OT? A New Cold War

[Webstral]

I agree that there are things Russia could do in a hurry. The question would be what it would take to stay there. If Putin could pull off a major diplomatic coup in the wake of an invasion of one or more Baltic Republics, he might be able to get the US to agree to let him keep what he took. This doesn't seem likely, though. The chicken hawks in the US are looking for an excuse to dust off the good stuff that seldom got used in OIF or OEF. Escalation would be virtually unavoidable, given the tiny nature of the Baltic Republics versus the operational range of the aircraft that would be involved. The logic of counter-air pretty quickly would involve combat in the airspace of nations around the Baltics, followed by attacks on air bases, SAM, and ground-based radar in neighboring countries. While one might argue that escalation might be managed by a sort of firewall between aircraft penetrating non-Baltic airspace in prosecution of operations focused on the Baltics and ground forces crossing land borders, the inevitable efforts of USAF SO rescuing pilots would blur the line between rescue and commando operations, which would blur the line further regarding heliborne raids, which might finally lead to cross-border actions by ground forces. Though I'm not Putin, I have a hard time imagining what he thinks he could get out of occupying one or more Baltic Republics compared to the firestorm that could erupt in response.

[stormlion1]

One thing to remember about Russia in comparison to the west is they are still producing new Aircraft, Tanks, Helicopters, etc while most NATO nations have stopped producing quite some time ago. Most of that gear is for the export market but it all can be seized before it leaves the country for domestic use. Stalin once said Quantity has a quality all on its own. The Current leadership in Russia I think is taking that lesson to heart. In a non-nuclear war they can flood a battlefield while every piece of NATO gear will be priceless in comparison. Its only the lack of clear allies that stops the Russians from really getting ambitious.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree that there are things Russia could do in a hurry. The question would be what it would take to stay there. If Putin could pull off a major diplomatic coup in the wake of an invasion of one or more Baltic Republics, he might be able to get the US to agree to let him keep what he took. This doesn't seem likely, though. The chicken hawks in the US are looking for an excuse to dust off the good stuff that seldom got used in OIF or OEF. Escalation would be virtually unavoidable, given the tiny nature of the Baltic Republics versus the operational range of the aircraft that would be involved. The logic of counter-air pretty quickly would involve combat in the airspace of nations around the Baltics, followed by attacks on air bases, SAM, and ground-based radar in neighboring countries. While one might argue that escalation might be managed by a sort of firewall between aircraft penetrating non-Baltic airspace in prosecution of operations focused on the Baltics and ground forces crossing land borders, the inevitable efforts of USAF SO rescuing pilots would blur the line between rescue and commando operations, which would blur the line further regarding heliborne raids, which might finally lead to cross-border actions by ground forces. Though I'm not Putin, I have a hard time imagining what he thinks he could get out of occupying one or more Baltic Republics compared to the firestorm that could erupt in response.

Right. But that's where the West's response so far, which in some ways echoes the Appeasement policy of the Great Britain and France leading up to WWII, might be informing Putin's decision-making. So far, he's annexed Crimea and destabilized large chunks of Ukraine without receiving anything harsher than stern warnings and economic sanctions, both of which Putin has pretty much ignored. So far, sanctions have not proven to be an effective deterent. Is he really worried about a NATO military response? Probably, but if his plans in the Ukraine pan out in the not-so-distant future, he may decide that NATO is a paper tiger, all bark and no bight (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

Hilter said something to the effect that if the French military had responded to his reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936, he wouldn't have been able to hold it. France's innaction encouraged Hitler to take control of Austria and invade parts of Czechoslovakia and, ultimately Poland. Just four years after he could have been stopped by France, he demolished it.

I have a scenario which I'm almost ready to share here that I think makes a compelling case that Russia could take and hold at least one of the Baltic States (probably Estonia), even with a conventional military response from NATO.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

One thing to remember about Russia in comparison to the west is they are still producing new Aircraft, Tanks, Helicopters, etc while most NATO nations have stopped producing quite some time ago. Most of that gear is for the export market but it all can be seized before it leaves the country for domestic use. Stalin once said Quantity has a quality all on its own. The Current leadership in Russia I think is taking that lesson to heart. In a non-nuclear war they can flood a battlefield while every piece of NATO gear will be priceless in comparison. Its only the lack of clear allies that stops the Russians from really getting ambitious.

I totally agree, Stormlion. I've been arguing the numbers game for years. Yeah, an M1A2 is, overall, a better tank than a T-72MB, but if the Russians can field 5-6 T-72MBs for every one M1A1, a rough parity can be achieved. And some of the latest T-90 upgrades are narrowing the qualitative gap.

If NATO shows any cracks, it might serve, in Putin's mind, to mitigate his lack of strong allies. Regardless, he's working to build economic and military alliances with sympathetic or easily bullied nations (see the recent "anti-terrorist" join maneuvers with Serbia and the [economic] Eurasian Union).
-

[Raellus]

I'll wager that NATO will hold a qualitative edge in aerial combat over Russia for the foreseeable future but this article makes me a little less confident.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ame...s-7e974b11d217

The F-16 is still my favorite jet fighter bomber, has been ever since I first set eyes on one. I used to spend hours on my old black-and-white Macintosh trying to earn ribbons in a Falcon sim game. This news has me feeling a little sad.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I have a scenario which I'm almost ready to share here that I think makes a compelling case that Russia could take and hold at least one of the Baltic States (probably Estonia), even with a conventional military response from NATO.

Unless a US Navy carrier battle group was sailing around the Gulf of Riga and a fully mobilised NATO corps and air group was positioned in Poland the Baltics wouldn't have a hope in resisting a Russian invasion. They have a no air force other than some light transport planes, 13 Mi-8/17 helicopters and some civil aircraft. Their navy has 4 patrol vessels and 15 minesweepers, and they have an army of 14,000 troops with 3 T-55 tanks, 266 APC and 142 towed artillery pieces and 50,000 reserves and para-military.

Originally Posted by Raellus

If NATO shows any cracks, it might serve, in Putin's mind, to mitigate his lack of strong allies. Regardless, he's working to build economic and military alliances with sympathetic or easily bullied nations (see the recent "anti-terrorist" join maneuvers with Serbia and the [economic] Eurasian Union).

Since Russia annexed the Crimea a good way to rub Putin's nose in it might be for Germany and NATO to threaten to annex the Kaliningad enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. It used to be part of German East Prussia until 1945, although it would also make the Poles very nervous!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Since Russia annexed the Crimea a good way to rub Putin's nose in it might be for Germany and NATO to threaten to annex the Kaliningad enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. It used to be part of German East Prussia until 1945, although it would also make the Poles very nervous!

If that happened my joy would know no bounds. Perfect scenario: NATO annexes the Kaliningad enclave, Putin goes on a Siberian wilderness trip in an effort to make himself feel better and look macho to his people and gets mauled by a bear, subsequently dying slowly and in pain and dimly aware that he has become incontinent.

[RN7]

Yes the more I think about Kaliningrad the more I like it. The Germans were there since the Teutonic Knights Christianised the local pagans in the 13th Century, and maybe before if we include the Goths etc. Longer than the Russians were in the Crimea I think. Yes cancel the Potsdam Agreement and march into Kaliningrad and rename it Konigsberg and see what Putin does.

I don't think it would be that hard. The Russians just have 11,000 troops and marines in the enclave with over 800 tanks, but the naval base, the battery of SS-21's and the squadrons of Su-27's and Su-24s and S-300 SAM's could be knocked out quickly.

[stormlion1]

A NATO seizure of the Kaliningad enclave would be almost a god send for Putin. He would happily go in front of the World and the UN and the rest and declare he is not the aggressor as what's happening in the Ukraine is separatist and the Russians haven't actually invaded anywhere but NATO has seized ground. And in a way he would be right.

[RN7]

Screw what Putin thinks

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Screw what Putin thinks

+1

RN7 for PM

[Webstral]

There's a certain parallel between events in Eastern Europe and the events leading up to Hitler's invasion of Poland. However, the parallel breaks down a bit once one compares a German invasion of Poland with a Russian invasion of, say, Estonia. While Great Britain and France guaranteed Poland's security, the means to do so was not in place. It was genuine bluff. The Brits and French had no means to intervene in Poland. They would have had to invade Germany. The leadership in these countries had no stomach for a fight. Conservative Americans, on the other hand, would love to be let off the leash. Since Estonia is now a NATO member, an attack on Estonia would be an attack on every member of the alliance. It wouldn't be a question just of Russian tanks versus American tanks but of Russian tanks versus American, British, German, Dutch, Belgian, and possibly even French tanks. (Mon Dieu!) There wouldn't have to be a debate. Treaty obligations would simply kick in.

Now if the question becomes whether or not the various members of NATO would balk at honoring their treaty commitments... There's a horse of a different color. I honestly have no idea how that one would play out without an hypothesis that was two parts prejudice and three parts guesswork. I suspect there would be some pacifist sentiment in every NATO country, along with some hawkish sentiment. The balance would vary from country to country. Without having a compelling reason to think otherwise, though, I have to believe that member nations of NATO would honor their commitment under the Treaty or suffer real blowback from the other members. The United States would have to honor the terms of NATO or lose all credibility in every alliance. Once the US was on board, the UK would follow suit if not march in time with the US. After that, every other member would have to consult their consciences and self interest, bearing in mind that a spiteful Washington might consider all existing arrangements of every sort with NATO members refusing to honor their obligations up for renegotiation. If Germany and France both decided to sit out, then others might follow. If either pitched in, the other would feel obliged to follow suit.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

There's a certain parallel between events in Eastern Europe and the events leading up to Hitler's invasion of Poland. However, the parallel breaks down a bit once one compares a German invasion of Poland with a Russian invasion of, say, Estonia. While Great Britain and France guaranteed Poland's security, the means to do so was not in place. It was genuine bluff. The Brits and French had no means to intervene in Poland. They would have had to invade Germany. The leadership in these countries had no stomach for a fight. Conservative Americans, on the other hand, would love to be let off the leash. Since Estonia is now a NATO member, an attack on Estonia would be an attack on every member of the alliance. It wouldn't be a question just of Russian tanks versus American tanks but of Russian tanks versus American, British, German, Dutch, Belgian, and possibly even French tanks. (Mon Dieu!) There wouldn't have to be a debate. Treaty obligations would simply kick in.

Right, but here's the thing, NATO hasn't adequately prepared to defend the Baltics. Setting aside whether NATO would react en toto and in force, they're not really well prepared to do logistically and organizationally. There've only been a handful of joint manouvers, usually involving nothing larger than a brigade two, and there are no significant NATO units permanently based there. We're not talking Cold War West Germany any more. Estonia doesn't have any MBTs or combat aircraft of its own. Without a significant NATO presence there- boots on the ground- the Baltic states are extremely vulnerable. Russia could grab Estonia, for example, before NATO could get sufficient ground forces- we're talking heavy brigades which need significant lift resources to move long distances en masse- to stymie and/or dislodge Russian ground forces. Russian aircraft and submarines could interdict NATO sealifts by laying mines in the Gulf of Riga. This would likely begin before the shooting even started. Ground MSRs could be interdicted by sabotage or other means. Russia could warn Lithuania and Latvia that if they allow transit of NATO formations, that they will be next.

So, in the case of a Russian invasion of Estonia, NATO would be heavily dependent on air power to stop/eject the aggressor. NATO has more advanced combat aircraft than Russia, but the qualitative gap is starting to shrink. Russia has an impressive array of anti-aircraft weaponry. Last generation Russian SAMs have shot down American stealth aircraft before- it's not unthinkable that it could happen again with current generation hardware. To think that B-2s and F-22s are invulnerable is a mistake. The circumstances are not clear, but several Raptors have been "shot down" during excercises, in one case by a Qatari Mirage 2000. And we all know that aircraft can not take and hold territory.

Originally Posted by Webstral

Now if the question becomes whether or not the various members of NATO would balk at honoring their treaty commitments... There's a horse of a different color. I honestly have no idea how that one would play out without an hypothesis that was two parts prejudice and three parts guesswork. I suspect there would be some pacifist sentiment in every NATO country, along with some hawkish sentiment. The balance would vary from country to country. Without having a compelling reason to think otherwise, though, I have to believe that member nations of NATO would honor their commitment under the Treaty or suffer real blowback from the other members. The United States would have to honor the terms of NATO or lose all credibility in every alliance. Once the US was on board, the UK would follow suit if not march in time with the US. After that, every other member would have to consult their consciences and self interest, bearing in mind that a spiteful Washington might consider all existing arrangements of every sort with NATO members refusing to honor their obligations up for renegotiation. If Germany and France both decided to sit out, then others might follow. If either pitched in, the other would feel obliged to follow suit.

Look at the lukewarm public support in Europe for stronger economic sanctions. Condemnation, even, hasn't been universal. Current NATO member Hungary, for example, has shown sympathy- support, even- for Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine. Only three or four NATO member nations meet the defense spending requirements called for in the treaty. I hope that I am wrong, but I don't think that NATO unity is a given. Will all NATO member nations willingly contribute their military forces to defend the Baltic States? Once again, I really hope so. Given the uneven, lukewarm response to Russia's aggression and violations of international law over the past two years, I'm not so sure.

I think that we need to accept that the NATO of 2014 is not the same as the NATO of 1987. Yes, it's larger and more inclusive, but is it as well organized, coordinated, and prepared militarily to fight a conventional war in Europe? I don't think so.

[Webstral]

I agree that defending Estonia is out of the question. At issue is liberating Estonia.

NATO certainly is a different creature than it was in 1987. The logistical challenges are very different. The forces available to NATO are very different.

The first question would be whether or not a Russian invasion of Estonia would prompt a declaration of war by the United States or result in military action that amounts to the same thing. If the US decides to sit on her hands, Estonia belongs to the Russians. If the US goes to war over Estonia, the game is on. I can't imagine that the United States would fail to take military action to defend a member of NATO. There is too much at stake world wide for the US to let someone--anyone--invade and occupy a member of NATO. How the other members of the alliance react to that will vary from country based to some degree on what the US and Russia choose to do.

Liberating Estonia would take ground forces. How many and of what composition would be up to SACEUR. He would have to balance a number of factors, not all of them military.

Hm. Duty calls. Will get back to this interesting discussion later.