how the Netherlands, which are barely bigger than Estonia, have any relevancy in this), a Germany spending from 1.2% to 1.8% of their GDP [B]right[/B] is going to achieve much more than simply pumping money into the defense budget with no ratio or logic behind it. Not to mention that R&D costs are heavily diluted among the Big 4 considering how many joint projects there are right now. It's not like every country meeting their holy quota will stop Russia from steamrolling in the Baltics if they want to. They will reach Tallin in a day no matter how much you spend on your defense budget. What is even more puzzling is that you actually think that european countries would actually station brigades there... pretty much indefinitely? I distintly remember the Baltics and Poland bitching constantly about Greece and being among the hardliners on how the Greeks were untrustworthy profligates, refusing to participate in the migrant quota project on a principle (!), but suddenly since Greece is meeting the holy quota, they should send soldiers and materiel, paid by their taxpayers, to countries that have been actively tried to sabotage them politically and institutionally. Italy, you're letting all the migrants through and we've been sabotaging your attempts at negotiating for Greece and for less austerity, but now we need your soldiers and your aircraft carriers. France, we need your Rafale and your nukes, but you can keep the migrants. So basically some countries get shafted (France) some countries gets especially shafted (Italy and Greece having to basically pay the immigrant entry fee for the entirety of Europe), while others get the free protection while simultaneously using their political capital to shit on the countries that are supposed to defend them.[/QUOTE] Germany for a long time has been having equipment shortages, recruits are using fucking broomsticks to replace machine guns. It's expensive to deploy troops, even across borders, that's fuel, food, water as well as a host of other costs. Euro nations avoid those costs by using the US network of military transportation. France would've never gotten into Mali had it not been for American transports. Face it, wasting money is one thing, not spending anything at way worse.
[QUOTE=Turing;49665307]No, I fucking hate this mentality that "NATO expanded into Eastern Europe", it was WE who desperately wanted to get into NATO, and we kept on getting rejected, when we were thrown out we climbed back in through the window and kept on pleading that NATO accept our membership.[/QUOTE] the result is the same for russia, nato functions primarily as an anti russian coalition which is basically forcing russia into a corner, russia has rights to protect its sovreignty which like it or not means increased military spendings and geopolitical goals differing that of the united states and nato so yeah russia invaded crimea and is acting aggressive and dont like that either but usa has been fucking over the middle east for a very long time with huge deathtolls
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665401]that was the soviet union... not modern russia i dont really see the point of this message[/QUOTE] don't see the point of [I]your[/I] message when post-soviet russia has managed to be more aggressive than the entirety of nato despite forming over 40 years later [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kentz;49665450]the result is the same for russia, nato functions primarily as an anti russian coalition which is basically forcing russia into a corner, russia has rights to protect its sovreignty which like it or not means increased military spendings and geopolitical goals differing that of the united states and nato[/QUOTE] holy shit how do you even manage to be this delusional [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;49665364']I realize that in typical american fashion, the solution for a problem is to throw money at it, but the pledge is utterly meaningless. Firstly, it was introduced in 2006, so we're not talking about a pillar of NATO strategic master plan. Secondly, as many countries pointed out after it was introduced, it's not about how much money, but rather how you spend it, and who spends it. So a France, an Italy, a Spain (not really seeing how the Netherlands, which are barely bigger than Estonia, have any relevancy in this), a Germany spending from 1.2% to 1.8% of their GDP [B]right[/B] is going to achieve much more than simply pumping money into the defense budget with no ratio or logic behind it.[/QUOTE] how is their money being used right when they lack manpower, equipment, and experience
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665450]the result is the same for russia, nato functions primarily as an anti russian coalition which is basically forcing russia into a corner, russia has rights to protect its sovreignty which like it or not means increased military spendings and geopolitical goals differing that of the united states and nato so yeah russia invaded crimea and is acting aggressive and dont like that either but usa has been fucking over the middle east for a very long time with huge deathtolls[/QUOTE] Okay firstly, I caught the ghost edit. Secondly, where the fuck to begin; first I agree that NATO serves as an Anti-Russian force, just as Russia serves as an anti-Western force. Its been like that since the Cold War. NATO isn't evil, its morally grey, yes, but not fucking villians. Further, about the whole Middle East thing; everyone's been fucking with it and you can directly trace the shit mess back to colonization by the Brits and French. But no of course, its the US' fault for everything. We did fuck up in Iran, that's for sure but that was due to Britain using faked communications from the Prime Minister of Iran at the time to fool the US into thinking they were sympathetic to Communism. Britain wanted to maintain their oilfields there. Britain used international power to fuck over Iran. [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] Further, us fucking with the Middle East in no way compares to the absolute godfuck that was living in the Eastern Bloc.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49664625]And then the US Navy arrives in the Baltic Sea and their advance is met with a barrage of cruise missiles followed by the air power of basically every carrier within range. This is then followed by the B-2 bombers arriving and carpet bombing their positions. Not to mention what happens when the drones arrive. You have tanks? Adorable. We have unmanned aircraft with Hellfires. They are cheap and we have shit tons. Sure you can advance under AA coverage, but that means running your defense radar and attracting HARM missiles. Russia doesn't have the air power to do this. We own the skies. The report only covers the short term results. We know they can advance quickly. They know that doing so would be suicide after 72 hours. SO THEY WONT DO IT. No sense wasting the funding to deploy armored brigades.[/QUOTE] "What makes the US Military so great" "That we can move efficiently massive amounts of equipment around the world in a short time"
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665450] so yeah russia invaded crimea and is acting aggressive and dont like that either but usa has been fucking over the middle east for a very long time with huge deathtolls[/QUOTE] you're right, the ussr never ever fucked with the middle east/afghan region, especially not during the iran-iraq war and their invasion of afghanistan. oh wait, i forgot that they lost a few states and call themselves russia now, so they're totally absolved of everything they did before. can we call ourselves america 2 so everyone can forget about the shit we did before? thanks. good thing modern russia has absolutely no interest with fucking with the middle east these days, especially not in syria.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.