• If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly
    159 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jund;49665622]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. [b]good thing modern russia has absolutely no interest with fucking with the middle east these days, especially not in syria.[/b][/QUOTE] i thought it was established that everyone is fucking over the middle east? why is russias involvement any worse than anybody elses? people are being overly aggressive to russia, nato is not a defensive alliance just like surrounding your neighbors house with barbed wire isnt being defensive
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665655]i thought it was established that everyone is fucking over the middle east? why is russias involvement any worse than anybody elses?[/QUOTE] Why is the United States'? You sure made it a point to bring that up even though one country doesn't matter simply because everyone else is too [quote]people are being overly aggressive to russia, nato is not a defensive alliance just like surrounding your neighbors house with barbed wire isnt being defensive[/quote] If the house is only surrounded because all the houses around it fenced their own homes in, then yes it is an act of defense and maybe one should consider why they all feel the need to put up fences in the first place instead of diving straight for the opportunity to play devils advocate
you do realize those countries joined NATO because whenever they happened to be under russian control they suffered from bloody wars, revolutions, genocides, and repressions? i mean the baltic states were so eager to leave they ended up causing the USSR to suddenly crumble in the confusion. by contrast, being a member of nato means being independent and not having to suck russian cock everyday in the hopes they dont invade you
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665655] people are being overly aggressive to russia, nato is not a defensive alliance just like surrounding your neighbors house with barbed wire isnt being defensive[/QUOTE] Okay so NATO forced those Eastern-European countries to join then???
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665655]i thought it was established that everyone is fucking over the middle east? why is russias involvement any worse than anybody elses? people are being overly aggressive to russia, nato is not a defensive alliance just like surrounding your neighbors house with barbed wire isnt being defensive[/QUOTE] then why did you bring up that the US did like they were the only ones guilty of it? why is US involvement worse than russias? at least we didn't try to conquer ukraine too lmao we didn't surround russia's house with barbed wire, russia's neighbors surrounded their own houses with barbed wire because russia wouldn't stop shitting on their lawns in the middle of the night
Because im pointing out the hypocrisy that US does x, russia does x "omggggg russia is aggressive" i dont like the us nor russia, i dislike both and probably russia more
This has actually been known for years, it gets constantly brought up.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;49665708]Okay so NATO forced those Eastern-European countries to join then???[/QUOTE] diplomacy is aggressive invading is defensive slavaboo logic
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49664651]Could the US maybe bitch at the vast majority of the other members in NATO to actually spend at least the pledged 2% percent of their GDP to defend their own back yard instead.[/QUOTE] The Baltics are increasing their spending, and I think Estonia already has over 2%, Poland is almost at 2%, Germany will increase it's spending, France is almost at 2%, UK is over 2%, Romania is increasing it's spending. That's all I know for sure, but pretty much all the big and important nations in the EU are investing in their military. Dunno about Italy and Spain.
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665727]Because im pointing out the hypocrisy that US does x, russia does x "omggggg russia is aggressive" i dont like the us nor russia, i dislike both and probably russia more[/QUOTE] idk it's kinda hard to paint yourself as neutral when you believe that the evil nato forced the soviet-loving baltic states to join as an act of aggression against the peace loving russia who did nothing wrong and also invaded ukraine as a defensive measure
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;49664577]I'm wondering how their new tanks stand up to our current infantry anti-tank weapons.[/QUOTE] i wonder when the american users will start comparing nuclear arsenals
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49664669]Well yeah. That's what happens when you rely on people an ocean away to be your muscle when it comes to NATO so you can keep your armed forces small and not as expensive.[/QUOTE] And then people wonder why the U.S. defense budget is so high
This thread is full of Red Scare... [B][I]good[/I][/B] On a serious note - Russian Command has entire strategic department for this stuff, soo no big news, no worries, conclusions will be made by both sides. We gonna war game your game even warrer.
War games are kinda just that. Gaming out what they think would happen. When reality actually hits then plans normally go to hell. Its why there is a saying, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." See examples of documentaries on War Plan Red and the Canadian Defence Scheme No. 1. What through those war games completely off was that Britain didn't plan to try to defend Canada if the U.S. invaded at the time. (p.s., This is before WW2 and the current friendliness.) [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py4CnYOVfto[/url]
[QUOTE]The additional forces would cost an estimated $2.7 billion a year to maintain.[/QUOTE] How about we just talk it out with Russia and both agree to lower our spending..
What ever happened to MAD scenarios anyways?
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;49665967]What ever happened to MAD scenarios anyways?[/QUOTE] Only has anything to do with conflicts that involve or may be escalated to nukes People aren't just going to stop fighting forever now that everyone has them
[QUOTE=Saxon;49664814]Pretty sure if relations degraded to the point where Russia took on NATO we would all be basking in a radioactive hellstorm.[/QUOTE] Yep, there's a good reason no apex military powers have engaged each other in the last 70 years, and it's not because they want peace. They'd risk everything and lose everthing regardless of their planning or advantage, it'd be such a costly and unimaginably destructive affair that it's simply not worth it for either side. The only hostility between russia and nato is the two occasionally snatching up little bits of political territory when they think the other isn't looking too closely, and practicality dictates it's never going to be anything more than that.
[QUOTE=Jund;49665742]diplomacy is aggressive invading is defensive slavaboo logic[/QUOTE] For Russia, invading [I]is[/I] defensive. They've been strategically vulnerable throughout the entirety of their history, and aggressive expansion is their go-to way of coping with it. Some nations became empires because it was convenient for them. Russia became an empire because it was the only hope they had for survival.
[QUOTE=Kentz;49665018]Nato itself is an aggression to russia Maybe russia is increasing its spending on military because NATO literally surrounds russia?[/QUOTE] Has it ever crossed your mind WHY those countries joined NATO? Do you think that the US forced them to do so? Or maybe it was a reaction to continuous, centuries long period of Russian domination of the region? I can't believe that people buy into this "encirclement" narrative. Apparently, invading and domineering your neighbors is "defensive" and attempting to prevent this is "aggression." Attempting to make Eastern Europe anything other than Russia's playground is evil Western imperialism. I'm surprised you didn't say "pig-dog oppressors." [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Psychokitten;49666020]For Russia, invading [I]is[/I] defensive. They've been strategically vulnerable throughout the entirety of their history, and aggressive expansion is their go-to way of coping with it. Some nations became empires because it was convenient for them. Russia became an empire because it was the only hope they had for survival.[/QUOTE] Nonsense propaganda. Other than the Mongols and the Nazis, all of Russia's wars have been over their imperial possessions.
There's nothing about NATO that preserves independence nor should its 'voluntary' expansion be seen as anything but the expressed wishes of national elites. Same story we've seen for a hundred years. It seems like people necessarily have to be russophiles or apologists for western liberal-imperialism in this situation. You don't.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49666138]There's nothing about NATO that preserves independence nor should its 'voluntary' expansion be seen as anything but the expressed wishes of national elites. Same story we've seen for a hundred years. It seems like people necessarily have to be russophiles or apologists for western liberal-imperialism in this situation. You don't.[/QUOTE] The OP is an Estonian national elite?
[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. [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] That's all the more reason to strike sooner rather than later, if their intent is to strike at all, which seems unlikely. [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] Attacking a NATO country is a lot different. If the alliance isn't honored it falls apart and with it most of Eastern Europe most likely.[/QUOTE] It's a bit more complicated. The US is facing significant internal pressure to boost the defense in the area, in part from lobbying groups. This pressure is absent on a lot of it's european allies. Not to mention that that this study actually misses the point of NATO and various defense pacts. Those don't exist to be able to defend from an attack of similar magnitude, but to deter it in the first place. The Baltics might temporarily lose (72 hours is a fairly short timeframe), but even in the first 48 hours you're going to be seeing fairly large mobilisations in the various european battlegroups. You can take the Baltics, but you can't hold them. Basically the US saying it plans to spend more on defense in the area is not necessarily at the request of various parties in the area. [QUOTE=Psychokitten;49666020]For Russia, invading [I]is[/I] defensive. They've been strategically vulnerable throughout the entirety of their history, and aggressive expansion is their go-to way of coping with it. Some nations became empires because it was convenient for them. Russia became an empire because it was the only hope they had for survival.[/QUOTE] Mind you, the same argument applies to the US and to a significant degree still exists today in the incredibly large amount of US military bases around the world, including in areas that are kinda tired of it by now.
[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] Check those corners
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49666020]For Russia, invading [I]is[/I] defensive. They've been strategically vulnerable throughout the entirety of their history, and aggressive expansion is their go-to way of coping with it. Some nations became empires because it was convenient for them. Russia became an empire because it was the only hope they had for survival.[/QUOTE] spot on. their very heartland is located in the northern european plains, which is why nations like France, and Germany have been able to invade large swats of their territory incredibly fast in times of war. their eastern territories past the ural mountains act as a backup plan in case the heartland is taken. Stalin used the tactic during WW2. former soviet states may have joined NATO voluntarily, but in the eyes of Russia, by doing so it felt betrayed by NATO Russia is really keen on creating a hegemony in former soviet republics [video=youtube;HE6rSljTwdU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6rSljTwdU[/video] geopolitics everyone
I have love-hate feelings towards Russia. It could be a great ally, but Putin needs to drop the Soviet Union ideology he has. We all saw what Ukraine went through. The US isn't better- they will try to make most of the world into an international shopping district. They left their own weapons into the combat area when they pulled the troops out. Now all of that is in the hands of ISIS. The Baltic states are in the same situation as Japan was before it declared war against the US in the second world war. A huge power breathing down it's neck with no chance of any help before the land is annexed. I could agree with the apologists that Russia doesn't want the Baltic states, but we have a great coastline directly to the European Union. If a war broke out, the Baltic states would be the first to go. I even had a dream in the rise of the Crimerian conflict where I was having a smoke on my balcony, some russian soldiers happened to walk past and thought it would be funny to shoot at me. It was a dream, don't make it a real situation in my life. Please. I want my following generations to live in a time of peace, share the same childhood that I had. But when politicians only have their own selfish needs, never having worked on construction or in a mechanics shop, they will never understand what the people must feel.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49666077]Nonsense propaganda. Other than the Mongols and the Nazis, all of Russia's wars have been over their imperial possessions.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I too think that we should forget that Grand Duchy of Lithuania ever existed. It also never was the largest Empire in Europe, and never claimed any Russian lands. Also Poland and Sweden were peaceful totally-non-aggressive-non-empires in their time. Just Mongols and Nazis.
This is pointless clickbait. Just because the baltic states might crumple, the other various NATO states that actually give a shit (See: Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Croatia, etc.) about their militaries would give the Russians a hard bargain. Not to mention it'd be beyond mega-retarded for Russia to even do that, her economy would disappear and she'd waste possibly millions of lives in the process. I do not fear Russia in a sense that she has no reason to expand into NATO territory anymore. I fear her in a sense that she will turn assets and countries once friendly to the west against it.
[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] This post is short of a crying eagle. [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=gman003-main;49664780] Hell, going back further: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War[/url][/QUOTE] That is a really stupid example, considering that Russia was the defender, not the aggressor.
[QUOTE=gudman;49666373]Yeah, I too think that we should forget that Grand Duchy of Lithuania ever existed. It also never was the largest Empire in Europe, and never claimed any Russian lands. Also Poland and Sweden were peaceful totally-non-aggressive-non-empires in their time. Just Mongols and Nazis.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: a Polish colonial state made up entirely of Ukrainians, Belorussians, Balts, and Estonians. Which was the land fought over by Russians, Poles, and Swedes for centuries. I never said that all of Russia's wars were of its own making and because of its own expansion. But there have only been two real instances where lands of ethnic Russians were targeted for conquest. The rest of the time was spent fighting over the Balts and lesser Slavs. And they should really just be the property of Russia just like the good ole' days amirite? Anything else is "encirclement." The West is just denying Russia it's destiny as the owner and sole proprietor of Eastern Europe. Might want to check [url=http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/12/21/the-myth-of-russias-containment/]this article[/url] out. It does a pretty good job of putting this encirclement myth in perspective.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.