Russia Could Crush NATO in the Baltic says Report

Discussion in 'Europe' started by Osmanovic, Feb 3, 2016.

Share This Page

  1. Osmanovic

    Osmanovic 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    336
    Location:
    United-States
  2. Technofox

    Technofox That Norwegian girl Staff Member Ret. Military Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    3,197
    Occupation:
    Professional "Doer" of "Things"
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Being a geek
    Russia does have some nasty gear in Kaliningrad alone. These include S-400 - with a maximum range of 250km:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And Iskander - with a range of +300km. It can be nuclear armed:

    [​IMG]

    Reports of SU-27s are constant, and it's expected that electronic warfare gear in in theater too as well as heavy artillery, in support of nearly 12,000 Russian troops that are stationed in Kaliningrad.

    It's toast in a hot war though. A pocket of resistance, but one that can't be resupplied without NATO hounding the supply craft. Well within range of artillery from Poland:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    NATO air and sea assets outside of the Baltic waters and airspace using long-range missiles like JASSM, for which Finland (Non-NATO) and Poland are a customer, can easily cripple any semblance of a military presence in Kaliningrad while A2/AD type weapons can effect a blockade. The would include NATO air, land, ship and sub-surface based missile to enforce a sea exclusion zone:

    [​IMG]

    Coastal submarines would further enforce this blockade, including German Type 212s and Norwegian Ula class SSCs:

    [​IMG]

    Forget about a resupply from the air with NATO air assets hounding supply aircraft.

    Kaliningrad is toast in a hot war. Russia simply can't hold it.

    Further complicating matters for Russia is Turkey, who would draw away Russian forces with its own very, very strong military. By maintaining a closure of the Bosporus Russia would loose an avenue to attack NATO members in the Mediterranean while opening itself to an unmolested attack from long-ranged cruise missiles and NATO air assets operating with near impunity over Southern Europe:

    [​IMG]

    Meanwhile the Nordics can effect a conflict in both the Arctic and Baltics. This further draws a combined Russian force out and prevents them from concentrating their full firepower on a singe task or objective.

    And if there's war in Europe against Russia, there could be war in the East too with the US Eleventh Air Force in Alaska and 7th Fleet in East Asia going to work against the Russian Far East:

    [​IMG]

    They'd be stretched thin too quickly to outlast NATO.

    But there'd be some territorial changes. I don't expect Russia retain Kaliningrad, though parts of Finland, Estonia or other bordering nations may fall to Russia. They'd stand to loose more then they gain in terms of lives, finances and politics.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2016
    Vergennes, xenon54, Falcon and 3 others like this.
  3. Pathfinder

    Pathfinder Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,419
    Likes Received:
    2,459
    Location:
    United-States
    Kaliningrad is heavily fortified and imo would be used to hold off a NATO counter attack against Russia in the Baltic's. The Russians have a lot of assets close to the Frontline with NATO whereas NATO does not. Most of our forces are far away, either in Britain, France, the U.S. or in Turkey so countering a Russian attack would be difficult and dislodging them from the Baltic's would be very difficult.

    Soviet Airbases:

    2000px-Naval_Bases_of_the_Soviet_union.png

    Tried to find a map of NATO Airbases but its clear that most of them are farther away from the potential conflict zone than the Russian bases:

    NATO Nuke Bases:

    nato.gif

    EUROCOM Bases:
    SReuropeanbasingmap1750px.jpg

    The Baltic states don't really have a chance in blocking a Russian attack, Poland however has a good Army and can fight off a Russian attack with NATO Air Support until the rest of NATO shows up. Thats another thing will all of the NATO countries show up? Would a Greek, Italian, or Spaniard want to sacrifice his or her soldiers for a few smaller countries that they have no cultural connection with?

    I think Turkey would be fundamental player in this conflict, they could really pull Russian forces away from the Western Front. They along with Azerbaijan would dominate the Caucasus. There would even be a risk of Russia loosing its Muslim regions in the North Caucasus. The Russians face an issue here, would CIS states like Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan send forces to fight their Turkish-Islamic kinsmen? Can Russia rely on its friends like China and Iran to back it up? Or would China and Iran see Russia's crisis as an opportunity? China would love to replace Russia as the main power in Central Asia and Iran would love to expand into Central Asia and the Middle East.

    But the biggest question of them all is what would Switzerland do? :D
     
    Falcon, Osmanovic and AMDR like this.
  4. Osmanovic

    Osmanovic 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    336
    Location:
    United-States
    Its is important for NATO states bordering Russia to invest in the creation of military forces that can resist a Russian invasion via unconventional means. Countries like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia can never resist a Russian attack with conventional forces, the only way is go Guerrilla. Baltic militaries need to stock up on Stingers, Anti Tank Missiles, mines, and smaller armored vehicles. They need to have a strong and well trained citizenry similar to what the Swiss posses. @xenon54 can expand on this.

    NATO used to have a "stay behind" force that was meant to offer resistance in case of a Soviet occupation of NATO lands, it was dubbed Operation Gladio.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    In a stay-behind operation, a country places secret operatives or organisations in its own territory, for use in the event that an enemy occupies that territory. If this occurs, the operatives would then form the basis of a resistance movement or act as spies from behind enemy lines. Small-scale operations may cover discrete areas, but larger stay-behind operations envisage reacting to the conquest of entire countries.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay-behind
     
    xenon54 and Falcon like this.
  5. Falcon

    Falcon Major Staff Member Social Media Team

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2015
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    1,479
    Location:
    United-States
    The article makes a good point by saying that the costs of boosting the baltic defenses are actually not very much considering the end result. The scenarios laid out in the report are not completely crazy, what they thought about could actually happen. We need to bolster our airborne forces with armored vehicles, provide better air defense capabilities to our armored units via mobile SAM's like Russia's Panstir, we need to make sure that we have more mobile Ballistic Missiles that are equivalent to the Iskander not just rely on our current ATACMS.

    Being able to deploy thousands of Troops in a short period of time is a critical capability that we must posses and make more efficient.
     
  6. xenon54

    xenon54 Officer Candidate

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    30
    Lol this one was funny, my friends who served told me stories about their military times, it sounded like a well paid summer camp.
    Just as an exsample, they had a survival training, they just sent the driver to McDonalds and he came back with a backseat full of hamburgers. :D

    But the Swiss military Chocolate is damn delicious. |Woot|

    [​IMG]
     
    Vergennes, Osmanovic and Pathfinder like this.
  7. Vergennes

    Vergennes Captain Staff Member Ret. Military International Mod

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2015
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    France
    I have seen documentaries about the compulsory service and from what I saw,I agree that it looks more like a summer camp !
    Won't talk about the Swiss Air Force not being able to intercept aircrafts outside office hours. :p
    -
    BTW,nobody has attacked and plans to attack Switzerland,so i could understand why they don't take defence seriously. (The only credible scenario of attack against Switzerland is from bankrupt French i swear !)
    -
    Swiss war game envisages invasion by bankrupt French

    Hordes of bankrupt French invade Switzerland to get their hands on their “stolen” money — such is the imaginary scenario cooked up by the Swiss military in simulations revealed over the weekend.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...me-envisages-invasion-by-bankrupt-French.html
     
    xenon54, AMDR and Pathfinder like this.
  8. xenon54

    xenon54 Officer Candidate

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    30
    Yeah this has been mocked here in media, oh if you just had seen how much fun we had with our French co-workers.
    (Even thought they hate it when you say ''Alsace is part of France'' :D)
     
    Pathfinder and Vergennes like this.
  9. Osmanovic

    Osmanovic 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    336
    Location:
    United-States
    If America wants to have a better chance against Russia then the locations of her bases need to be rethought, if you look at your maps its very clear that they are built for a scenario in the cold war, not a modern day scenario where the Russians would begin an attack in the Baltics, Poland, or even the Balkans through Moldova. I am sure that the Eastern europeans would be more than happy to have large permanent American bases on their soil, especially the smaller countries. The recent armored deployments to Poland are a good start though, I am however very concerned about the protection level America's current Abrams tanks can provide against modern Russian ATGMs. The Russians stick an ATGM on anything that moves, they can knockout a tank or IFV from miles away. This is especially dangerous in flat Polish terrain, not so much though in the wooded Baltic states.
     
  10. YarS

    YarS Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    981
    Location:
    Russian-Federation
    Hobby:
    Wh40k, Battletech
    First of all, say me, pls - what is our reason to attack Baltic states in your scenarios? Amber? Peat? Genocide of Russian population? Blockade of Kaliningrad? Or it is a part of big war?

    Ke-ke-ke. Small countries will be happy to do the will of Washington. But what will be better to Baltic states?
    First scenario - "Open Baltic". Big war begins, and our forces, without aby hitch - marching to the west. No problem for us, no problem for them. Russian goverment authorities are working, no war crimes, no burned towns or raped women. Civilians get fuel, food, medicines.
    Second possibility - "Baltic Fortress". All military NATO budget is spending for building super-puper-mega fortress, there deployed three Tank Armies, one Air Army, ten millions of soldiers and paramilitary militants from whole NATO.
    Turn one: massive nuclear strike, and all this fortress (with all tanks, soldiers, planes and militants) transform in ash, and all Baltic region transform in the radioactive desert.
    Turn two: our tanks are marching without any hitch throw desert to the west, just losted it's army.

    USA and NATO can not protect Baltic states. They have no even technical abilities to do it. Only difference for them is a collateral damage. In scenario "Open Baltic" - no collateral damage, in scenario "Baltic Fortress" - very big collateral damage. Those Baltic politics, who love their countries - will choose first scenario. Those Baltic politics, who love US-money - will choose second scenario.
    Next moment. Unites, dislocated near Russian border are very vulnerable for Russian strike, but very effective for the first sudden NATO strike. If NATO want to move their forces to our border, it mean, that they want to begin war with sudden strike - without declaring a war or any claims. So, it mean that we have a right for preventive measures (including sudden proactive full-scale nuclear strike).
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2017
Loading...