Cheatum the Evil Midget posted:The US establishment thinks that, sure, but do the american public think dagaupils is worth even the bones of one dead marine? Fighting Russia means real casualties. And you think the US establishment is just to be ignored?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
Cheatum the Evil Midget posted:The US establishment thinks that, sure, but do the american public think dagaupils is worth even the bones of one dead marine? Fighting Russia means real casualties. Ultimately the issue is that there are NATO air patrols in that area, so Russia is going to actually have to tangle with NATO (or at the moment) US jets which is going to make things real messy real fast. The Baltic states barely have armies at this point, so there wouldn't be much resistance on the ground but Putin obviously couldn't take them without "tripping" the wire of shooting down NATO aircraft, especially US aircraft. It might be one thing about defending Riga on theory, but looking at the past, the mood dramatically shifts if American forces themselves are attacked. Hell, look at the gulf of Tonkin and that was mostly made up (and those ships shouldn't have even been there). If an US jet gets shot down, the situation is going to change pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Cheatum the Evil Midget posted:The US establishment thinks that, sure, but do the american public think dagaupils is worth even the bones of one dead marine? Fighting Russia means real casualties. Bear in mind, the whole point of defending the Baltics is to have NATO forces to provide Air superiority and Naval superiority when specialized infantry defends. Baltic armies are not attacking armies, they are meant to defend and they are set as professionals trained to fight against a stronger armored force. Now the main aim here I think is (or was) to basically have battalions of special forces like soldiers to defend the small nations, where NATO provides force multipliers from a distance. It hasn't been achieved to a full extent and the forces lack in some specific gear (i.e. at least Lithuanians lack long range anti aircraft MANPADs, which they are now planning to buy from Poland). That is probably for the sole reason, that the countries haven't been able to achieve the required 2% of their GDP towards the defence budget. One of the defence plans, which is not a secret that if an assault is commencing from the east and Kaliningrad, one of three battalions in Lithuania defend the Kaliningrad, one defends the east, while another is kept in reserve, when the Polish provide pressure from the south and south west. I don't know any of Estonia's or Latvia's plans. You don't need a large army in modern warfare. You need a trained army with good equipment and force multipliers. Pulling Armored assault armies into urban areas for example is a good way of neutralizing armored threat as tanks and armored vechicles are good targets in urban streets, rather than valuable assets. Edit: Just tried to confirm on my statements, and though they are pretty accurate, there might be some mistakes I made, so handle with a grain of salt. Edit2: While reading up, I've found a series of Latvian articles that there are plans to deploy a full rotating brigade amount of US troops in Latvia, so it will be interesting to see how it develops. VoltairePunk fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately the issue is that there are NATO air patrols in that area, so Russia is going to actually have to tangle with NATO (or at the moment) US jets which is going to make things real messy real fast. Also, in addition to small regular army and conscript reserve, both Estonia and Latvia have all-volunteer National Guard type paramilitary organizations that are pretty sizeable, 11,000 men for Latvian Zemessardze and 23,000 for Estonian Kaitseliit, who have training, better morale, and would get mobilized much quicker than a regular conscript force.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Yanukovich has made a statement offering to make a referendum to all regions in the country. No actual source, just pulling that from a local news outlet. Edit: There we go
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
We have dedicated law enforcement agencies that are working around the clock to prevent "self-defense forces" arising and start taking over poo poo, after the Bronze Night fiasco. Our border with Russia is also European Union's border with Russia. Baltics are the bridge between mainland Europe and Scandinavia. We have a very good early warning system and every Russian troop movement in the region is being monitored, now more rigorously than ever. It took ~90 hours for the extra USA fighter jets to arrive after we sent a formal request. Joe Biden, Barack Obama, David Cameron, plus a number of smaller functionaries have publicly said on a number of occasions that they are bound by NATO agreements to defend the member countries. In case you don't know the first rule of politics, here it goes: do not ever commit yourself publicly to something if you have even the slightest doubts about seeing it through. The level of support Eastern European countries have received is far above what I would've expected to be honest. Permanent NATO bases are coming (unless the situation in Ukraine defuses very quickly) to the Baltics and air defenses here will be permanently increased. Conclusion: nothing you said makes sense you really do deserve your avatar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
pigdog posted:As far as I can tell the regular armies of the Baltic states are just big enough to repel the Crimean scenario where in a surprise attack, Russian special forces/paratroopers would take out the government institutions and contain military units before the countries can react. Russia can commit bigger forces of course, but not as a surprise move, which would give NATO time to prepare. Yeah, I don't think what you'll see in a russian invasion is tanks crashing across the border at exactly 5am under cover of an artillery barrage with SAMs flying to clear the airspace, what you'll see is armed insurrection in russian-majority towns like Varna or the aforementioned Dagaupils that suddenly start sprouting suspicious well equipped and well trained "militia", who spread out to take key installations. All the while the international community seeks "de-escalation" and tries to restrain the Estonians/Latvians et al from shooting and causing "provocation". NATO airforces are a tripwire but I don't think you'd see the Russians shooting first, they'd wait for the Americans to escalate, thereby preventing the American public's "lousy sneak attack rargh invade" impulse from triggering. Anyway I'm getting way too Tom Clancy when all I wanted to say is that the Russians could overrun the Baltic states in a matter of days if they really wanted to and it's not all that certain that the West would be willing to pay the cost in blood it would take to dig them out again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The Baltic states barely have armies at this point, so there wouldn't be much resistance on the ground but Putin obviously couldn't take them without "tripping" the wire of shooting down NATO aircraft, especially US aircraft. We do have something called the Estonian Defense League: http://www.kaitseliit.ee/en A paramilitary organization that will be able to fight off a number of adversaries both in urban environment and also the countryside. Plus no one here will be waiting for them here with wavy flags like in Crimea. They would be met with rifles instead. Don't forget that alhtough Finland and Sweden are neutral, I'm not sure they would sit idly by and watch Russia do what it wants. They would increase their air and naval defenses and prevent any further resupply runs through or near their territories, at the very least. And they have very modern equipment and well trained armies. TLRD: Russia has no allies, but a lot of (potential) enemies in this region.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Plus no one here will be waiting for them here with wavy flags like in Crimea. They would be met with rifles instead. What about the 25% of your population that is Russian? The same guys who might be pissed you tore down their war memorial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
pigdog posted:As far as I can tell the regular armies of the Baltic states are just big enough to repel the Crimean scenario where in a surprise attack, Russian special forces/paratroopers would take out the government institutions and contain military units before the countries can react. Russia can commit bigger forces of course, but not as a surprise move, which would give NATO time to prepare. To be honest, I don't know if the Baltic states would be able to defend against a surprise attack on their own, we are talking about battalion sized units facing brigades. Russia obviously have quite a force to call upon in a surprise attack, including its paratroopers. The national guard units still need time to mobilize, and it may take days, that very well could make the difference. It isn't going to happen, but to be honest Estonia and Latvia especially could use much larger standing armies and if anything they have cut back way too much to the detriment of their self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Alaska has oil. America would not let that happen. Also isn't the women to men ratio in Russia 4 to 1? There are barely any Russians left in Siberia or the Far East, what would they even do with Alaska? Considering their demographic weakness, they're in no position to expand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Don't forget that alhtough Finland and Sweden are neutral This makes me wonder, what exactly is modus operandi if one of EU member is attacked and one of you is not in NATO, like in your current example? What if Finland is attacked, will then other EU members have to respond militarily, thus dragging NATO into it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
I can imagine no scenario in which Russia would want to take over baltics. There is nothing here for them, only hostile population and no real profit or strategic resources. Even ethnic russians here want to have their language and rights recognized and culture respected, but do not with to see russian flags above their heads. There would be very little or no gain, and would cost too much. I do not believe russian leadership is ever going to be stupid enough to pull a move like that. Baloogan posted:What about the 25% of your population that is Russian? The same guys who might be pissed you tore down their war memorial. Ashendar fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTBpSGnD09I&t=12s Another leaked call. This time two Ukrainian special forces officers discuss possible termination of Yarosh (Right Sector). Some people say that it's fake and indeed sometimes intonations sound a bit off, but it's hard to tell for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Ashendar posted:Fascist thugs got angry that their fascist overlords killed one of their favorite leaders, because he refused to put down weapons and generally went out of control. Not sure where is propaganda in this. You can't see where the propaganda is in claiming that the Ukrainian government consists of 'fascist overlords'?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
In D&D, Goons get really weird and are inclined to scratch their neck-beards when the word 'fascist' is mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:
Finland hasn't been neutral since 1995, and Sweden has had secret defence arrangements with the US ever since the cold war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
Ashendar posted:I can imagine no scenario in which Russia would want to take over baltics. The profit is breaking NATO. And being pissed at estonian government means not meeting Russian troops with guns in hand, but with indifference at least, which is what the Russian army needs for freedom of action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:What about the 25% of your population that is Russian? The same guys who might be pissed you tore down their war memorial. The war memorial saga was painful reminder of ignoring these issues, but rioting felt very out of place before and after. Besides, the monument wasn't torn down, but merely moved 2 km out of the city center to a respectable spot at a military cemetery where people can pay their respects to their hearts' content.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Even if Americans were against defending NATO allies against a Russian attack, do you think the establishment really cares? Rand Paul may grumble, but none of the GOP foreign policy "experts" are willing to sit by while Russia conquers the Baltic states, and there are many hawks among the Democrats as well. Could you imagine McCain if Obama declined to defend Estonia? Could you imagine the entire GOP if Obama cedes more ground to Russia and doesn't honor the mutual defense treaty? I cannot really see a scenario in which the USA doesn't go to war if Putin invades Lithuania and co.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Eel hovercraft posted:Finland hasn't been neutral since 1995, and Sweden has had secret defence arrangements with the US ever since the cold war. Chatted with a Finnish friend last night and the subject of Finland joining NATO came up. Her thoughts on that subject were that Finland won't join NATO because Russia would not be happy about another NATO member bordering their country. Curious if others think this is the main reason Finland is not a member of NATO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:This makes me wonder, what exactly is modus operandi if one of EU member is attacked and one of you is not in NATO, like in your current example? What if Finland is attacked, will then other EU members have to respond militarily, thus dragging NATO into it? I'm not absolutely certain on this, so don't quote me, but from my understanding the EU isn't technically a military defense pact. It has very strong defense provisions in it, but I don't believe there's "An attack on one is an attack on all"-type clauses. There are common defense clauses, but I think that is basically "if one of us is attacked, the others can vote on committing to defense together". That said, I'm fairly certain if Finland were attacked, the EU (or at the very least Finland's neighbors) would retaliate. And while I'm one extremely anti-war and stand firmly against basically every military action taken by the US since world war 2, I would march on down and register to fight if one of our NATO allies came under attack like this. My family in Armenia suffered at the hands of the Soviets far too much, and a lot of the stories they've shared with me mirror the ones I've heard from the Baltics during those years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately the issue is that there are NATO air patrols in that area, so Russia is going to actually have to tangle with NATO (or at the moment) US jets which is going to make things real messy real fast. The bombing of USS Cole says otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Doctor Chaxtical posted:It has very strong defense provisions in it, but I don't believe there's "An attack on one is an attack on all"-type clauses. You'd be incorrect. NATO Charter Article 5 posted:The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:This makes me wonder, what exactly is modus operandi if one of EU member is attacked and one of you is not in NATO, like in your current example? What if Finland is attacked, will then other EU members have to respond militarily, thus dragging NATO into it? The EU has a common defense clause that calls for aiding a member nation if it's attacked, NATO or not. It's nothing like article five in NATO though which basically calls for total war in the face of any agression at all, probably because such a clause would make diplomacy impossible once a crisis actually arises. As far as a Baltic Union: No, won't happen, especially with a defense clause attatched to it. Generally speaking nobody in Scandinavia wants anything to do with the Baltic states other than free travel, sadly. A Scandinavian(Nordic) Union on the other hand is very favourably looked upon amongst the people in general atleast here in Sweden. Generally Scandinavians want to pull together because we share common values in terms of Social, Economic and Foreign policy ideals. There is no such understanding with the Baltic states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Maybe I'm daft or something but I still have not seen a real reason on why Russia would invade the Ukraine and just start a whole heap of a shitstorm. I read they're amasssing troops on the border as a "training exercise", but still can't figure out what the purpose of invading would do. It just seems this is a back the gently caress down towards the Ukraine over them taking Crimea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:You'd be incorrect. So, how exactly this is related to rules of European Union and a member state of European Union that is not a member of NATO?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:So, how exactly this is related to rules of European Union and a member state of European Union that is not a member of NATO? Apologies, I misread. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:The bombing of USS Cole says otherwise. There is a big difference between 2000-era Al Qaeda and Russia, it isn't a comparable situation (you are talking about state versus non-state actors anyway). If Russia had blown up the Cole during an invasion of Estonia, there would have in fact been a response. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:Apologies, I misread. I should have been more clear in what I was referring to, my bad. Although if I'd been referring to NATO and was wrong to the extent that I used the "attack on one/attack on all" line....that'd be a pretty strong flavor of wrong. heh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Maybe I'm daft or something but I still have not seen a real reason on why Russia would invade the Ukraine and just start a whole heap of a shitstorm. I read they're amasssing troops on the border as a "training exercise", but still can't figure out what the purpose of invading would do. It just seems this is a back the gently caress down towards the Ukraine over them taking Crimea. They're basically laying siege to the country. The strategy seems to be entirely about causing instability in Ukraine. Whether or not they want to roll troops across the border is impossible to tell, but they want a friendly government in Ukraine otherwise they would have kept throwing money at them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Darth Vader of the "Internet party of Ukraine" announced his candidacy for president Link in Russian http://news.tut.by/kaleidoscope/392795.html Here is a video of him leading a unit of stormtroopers to take over the Department of justice last year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWyFL011D5U
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
The COLE situation isn't even remotely similar. The SAMUEL B ROBERTS case during the Iran/Iraq war, otoh, is completely applicable. For those that don't recognize it offhand, a US FFG ran into an Iranian mine and nearly sank. There was no loss of life and the crew miraculously survived and sailed under limited power to Dubai. It was really an incredible effort by the crew to stay afloat. They basically had to stitch the ship together with wire rope to keep it from splitting in two. Following the incident, US minesweepers recovered mines in the area and confirmed they were Iranian in origin. The US immediately began operation praying mantis where they sunk or disabled almost the entire Iranian navy and destroyed a few oil platforms for good measure. If a state actor attacks a US warship there will be swift and violent retaliation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:They're basically laying siege to the country. The strategy seems to be entirely about causing instability in Ukraine. Whether or not they want to roll troops across the border is impossible to tell, but they want a friendly government in Ukraine otherwise they would have kept throwing money at them. To what end do they want to destabilize the Ukraine, is it because the Ukraine wanted to join the EU which would affect trade? Is it to destablize it enough for them to roll in and help "restore" order to the country leaving a puppet government in their control?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:There is a big difference between 2000-era Al Qaeda and Russia, it isn't a comparable situation (you are talking about state versus non-state actors anyway). I have a feeling he meant to say the USS Liberty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Chatted with a Finnish friend last night and the subject of Finland joining NATO came up. Her thoughts on that subject were that Finland won't join NATO because Russia would not be happy about another NATO member bordering their country. Curious if others think this is the main reason Finland is not a member of NATO. (edit: Found out that the Prime Minister Medjedev out right said last June in Norway that any new NATO members bordering Russia would cause reactions.) As a Finn, I can say that it's one of the reasons, yes. A (relatively) huge amount of trade happens between Finland and Russia and antagonizing Russia would be shooting your own foot. When pretty much everyone at least knows someone whose livelihood is dependent on Russian exports/imports/tourists, it affects your opinions. Tabloids made pretty large headlines about the fact that one of the oligarchs targeted by the sanctions is (among other nationalities) the richest of Finns. I'm not an expert and I might be talking through my hat here but I've been told (and history shows to a degree) that the way to associate with Russians is to create strong relationships between individuals - even on business and govermental levels. That being said I'm not sure it's the main reason. NATO is seen as an expensive option to our current conscription model and it would possibly make our military dependent on foreign militaries, USA in particular. Many people are very sceptical that foreign powers would have any interest in defending remote places like, well, anything outside Helsinki, if push came to shove. There's distrust towards Russia and USA both and being a puppet of either isn't very compelling. Basically the defense doctrine is to be independent, friendly and to make sure that we're too much of a pain in the rear end to ever invade (again). Personally I'm not sure how well this is working in the current climate. Obviously it got us through the Cold War but with a cost of having our country's name attached to a less than endearing term, finladization. Some parts of Russian media have been painting Finnish officials and especially child care services in extremely negative light (hello, fascism) for years. Our state television's Internet site publishes quite insightful series of monthly articles about Finland in Russian media. It's often worryingly negative in tone. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Also what about the Patrol boat North Korea captured ages ago?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Faux Shoah posted:I have a feeling he meant to say the USS Liberty. There's also USS Stark that got hit by the Iraqis in 1987, but that was an accident. darthzeta88 posted:Also what about the Patrol boat North Korea captured ages ago? Are you thinking of the Pueblo? That was a spy ship, not a patrol boat. VVV does it die from Russian invaders?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Every time this thread drifts into theorizing about a potential Russian invasion of the Baltic countries, a part of me dies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
Doctor Chaxtical posted:I'm not absolutely certain on this, so don't quote me, but from my understanding the EU isn't technically a military defense pact. It has very strong defense provisions in it, but I don't believe there's "An attack on one is an attack on all"-type clauses. There are common defense clauses, but I think that is basically "if one of us is attacked, the others can vote on committing to defense together". The Treaty of Lisbon includes a Mutual Defense Clause independent on NATO. So member states are obliged to protect other members regardless of the NATO membership of any party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 14:27
|
|
