Scenario: Russian Invasion of the Baltic States

[Imp]

I have a feeling Russia has changed, to me it looks like they using the current situation as a testbed for both improving tactics & checking if weapon systems perform in combat as well as they did on the range. That's my take on why they are making limited use of high end expensive stuff just to check it performs as expected.
Russia took on board Western thinking of quality over quantity a while back & are mow seeing just how this works & trying to refine it, she is not the same animal she used to be.

[Suhiir]

Half of NATO would probably lodge pointless verbal protests ...

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Half of NATO would probably lodge pointless verbal protests ...

100% Truth, sadly.

[Airborne Rifles]

I actually think NATO would respond strongly, though it would take time. Right now the Russians can overrun the Baltic States, though that is more difficult now with the heavy multi-national battalions rotating through those three countries, and a US armored BCT in Poland. I would think a war between Russia and NATO would unfold something like this:

-Surprise Russian push simultaneously into the three Baltic States in conjunction with "hybrid warfare" supplied by Russian minorities in those countries. The Russians overwhelm the Baltic militaries as well as the rotating NATO forces, though the fight is bloody.

-Next the Russians pause and dig in. They really don't have the capacity to go any further.

-Meanwhile, NATO gathers strength (mostly American, but also German, British, French, etc) in Poland for a counterattack while the air forces gain air superiority, with difficulty. This is the most dangerous point, because the Russians, knowing they can't win if they give NATO time to build up a powerful counteroffensive, will likely execute their strategy of "escalate to de-escalate," meaning they would launch a limited nuclear strike at some military target like a naval task force or assembly area in eastern Poland. Their thinking is that they can push across the nuclear thresh hold to bring NATO to the negotiating table, since NATO will be unwilling to cross the same threshold.

-Regardless, if the Russians think this course is too risk and decide not to go nuclear, or if a limited nuclear strike fails to bring NATO to the table, then after several months NATO would launch a powerful offensive into Kaliningrad and the Baltic states to reclaim the lost territory.

Regardless, I think this whole potential conflict is great fodder for SPMBT scenarios, especially the eventual NATO counter-offensive!

[Suhiir]

I really doubt anyone would go nuclear over the Baltics, and this I think is what the Russians would count on.

The real question in my mind is ... what's in the Baltics that's worth the trouble to Russia? A few people ... pffft. No rare materials I'm aware of. No vast tracts of land for agriculture. Seriously, if I were Russia I'd say why bother.

[Imp]

You might be surprised hopefully the build up would not go undetected but even with that the time it would take for the West to react is frightning, putting units in piecemeal will just cause there loss so the West needs time.
If we can win the air war that will be down to the airforce targeting logistics not the front line tonstop by cutting the supply line.
If that fails why do you think the West wont escalate the situation with nukes to gain time, if we lose the air war how do you propose stopping them.
Not looked at for years but most of the plans in cold war era including holding the Middle East if Russia decided to go for the oil resulted in the West being the one that escalated things.
Its all about getting your initial forces in place & then its down to logistics & supply especially if you want to advance.
How about initial strike being cruise missiles & everything the airforce can muster, take out there airforce before reinforcments arrive. Now as Russia I would get ready to take out the units transfering across the atlantic while they were vulnerable, dont let the forces mass. This is where Russia might escelate taking out the carrier groups is important, if needs the odd nuke in the sea would do the trick & is the least use of nukes, no collateral damage.
Over simplified obviosly but what happens now, full escalation by the West?
I cant remember the details but towards the end of the cold war the West was ready to launch when the Soviets were conducting exercises. Same happened in 83 when we conducted exercises though they did not get as close to it as we did.
I knew a guy in the signal core at the time he always joked he would never see the war as despite being mobile keeping track of the people listening to you was vital so you would be an initial target. If I remember they broke protocul & asked there conterparts just what the hell was going on.

Probably shouldnt say this but I got a wifi dongle off him that was excelent, had l would guess about 3 times the range of mine & could connect to anything, security protocul just meant waiting for around 30 seconds.. Doesnt do the latest protocul as its old but I bet the existing kit does.

[IronDuke99]

No one, with half a working brain, is going to use nuclear weapons over the Baltic States, I very much hope.

Hell I don't actually think NATO, and certainly not UK, should fight for them at all, since they are not a vital interest in any way shape or form.

[Airborne Rifles]

The Russians have two reasons for caring about the Baltics:

1. The first is defensive. Think about this from the Russian perspective: 70 years ago a coalition of western/Central European states invaded Russia and killed 30 million Russians. Thirty years before that, a coalition of Central European states (German and Austria-Hungary) invaded Russia and killed a whole bunch of Russian. Sixty years before that, a coalition of Western European States and The Ottoman Empire invaded Crimea and killed a bunch of Russians. Forty years before that, a coalition of western/Central European states under Napoleon invaded Russia and killed a whole bunch of Russians. And on and on. They look at history with a great deal of mistrust towards the west. Add that to the fact that the Baltic states were actually part of Russia from 1721-1918, and part of the USSR from 1945-1991, and the fact that all the previous invasions of Russia had to start much further west, and you can start understand why they care about the Baltics.

2. The second reason is offensive: how can Russia destroy NATO today? Not by marching to the Rhine. The way Russia can destroy NATO is by invading a NATO country and then by nuclear brinksmanship or other means demonstrate that the alliance is unwilling to defend its members, which is the organizations entire reason for existence. If they can do that, they destroy NATO's legitimacy and the alliance could unravel.

As far as willingness to use nukes, the Russians have been very open about the fact that they are. They recently refused to renew a treaty that pledged that they would not use nukes first, and they've been open about threatening states like Denmark with nukes for accepting US missile tracking sites. They ar banking on the fact that NATO is NOT willing to go that far, and that this unwillingness would bring Europe and the US to the peace table in the event of a shooting war. It's scary stuff.

[IronDuke99]

I am certain UK would use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack on British territory and, perhaps, on British forces. A large scale Chemical attack, that caused a lot of casualties, might also trigger that response. I am not sure much else would, outside an actual attempted invasion, or that it should.

I really cannot see why on earth the EU, or NATO, wants the Baltics to be in their orbit rather than being a more or less neutral buffer zone between Russia and the West. To me exactly the same thing applies to Ukraine. I would try to defend nothing further East than Poland.

To my mind the EU has many, huge, internal political problems, and next to no military muscle -especially since Brexit- to back it up its extravagant ambitions. The EU's, largely unelected, political elites attempts to create EU armed forces are not only almost certainly doomed to failure but are actually very dangerous from the point of view of NATO, that remains the actual cornerstone of Western European defence and security.

To put it bluntly if the USA loses interest in NATO, Europe is up s..t creek without a paddle.

[Suhiir]

IMHO the EU suffers primarily from a lack of cohesive interests aside from economic. And as you said if the US decides to quit footing the bill to defend Europe, which Trump may well do if Europe doesn't start meeting it's NATO commitments, things will get "interesting".