Dan De Luce, Foreign Policy: If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly
War games show NATO’s eastern flank is vulnerable. To deter Moscow, the U.S. will need to deploy heavy armor on a large scale, a new study says.
If Russian tanks and troops rolled into the Baltics tomorrow, outgunned and outnumbered NATO forces would be overrun in under three days. That’s the sobering conclusion of war games carried out by a think tank with American military officers and civilian officials.
“The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members,” said a report by the RAND Corp., which led the war gaming research.
In numerous tabletop war games played over several months between 2014-2015, Russian forces were knocking on the doors of the Estonian capital of Tallinn or the Latvian capital of Riga within 36 to 60 hours. U.S. and Baltic troops — and American airpower — proved unable to halt the advance of mechanized Russian units and suffered heavy casualties, the report said.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: To deter such a "Russian invasion", the following NATO military deployment is being proposed ....
.... A force of about seven brigades in the area, including three heavy armored brigades, and backed up by airpower and artillery, would be enough “to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states,” it said. The additional forces would cost an estimated $2.7 billion a year to maintain.
7 brigades .... $2.7 billion .... just to prevent the Baltic states from being overrun in 3 days .... even though they will eventually be overrun. Here is an easy prediction .... this proposed plan is not going to be accepted.
15 comments:
they needed wargames to figure that out?
I call bullshit, they couldn't even make it 10 miles in the Donbas in a year, what makes you think they are going to walk over the Baltic states in 3 days. Its amazing how much the Russian Military prowess is overhyped. They have literally gotten their ass beat repeatedly in the past few decades. The only thing that makes them relevant is their nukes and propaganda arm. Other than that they have garbage equipment (Repeatedly beaten by Western equipment), poor leadership and barbaric treatment of their rank and file troops. The best thing they have is their human space program which is pretty good, their satellite program sucks like everything else. This is not the same army that defeated the Germans aka the Soviets. They are a regional power at best that struggles fighting against their neighbors. They are way overhyped by the media and it needs to stop. IMO.
@Stephen Davenport, I would agree that the Russian military's strength is perhaps over-estimated. However, using Ukraine as a direct comparison is not wise. The Ukrainian operation was not direct invasion, it was a mix of supporting paramilitaries, delivering supplies, etc., so a covert operation of sorts. An overt invasion would have gone very differently.
3 days to overrun the Baltics? Maybe not. But underestimating Russia is a mistake that has been made over and over again throughout history with disastrous results.
Underestimating ANY enemy is a mistake, but a belief in your own invincibility tends to be tragic...
That said: I believe reports like this one only reinforce Russian paranoia about NATO's intentions. From their perspective I can see an encirclement of Kaliningrad by NATO and the force buildup on the Russian borders that could be seen as threatening.
A Russian invasion of the Baltics would absolutely result in an all-out war with NATO that would be unwinnable and likely only end with the use of nukes...
I don't believe Russia is willing to START something like that. Talk of greater NATO force requirements along Russia's borders is inflammatory at best. I think someone out there needs a bad-guy to justify their existence.
Such an expensive buildup and maintenance program falls into the realm of Osama bin Ladin's strategy to draw America into useless and costly wars.
To say russia has been soundly beaten in the last few decades and has garbage hardware is drawing a parreĺel with the U.s and NATO.
What war has the u.s won in the last few decades grenada as nd haiti aside, that did not simply rely on overpowering force and a nassive coalition
What great u.s general has shown tactical brilliance post Korea not stormin norman who had every advantage imagineable but reinvented and self promoted himself as Rommel incarnate.
F117 shot down by obsolete sam f35 junk, patriot circa last few decadrs junk mlrs compared to tornado smerch equals junk.
I would have thought that 5he high sortie rate in Syria of Russian aircraft would have put much of this to rest.
And know ukraine was not a Russian invasion and if anything show cased the accuracy and devestation of their new equipment as it decimated old school soviet era junk
Very well said,
Here is a question that needs an answer why Russia would invade the baltic state's?.
Si-vis-passen,
Russia has only one warm water port, Sevastapol in the Crimea, which is constrained by the Bosphorus Straight's, and leads to the Med. The "Syrian Express " convoys that supply Syria, and the naval assets that support the R+6 in Syria, come from there. Every Op-For attacking Russia has tried to close this transportation route off and seize Sevastapol.
Russia has "two" "cold water" ports, one on the Pacific in Vladivostok, at the end of the Trans Siberian Railway, the other in the Baltic Sea, which connects to the Atlantic Ocean via two narrow Straight's, leading into a larger Straight, straddled by Denmark and Sweden. That has been the other "choke" point with which to strangle Russia. These ports often require the use of icebreakers to keep shipping flowing in the winter.
In the North, Russia has Murmask and Archangel, but they are frozen in winter and there isn't an icebreaker big enough.
After WWI, when the West tried to strangle the Russian Revolution, the Brits and the French sent expeditions into the Baltic States, to cut off this trade route with Russia, while the Ysnks and Japanese took Vladivostok, and the White Russians and German backed Galatian militia's took Crimea.
In a war with NATO, Russia would be required to invade the Baltic States, all the way down to and including Denmark, to keep the trade and supply routes open.
Thanks again Jay:I was not aware of this, so in other words if hypothetically speaking war break's out Russia needs to invade the baltic state's after the war star or invading is the reason.
Is like cutting off the branch you are setting on .
Russia's not going to start a war.
They want the trade with Europe and China that will provide them with the sort of economic growth and wealth that the West saw after WWII.
China's not going to start a war either.
On the other hand, the New Silk Road promises to create a trade route that hasn't existed since before the Dark Ages, and completely bypasses the US. That would knock the US from it's #1 perch for economies,( that it's barely clinging to) down to the mid-50's, on par with Venezuela or Spain, in a good year.
Stephen,
I have long stated on this website and elsewhere, correctly I believe with supporting evidence supplied elsewhere, that Russia is the most powerful military force on earth. While I may be overestimating Russian military capabilities, very respectfully your assertion seems even further off in the other direction. I'd suggest observing Russian military operations in Georgia, Syria, and the use of proxies in Ukraine. These demonstrate capabilities and organization beyond what America is capable of.
I do agree with you on Russia's nuclear weapons. The advanced nature of these weapons and their delivery systems are unmatched by anyone.
What you call a "propaganda arm" I prefer to call "messaging." The Russians are among the world's best at this.
Jay,
Thanks for sharing the informatikn on Crimea and Russian access to warm water ports. While I'm aware of this, many especially it seems among Western Europeans do not seem to be aware of this. If the United States leadership were to make it clear that it will do everything in it's power to ensure Russian ownership and control of this port in Crimea, I think this would help improve relations with them tremendously. While American support is likely not needed, this along with doing all we can to oppose sanctions would send a forceful message that I think could only help.
Should Russia invade the Baltics or pretty much anywhere for that matter, there is no force structure the United States, western European nations, or the Baltic states are capable of mustering that can defeat Russia. IF one or some MUST try and deter Russia, the best that can be done would be to make the inevitable Russian victory pyric enough they would not consider an invasion.
Frankly, there's nothing in westetn Europe or the Baltics that seems worth risking the survival of America for. It's certainly not worth a confrontation with Russia especially given the current feckless nature of these "allies."
Jay,
Pretty much everyone is aware of the narrative you mention. Nevertheless thank you for sharing it. While the US does face multiple existential threats that Russia, China, and others don't face, there likely are better ways to handle it. For example, anything Russia wants to do or China wants to do, there is no way for the United States to "stop" them as those countries are simply to powerful relative to the United States even though it would be understandable if the US really was interested in protecting its economic interests.
A better approach might be to try and find ways to add value to Russia and China. For example, how can we help them? What can we offer them.
The US could also help itself by reducing the regulations that make manufacturing cost prohibitive in the United States, drilling for more of its own oil, building the refining capacity to process it, and stop shadowing boxing with the myth of man cause climate change long enough to make the necessary infrastructure adjustments.
As for "love" of the various groups you mention, I don't think its love as much as it is common interests. For example the US and the Soviet Union "loved" one another during WWII. Russia "loves" Iran right now.
A bit off topic, but the US dollar will lose its role as world reserve currency sooner rather than later. The only question is whether this a "hard landing" or a "soft landing." I would suggest negotiating in earnest with Russia and China especially to try and ensure a soft landing. Helping Russia circumvent sanctions would probably be a good idea. They might even help us integrate into the new silk road, if that would be possible.
I don't really see Barack Obama doing anything to defend America or its interest given his background steeped in anti-Americanism nor or he or any of his advisors clever enough or long range planning enough to think in terms of long range global trade and any efforts to represent America's interest will likely only be half-hearted at best.
In any event, per the topic of the post, this particular deployment of NATO forces seems inadvisable. Not only would it not deter Russia but would likely only to serve to inflame things. This is analogous to poking a bear with a toy stick or bringing a water gun to a gun fight.
All of the US's existential "threats" were self created and self imposed.
If an Empire is so determined to commit suicide, there is not much the ROW can do about it, except get out of the way and hope none of the splatter winds up on them.
Post a Comment