Scenario: Russian Invasion of the Baltic States

[shahadi]

I wonder what form a Russian invasion would take. A full scale attack or a limited engagement akin to what we've witnessed in the Ukraine. There a good number of Russian speakers in the Baltic states, and organizations that could antagonize those governments then as a pretense Russia might invade on a limited scale to protect those Russian's rights.

Either way, what would be the response of Sweden and Finland, two countries not a part of NATO?

=====

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by shahadi

I wonder what form a Russian invasion would take. A full scale attack or a limited engagement akin to what we've witnessed in the Ukraine. There a good number of Russian speakers in the Baltic states, and organizations that could antagonize those governments then as a pretense Russia might invade on a limited scale to protect those Russian's rights.

Either way, what would be the response of Sweden and Finland, two countries not a part of NATO?

=====

I would be amazed, to put it mildly, if Sweden or Finland did a thing beyond some totally pointless verbal protest at the UN.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Either way, what would be the response of Sweden and Finland, two countries not a part of NATO?

Sweden has declared it will not remain neutral with the so called “declaration of solidarity” and participates in a number of NATO drills and NATO operations (Cold Response, Afghanistan, Libya). The Swedish ground forces are however in a pitiful state when compared to the large but less advanced cold war army. Sweden could I imagine contribute no more than a battle group of battalion(+) size as a sort of symbolic force at present. But could also open its borders and air fields to NATO air.

But, in Sweden there is an anti-immigration party which seems to steadily be gaining ground. This party views Putin/Russia in a favourable light. Should this party be in power at the time of a Russian invasion of the Baltics I assume there would be no Swedish reaction (assuming the invasion takes place a few years from now)...


Finland has retained the conscription army and can mobilise considerable conventional forces should Finland come under threat. Even if Finland does not deploy forces to the Baltic states I imagine Russia would not leave the northern flank completely open…

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by wulfir

Sweden has declared it will not remain neutral with the so called “declaration of solidarity” and participates in a number of NATO drills and NATO operations (Cold Response, Afghanistan, Libya). The Swedish ground forces are however in a pitiful state when compared to the large but less advanced cold war army. Sweden could I imagine contribute no more than a battle group of battalion(+) size as a sort of symbolic force at present. But could also open its borders and air fields to NATO air.

But, in Sweden there is an anti-immigration party which seems to steadily be gaining ground. This party views Putin/Russia in a favourable light. Should this party be in power at the time of a Russian invasion of the Baltics I assume there would be no Swedish reaction (assuming the invasion takes place a few years from now)...


Finland has retained the conscription army and can mobilise considerable conventional forces should Finland come under threat. Even if Finland does not deploy forces to the Baltic states I imagine Russia would not leave the northern flank completely open…

At the risk of getting too political why would an anti immigration party in Sweden (and I presume it is anti Islamic immigration) be pro Putin and Russia? Or, to put it another way, why would a pro Islamist immigration party be anti Putin and Russia? Surely Putin's Russia is not the biggest threat to Sweden right now?

I am genuinely puzzled by this, given my own ideas about who the enemies of Western civilisation actually are: To my mind all forms of militant Islam, closely followed by China (actually a huge longer term threat) and, way back, North Korea.

I do think there is a window right now to make Russia much less of a potential enemy than she has been any time since the early 1900's. It may, or may not, get taken...

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Grant1pa

Some further readings for those that are interested:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...uwalki-gap.htm

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...AND_RR1253.pdf

I read the article by Rand on a Russian invasion of the Baltics. What I found most striking is the lack of attention to Lithuania, in particular the Sulwaki Gap. In fact, Sulwaki was not even mentioned in the analysis.

In my reading of the Rand report the absence of heavy armor and the lack of an army corp (at least three cited in the study are needed) is a recipe for failure. Now, here is the rub, “…one challenge NATO would face in the event of a Baltic crisis would be moving heavy equipment and supplies from storehouses and ports in Western Europe east to Poland and beyond .”

With the Kaliningrad to the Northwest and Belarus to the East that only leaves the rail line through Sulwaki to get heavy formations into the battle. The Sulwaki Gap is critical to any NATO strategy, yet it is not mentioned in the Rand report.

I do not believe Russia would enter into Poland at all, that would widen the hostilities to a nuclear tipping point in my opinion (tactical nukes.) So, the battle would take place at the Polish/Lithuanian border along route E67 and the rail line up from Sulwaki into Marijumpole. Else NATO cannot get the heavy stuff into the battle area. Game over.

Talking about games, Rand war gamed a NATO response. I found it most enlightening. For, the old school table top and board game guys with pencil and paper here is the link: https://paxsims.wordpress.com/2016/0...f-the-baltics/

And, here is the game board

=====

[shahadi]

The Russians may not roll the dice on a military incursion into the Baltics, however, that does not mean it is not beneficial to wargame that scenario. Having said that, I do believe Russia does not want NATO right up to its borders. And, it has been strongly suggested that the US may have broken her word when she advocated the admittance of the Baltic States to NATO.

“…in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make ‘iron-clad guarantees’ that NATO would not expand ‘one inch eastward’. Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.” (Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson, Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2016: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...nap-story.html)

Now, we may begin to understand how Russia may feel aggrieved in a way that Putin may find it imperative to roll back NATO off of Russian borders.

Given the recent modus operandi of overthrowing governments from the start of the ‘Arab Spring’ in Tunisia, to Egypt, to Syrian demonstrations in Homs at a central square, to the failed attempt in Turkey during the Gezi park demonstrations in 2013, to the Georgian demonstrations, to the annexation of Crimea, all began with activists agitating for ‘human rights’ against the government.

I would argue, the most plausible course of Russian action would be a similar sort of indirect action by directing pro-Russian groups in Estonia and Latvia to stir up the pot and agitate those governments for ‘human rights’. I have not read of significant Russian speakers in Lithuania, so this type of action would not complete taking back the Baltics, therefore, in Lithuania, a military action maybe most plausible.

Again, it is the job of analyst to wargame all sorts of scenarios.

=====

[DRG]

Originally Posted by shahadi

The Russians may not roll the dice on a military incursion into the Baltics, however, that does not mean it is not beneficial to wargame that scenario. Having said that, I do believe Russia does not want NATO right up to its borders.
=====

......... anymore than the US would be happy with a Russian brigade on the Mexican border ( though that may put a damper on the cartels... but I digress ).

What is important to remember ( besides this is a GAME forum and many of these posts lately are beginning to stray a bit ) is that unlike the "west" in general..N.American in particular.....the Russians actually REMEMBER their history and react according to it. It's easy to say the Russians have nothing to fear re: a militarily aggressive NATO but every time NATO expands and signs on a state that was once in the sphere of the Warsaw pact that is seen as an aggressive action because IT IS..( passive-aggressive)

Stalin was more than a little surprised on June 22 1941 but he shouldn't have been. That lesson has been learned a very hard way

Don

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

At the risk of getting too political why would an anti immigration party in Sweden (and I presume it is anti Islamic immigration) be pro Putin and Russia?

Shared national-conservative views – along with being anti-EU and NATO skeptical...

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Surely Putin's Russia is not the biggest threat to Sweden right now?

When it comes to hybrid warfare/conventional military capability Russia is viewed as the only potential aggressor. I think that goes for the anti-immigration party as well. Sweden does not expect to be invaded by Finland, NATO (not even Denmark ) or battalions of ISIS or Taliban Fighters...

Personally I think there are plenty of what-if scenarios involving Russia than could be made – and they wouldn't be all that far fetched.