Hard for NATO to Defend Baltic States

[RooksBailey]

Interesting leak from Spiegel:

http://news.yahoo.com/hard-nato-defend-baltic-states-russia-spiegel-181301547--sector.html

"Russia's ability and intention to undertake significant military action without much forewarning poses a far-reaching threat for the maintenance of security and stability in the European-Atlantic area," the weekly magazine said, citing a NATO defense planning committee document.

Russia is capable of building up a local or regional military threat at short notice and at an arbitrary spot, the draft document continued.

However, Europe at the end of the Cold War had concluded that "it could reduce its capabilities for fighting conventional, large scale and high intensity conflicts in Europe".

I believe this leak.   NATO and America have been so preoccupied with asymmetrical ops that I think we have allowed our symmetrical capabilities to dwindle.  As for Russia actually moving on the Baltics, I don't know.  I think it depends on how the Ukraine turns out.  If he does succeed in dismantling the country, I wouldn't be surprised for him to turn to the Baltic states next.   Poor little Kaliningrad Oblast sitting out there all alone for so many years.... ^-^

[GDS_Starfury]

always look a little bit further.  ;)

http://www.defence24.pl/news_leopardy-2a5-juz-w-zaganiu

the first delivery of 116 that they bought.  I dont care what model of pos T-commiecrap tank you have with shit training...  have fun playing with those.

[Jarhead0331]

Since when do you speak Polish?

[bayonetbrant]

since Babelfish, probably  ::)

[RooksBailey]

since Babelfish, probably  ::)

LOL!

Interesting article, but I still think Ralph Peters was correct when he wrote in Red Army that if it ever came to war with Russia, a large part of NATO would find a compelling reason not to honor their obligations.

[GDS_Starfury]

the Russian army today aint what it used to be.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

the Russian army today aint what it used to be.

They are trying to remake it.

[Gusington]

The Russians would have you believe it is better now than it has ever been.

[GDS_Starfury]

they simply cant afford their own equipment and the training time.

[mirth]

Star is right on this. We ain't talking about the Rompin' Stompin' Red Army anymore, Putin propaganda machine aside.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Is Russia on the gold standard? Is there something wrong with their printing press? For our countries it's the third rail for a politician to create inflation. For them I doubt they care. I seem to remember an economic crisis maybe 15 years back where Russia flat out said they were defaulting on their debts. The knock on which was unexpected over here was the LTCM hedge fund went under needing a bailout. Without the bailout our markets would have crumbled.

This troubles Putin how? ???

[GDS_Starfury]

thats a bit different from spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
the 2008 bailout we had was a one shot deal  ::) for $700 billion.
we spend that every year and adjusted for inflation its a small fucking US military budget.
Russia spent $87 billion.  broke ass bitches... 
they have 16 Blackjack bombers in service.  16   I would have to check but I think we have more bombers on loan to NASA and JPL then they have their premier bomber.
forget bombers...  something more practicle.
we have more Burke class destroyers then their entire navy combined including logistics ships and trawlers and I can count operational subs on my fingers and toes.
the one card they have is nukes.  but we have space planes, lasers, missile interceptors and God damn sharks with laser attached to their heads.

oh, and 14 years of continuous applied combat experience and a training regime like no other.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

The US military is of course far more capable. That is not the question. The issue of the thread is how hard is it to defend the baltics if Russia does something stupid? I think Russia would get the experience of a road kill skunk. They make a big stink which is quite unpleasant. The second issue is has their military improved? I would say, as an ignorant civie, yes. If there is reason to think they are worse or he same as at the fall of the USSR make the case.

[GDS_Starfury]

I think their military has a few very good units and formations in it.  I also think thats a holdover from Soviet doctrine that overall hasnt served them well.  they lost a Tu-22 over Georgia.  that's akin to us losing a B-52 over Afghanistan.  there is some excellent kit that they have but not in the numbers they need nor in the training to make the full use of it.  their real world budget precludes it and the graft and corruption are legendary.  now they can take the Baltic states and the Ukraine if nobody does anything.  the real world result of that is galvanizing Europe into a new Cold War which the Russians wont be able to win.  the west will bankrupt the fuckers again.  they simply cant turn their economy up that high.  its the biggest country in the world with half the population of the US.  Japan has 20 million less and its a friking island.

so push comes to shove ok.
NATO vs Russia.
with US and NATO airpower vs whats currently the state of the Russian Air Force facing a wall of countries that now use Leopard 2a4 and 5s and a bunch of 6's and the main MBT.  many crews of which have recently had combat tours in shitty sandboxes.  from a wargamers point of view, I'll play that game.  >:D

[GDS_Starfury]

hmmm

how many F-22's can fly out of Bitburg?   


its all very fanboyish and fun to gloat but the foundation of the issue isnt about the battlefield.  its about the political will to do whats in your countries best interest.