Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank
February 5, 2016 5:37 AM Subscribe
Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics. As Presently Postured, NATO Cannot Successfully Defend the Territory of its Most Exposed Members.
Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours. Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, all bad (full report PDF).
The Pentagon has put Russia at the top of its list of national security threats with its plan to increase the deployment of heavy weapons, armored vehicles and troops on rotating assignment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The NY Times questions whether the plan to quadruple military spending in Europe in 2017 to $3.4 billion from $789 million seems excessive and raises questions about whether other immediate threats, like the Islamic State, are getting short shrift
More on the RAND war games from Military.com
More on the Obama Administration's plan for a brigade sized force in Eastern Europe from the LA Times.
Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours. Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, all bad (full report PDF).
The Pentagon has put Russia at the top of its list of national security threats with its plan to increase the deployment of heavy weapons, armored vehicles and troops on rotating assignment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The NY Times questions whether the plan to quadruple military spending in Europe in 2017 to $3.4 billion from $789 million seems excessive and raises questions about whether other immediate threats, like the Islamic State, are getting short shrift
More on the RAND war games from Military.com
More on the Obama Administration's plan for a brigade sized force in Eastern Europe from the LA Times.
this generation needs a new Tom Clancy to show the public the clear and present danger of the Reds Russians...
posted by ennui.bz at 6:03 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ennui.bz at 6:03 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Russian military adventurism ebbs and flows with the price of oil.
posted by humanfont at 6:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 6:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Propaganda about Russian military adventurism ebbs and flows with the price of oil.
posted by fredludd at 6:16 AM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by fredludd at 6:16 AM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Meanwhile, Russia has been bankrolling anti-EU parties (usually, though not exclusively, on the far right). If the EU does fall apart, or is severely weakened, the Baltic states may be up for grabs.
One problem the Baltic states have is Putin's near-monopoly on Russian-language media and culture (which has been strengthened with the suppression of pluralist and dissident voices in Russia). They have (thanks to Stalin's policies of mass relocation) large Russian-speaking populations (something like 25% in Latvia, and >90% in some cities), which generally like it in the EU, with liberalism and the rule of law, and don't want to live in a corrupt authoritarian oligarchy. However, those who don't speak Latvian/Estonian/Lithuanian get most of their information from Russian propaganda sources, which as push comes to shove, may become strategically important. There's a good case that the Baltic states should put on hold the idea of coercing their Russian-speaking populations into learning the official language and instead set up Russian-language services to integrate them.
posted by acb at 6:20 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
One problem the Baltic states have is Putin's near-monopoly on Russian-language media and culture (which has been strengthened with the suppression of pluralist and dissident voices in Russia). They have (thanks to Stalin's policies of mass relocation) large Russian-speaking populations (something like 25% in Latvia, and >90% in some cities), which generally like it in the EU, with liberalism and the rule of law, and don't want to live in a corrupt authoritarian oligarchy. However, those who don't speak Latvian/Estonian/Lithuanian get most of their information from Russian propaganda sources, which as push comes to shove, may become strategically important. There's a good case that the Baltic states should put on hold the idea of coercing their Russian-speaking populations into learning the official language and instead set up Russian-language services to integrate them.
posted by acb at 6:20 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
While this deterrent posture would not be inexpensive in absolute terms, it is not unaffordable, especially in comparison with the potential costs of failing to defend NATO's most exposed and vulnerable allies.
We can pay with it from the free energy we can generate by Orwell spinning in his grave.
I mean, the paper is probably correct--though I think acb has it right that soft power solutions are the necessary approach--but geez, come out and say it. It costs money to maintain a deterrent. Sometimes you have to. Weaselly language just makes the case more suspicious.
posted by stevis23 at 6:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
We can pay with it from the free energy we can generate by Orwell spinning in his grave.
I mean, the paper is probably correct--though I think acb has it right that soft power solutions are the necessary approach--but geez, come out and say it. It costs money to maintain a deterrent. Sometimes you have to. Weaselly language just makes the case more suspicious.
posted by stevis23 at 6:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nothing like a little war for Putin to take the minds of Russians off of their country's economic problems.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:36 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by haiku warrior at 6:36 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The only modern deterrent against Russia is nuclear or economic. We aren't gonna nuke for Estonia. I hope we don't end up having to sanction against Saku Lager.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:38 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 6:38 AM on February 5, 2016
"Nothing like a little war for Putin to take the minds of Russians off of their country's economic problems."
Yes. For Putin. Right.
Certainly, RAND and NATO do not have a history of exaggerating Russian military resources to inflate members' military spending and enrich corporate partners. Certainly not.
posted by mobunited at 6:39 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes. For Putin. Right.
Certainly, RAND and NATO do not have a history of exaggerating Russian military resources to inflate members' military spending and enrich corporate partners. Certainly not.
posted by mobunited at 6:39 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
On Monday night I started to re-read Clancy's "Hunt for Red October" again.
The political officer on the Soviet sub -- who is murdered by the defector in the first few chapters -- is roundly hated by the crew, feared by the officers for his connections, and of course is named...Putin.
And now I am afraid to see what bits of 20/20 Hindsight Fright are in "Red Storm Rising."
posted by wenestvedt at 6:46 AM on February 5, 2016
The political officer on the Soviet sub -- who is murdered by the defector in the first few chapters -- is roundly hated by the crew, feared by the officers for his connections, and of course is named...Putin.
And now I am afraid to see what bits of 20/20 Hindsight Fright are in "Red Storm Rising."
posted by wenestvedt at 6:46 AM on February 5, 2016
The only modern deterrent against Russia is nuclear or economic.
NATO has never been able to not lose a war-game against theUSSRRussians in central Europe without using nuclear weapons. The "deterrent" has always been nuclear. It's why the Germans are particularly touchy about anything "nuclear". That was what was particularly nasty about Tom Clancy's oeuvre: he was selling the dangerous fantasy that the US could fight a conventional war against the Russians in Europe without using nuclear weapons. This was and always will be a fantasy as long as the Russians have nuclear weapons, but it's useful for whipping up popular sentiment for military spending and militaristic rhetoric.
Regardless of how you feel about Russian military involvement in the Ukraine, the US was deeply involved in destabilizing the Ukrainian government during Maidan; google "Victoria Nuland" FFS. The reason why people like me froth-at-the-mouth at this stuff is that the two-step between "destablization" and "militarism" wrt the Russians is as old the Cold War and the RAND corporation: google "Daniel Ellsberg".
These games are really old, and they are about playing the American public to sustain a US military-industrial complex which has become totally insane and is, by far, the greatest threat to peace on the planet: google "Iraq War".
posted by ennui.bz at 7:03 AM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
NATO has never been able to not lose a war-game against the
Regardless of how you feel about Russian military involvement in the Ukraine, the US was deeply involved in destabilizing the Ukrainian government during Maidan; google "Victoria Nuland" FFS. The reason why people like me froth-at-the-mouth at this stuff is that the two-step between "destablization" and "militarism" wrt the Russians is as old the Cold War and the RAND corporation: google "Daniel Ellsberg".
These games are really old, and they are about playing the American public to sustain a US military-industrial complex which has become totally insane and is, by far, the greatest threat to peace on the planet: google "Iraq War".
posted by ennui.bz at 7:03 AM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
I assumed that the "other enablers on the ground" mentioned in the Rand paper would make large mushroom-shaped clouds.
posted by skyscraper at 7:06 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by skyscraper at 7:06 AM on February 5, 2016
Just to be clear: what was monstrous and evil about Tom Clancy is that he was selling the idea, not just that we could win a war against the Russians, but that a purely "conventional" war was possible. If you believe it is possible to fight a conventional war against the Russians, you don't have the whole global thermonuclear holocaust thing standing in the way of getting your war on. This is just as true today. The US/NATO cannot fight a purely conventional war against the Russians.
Anyone suggesting that idea thinks you are stupid and can be played.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Anyone suggesting that idea thinks you are stupid and can be played.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
China and Pakistan too. And there is a reason keeping Iran non-nuclear is our top foreign policy priority. It's not about peace, it's about keeping war on the table.
Just let the regional powers have their influence. The era of killing your way to peace is over.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:17 AM on February 5, 2016
Just let the regional powers have their influence. The era of killing your way to peace is over.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:17 AM on February 5, 2016
There are just great big chunks of the American military that have no role or even reason to exist absent a great-power war. That's why Iraq was so exciting back in the day, and why we spent the late 90's, for no reason anyone could see, banging the drums to go to war with China.
Submarines? Who needs those, when your enemy is living in a cave in Tora Bora? Why are we spending this insane amount of money on F35s when drones cost a fiftieth as much and the other guy doesn't even bother having an air force? What good are tanks, if there aren't other tanks around for them to fight? Why do we need stealth anything when the other guy can't even be arsed to use radar, much less AA guns?
In the face of AK-47s, RPGs and the occasional pickup truck, how much of a navy do you need?
I'm convinced that the best way to understand stuff like this is that:
- the American military procurement process is corrupt to its core, but that
- the American military itself is the only full-employment program that the Republican party will support.
And the two of those things need to justify themselves somehow, and the only way to do that is endless war.
posted by mhoye at 7:23 AM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Submarines? Who needs those, when your enemy is living in a cave in Tora Bora? Why are we spending this insane amount of money on F35s when drones cost a fiftieth as much and the other guy doesn't even bother having an air force? What good are tanks, if there aren't other tanks around for them to fight? Why do we need stealth anything when the other guy can't even be arsed to use radar, much less AA guns?
In the face of AK-47s, RPGs and the occasional pickup truck, how much of a navy do you need?
I'm convinced that the best way to understand stuff like this is that:
- the American military procurement process is corrupt to its core, but that
- the American military itself is the only full-employment program that the Republican party will support.
And the two of those things need to justify themselves somehow, and the only way to do that is endless war.
posted by mhoye at 7:23 AM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
We're also not going to send corn-fed farmboys from Iowa to die for Estonia.
posted by acb at 7:40 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by acb at 7:40 AM on February 5, 2016
Certainly, RAND and NATO do not have a history of exaggerating Russian military resources to inflate members' military spending and enrich corporate partners. Certainly not.
They don't have to exaggerate Russian military capabilities in this case.
The Baltics have terrain that makes Poland look like Switzerland.
posted by ocschwar at 7:52 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Submarines? Who needs those, when your enemy is living in a cave in Tora Bora? Why are we spending this insane amount of money on F35s when drones cost a fiftieth as much and the other guy doesn't even bother having an air force? What good are tanks, if there aren't other tanks around for them to fight? Why do we need stealth anything when the other guy can't even be arsed to use radar, much less AA guns?
Well... While I agree that the US spends far too much on military stuff, I can think of good reasons in contemporary military terms, including asymmetrical warfare, for submarines, tanks and AA systems.
posted by dazed_one at 7:58 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well... While I agree that the US spends far too much on military stuff, I can think of good reasons in contemporary military terms, including asymmetrical warfare, for submarines, tanks and AA systems.
posted by dazed_one at 7:58 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Regardless of how you feel about Russian military involvement in the Ukraine, the US was deeply involved in destabilizing the Ukrainian government during Maidan;
Oh yes. It was all the US's fault.
It had nothing at all to do with young Ukrainians who wanted the opportunity to go to Paris, bus tables, plunge toilets, sleep along the Canal Du Midi and come back with a fistful of euros. Nothing at all to do with them losing the opportunity to a surprise decision by a head of state who used their tax money to collect cars and keep a private zoo.
And the Baltics situation has nothing to do with the people of those countries wanting to build a future together with the Scandinavians.
It's all just a cynical game played by our overlords.
posted by ocschwar at 8:09 AM on February 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
The only modern deterrent against Russia is nuclear or economic. We aren't gonna nuke for Estonia.
True. Which is why, based on the anemic results of the sanctions in response to the Ukraine situation, and the attitude of people in this thread, the only real hope the Baltic states have to remain independent, is to go nuclear.
Right now, if I were the Baltic leaders, I'd be engaging in quiet, desperate meetings to develop a nuclear weapons program, possibly with the aid of Poland. Otherwise, five or six years from now, when Russia is implementing the same program it used in Ukraine, commentators here will be saying that oh, its really America's fault for destabilizing the region, and military procurement, and Tom Clancy, blah blah blah.
posted by happyroach at 8:17 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
True. Which is why, based on the anemic results of the sanctions in response to the Ukraine situation, and the attitude of people in this thread, the only real hope the Baltic states have to remain independent, is to go nuclear.
Right now, if I were the Baltic leaders, I'd be engaging in quiet, desperate meetings to develop a nuclear weapons program, possibly with the aid of Poland. Otherwise, five or six years from now, when Russia is implementing the same program it used in Ukraine, commentators here will be saying that oh, its really America's fault for destabilizing the region, and military procurement, and Tom Clancy, blah blah blah.
posted by happyroach at 8:17 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
NATO has never been able to not lose a war-game against the USSRRussians in central Europe without using nuclear weapons.
Maybe that's how the wargames play out, because it's in their interests for Russia to seem super scary, but I rather doubt that's been how a war would play out since the early 90s. It just isn't the Fulda Gap anymore, and if Russia invaded Poland they'd just get chewed to bits by conventional NATO forces.
Yeah, there aren't enough NATO forces in the Baltics yet to immediately repel an invasion, but I doubt there need to be. There probably only need to be sacrificial tripwire forces to make sure that any invasion has to kick the US military and/or the British Army and/or the Bundeswehr right in the teeth and you really really don't wanna do that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:22 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe that's how the wargames play out, because it's in their interests for Russia to seem super scary, but I rather doubt that's been how a war would play out since the early 90s. It just isn't the Fulda Gap anymore, and if Russia invaded Poland they'd just get chewed to bits by conventional NATO forces.
Yeah, there aren't enough NATO forces in the Baltics yet to immediately repel an invasion, but I doubt there need to be. There probably only need to be sacrificial tripwire forces to make sure that any invasion has to kick the US military and/or the British Army and/or the Bundeswehr right in the teeth and you really really don't wanna do that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:22 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Regardless of how you feel about Russian military involvement in the Ukraine, the US was deeply involved in destabilizing the Ukrainian government during Maidan;
Oh yes. It was all the US's fault.
no it's not "all our fault" but you aren't denying that we *were* deeply involved in destabilizing the government. hell, people like you were cheering it.
the problem, if you care about Ukrainians, is that the primary strategic objective of the US in Europe is to maintain the existence of NATO and the defacto leadership of Nato , long after the end of the Cold War. The US didn't care about Ukrainians and will never risk anything in support of anyone there. But, destabilization helps both Putin and the US; he serves as a useful foil for militarists like you. Putin is your best enemy.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh yes. It was all the US's fault.
no it's not "all our fault" but you aren't denying that we *were* deeply involved in destabilizing the government. hell, people like you were cheering it.
the problem, if you care about Ukrainians, is that the primary strategic objective of the US in Europe is to maintain the existence of NATO and the defacto leadership of Nato , long after the end of the Cold War. The US didn't care about Ukrainians and will never risk anything in support of anyone there. But, destabilization helps both Putin and the US; he serves as a useful foil for militarists like you. Putin is your best enemy.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
NATO is going to take steps to ensure the Russians have no doubts that the alliance will defend all its member states.
posted by humanfont at 8:26 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by humanfont at 8:26 AM on February 5, 2016
Even if there were no nuclear capabilities for either the US or Russia, no NATO force could stop a Russian invasion of the Baltic countries. The Nazis showed in 1941 how quickly the Baltics could be overrun. The combination of geography and native Russian populations to assist the invaders--just as Lithuanians and Ukrainians assisted the invaders of 1941--irreducibly favors a neo-Soviet offensive. NATO forces--once the Baltic forces were swiftly destroyed--could not assemble in sufficient force in time to prevent the outcome.
The deterrent to the mad adventurism that such an invasion would be is the potential for nuclear war. Period. Prepositioning the equipment of a single armored division in Lithuania would accomplish absolutely nothing except whistling past the graveyard
The expansion of NATO into the Baltics was, at best, unwise. As Talleyrand once said of Napoleon's murder of the Duc d'Enghien: it was worse than a sin: it was a blunder.
posted by rdone at 8:34 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
The deterrent to the mad adventurism that such an invasion would be is the potential for nuclear war. Period. Prepositioning the equipment of a single armored division in Lithuania would accomplish absolutely nothing except whistling past the graveyard
The expansion of NATO into the Baltics was, at best, unwise. As Talleyrand once said of Napoleon's murder of the Duc d'Enghien: it was worse than a sin: it was a blunder.
posted by rdone at 8:34 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
But, destabilization helps both Putin and the US; he serves as a useful foil for militarists like you.
A militarist named Marshal figured that the way out of the power politics that led to two world wars in Europe was 1. to redevelop European economies to a level of comfort, and 2. establish a norm whereby these economies compete for resources from abroad in the marketplace rather than the battlefield.
The result of this militarist's work was an entire generation, namely the Boomers, growing up and growing old without witnessing war along the Rhine, for the first time since the death of Charlemagne.
If looking at the Ukrainians and Lithuanians with the same eyes makes me a militarist, then I don't want to be a peacenik.
posted by ocschwar at 9:21 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
A militarist named Marshal figured that the way out of the power politics that led to two world wars in Europe was 1. to redevelop European economies to a level of comfort, and 2. establish a norm whereby these economies compete for resources from abroad in the marketplace rather than the battlefield.
The result of this militarist's work was an entire generation, namely the Boomers, growing up and growing old without witnessing war along the Rhine, for the first time since the death of Charlemagne.
If looking at the Ukrainians and Lithuanians with the same eyes makes me a militarist, then I don't want to be a peacenik.
posted by ocschwar at 9:21 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
The deterrent to the mad adventurism that such an invasion would be is the potential for nuclear war. Period.
Russia has things to lose by invading the Baltics apart from the remote threat of ending the world. These include
1. Losing lots and lots of equipment when NATO rolls back in from Poland. And people too, of course.
2. Kaliningrad, which if push comes to shove can probably be starved out.
3. Economic ruin that makes their current clusterfuck look like a historic boom time.
4. Large-scale European rearmament and possible formal entry into NATO from Finland.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:22 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Russia has things to lose by invading the Baltics apart from the remote threat of ending the world. These include
1. Losing lots and lots of equipment when NATO rolls back in from Poland. And people too, of course.
2. Kaliningrad, which if push comes to shove can probably be starved out.
3. Economic ruin that makes their current clusterfuck look like a historic boom time.
4. Large-scale European rearmament and possible formal entry into NATO from Finland.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:22 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Poisoning critics abroad, assassinating journalists at home, anti-LGBT legislation, suppression of dissent--that is Putin's Russia, ennui.bz. Ask two or three generations of people from the Baltics, Poland, eastern Germany, Hungary, Czech, Ukraine, and Slovakia about the threat from Russia. This is not simply some sort of threat inflation to keep cash flowing to contractors.
posted by haiku warrior at 9:36 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by haiku warrior at 9:36 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
NATO is going to take steps to ensure the Russians have no doubts that the alliance will defend all its member states.
which is why extending NATO to the borders of Russia was an act of military brinkmanship. this is the sorry of diplomatic "logic" which led to WWI.
US policy of attempting to maintain it's Cold War international role will be seen in the future as being both self defeating and as setting the stage for military catastrophe. the US federal government created powerful national and international institutions to fight the Soviet Union. and, more than any individual politics, the bureaucratic politics of those institutions is pushing the US into increasing aggressive positions. the recent Iraq war is just a taste of things to come, regardless of which party holds the executive
posted by ennui.bz at 9:37 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
which is why extending NATO to the borders of Russia was an act of military brinkmanship. this is the sorry of diplomatic "logic" which led to WWI.
US policy of attempting to maintain it's Cold War international role will be seen in the future as being both self defeating and as setting the stage for military catastrophe. the US federal government created powerful national and international institutions to fight the Soviet Union. and, more than any individual politics, the bureaucratic politics of those institutions is pushing the US into increasing aggressive positions. the recent Iraq war is just a taste of things to come, regardless of which party holds the executive
posted by ennui.bz at 9:37 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Right now, if I were the Baltic leaders, I'd be engaging in quiet, desperate meetings to develop a nuclear weapons program...
only someone with exactly nothing at stake in the Baltics would think of a policy so insanely suicidal.
if you are reading this and not a US citizen, it should be a warning about just how dangerous Americans are.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:44 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
only someone with exactly nothing at stake in the Baltics would think of a policy so insanely suicidal.
if you are reading this and not a US citizen, it should be a warning about just how dangerous Americans are.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:44 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't understand, ennui.bz. Are you saying the best way to prevent a Russian incursion into the Baltic states is to keep those states out of NATO?
posted by dazed_one at 9:52 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dazed_one at 9:52 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Being Estonian and living here, this thread is really helping me better to understand mansplaining.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 9:55 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 9:55 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
So, what's your take, Pyrogenesis?
posted by ocschwar at 10:01 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ocschwar at 10:01 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
oschwar: False comparison. European austerity at present is a far cry from the Marshall Plan. Economic "reform" in the Baltics has basically destroyed their economies.
posted by wuwei at 10:03 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by wuwei at 10:03 AM on February 5, 2016
European austerity at present not-withstanding (and other economic blunders as well), the opportunity to work in the eurozone remains the most attractive option for young eastern Europeans. And the infusion of cash those young people bring back remains the easiest way to establish a Marshal Plan for those countries without actually having a Marshal Plan.
posted by ocschwar at 10:06 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ocschwar at 10:06 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh wow, the Tactical Pilotage Charts used for the exercise are really cool if you have any interest in maps.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 10:08 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by OverlappingElvis at 10:08 AM on February 5, 2016
I don't understand, ennui.bz. Are you saying the best way to prevent a Russian incursion into the Baltic states is to keep those states out of NATO?
The argument as I've seen it is that it would be best if those states were Russian satrapies, that these nations have no right to self-determination.
Similar arguments were made in the past about Poland and Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. No doubt if things continue as they are, in a few years people here will be making similar arguments about how Poland being in NATO is madness.
Of course if the Baltics fall, there probably won't BE a NATO, since it will have shown it can't defend member states. But I'm sure the argument will be extended to how, irrespective if how the Poles feel, Poland would be better off as a Russian client state.
posted by happyroach at 10:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
The argument as I've seen it is that it would be best if those states were Russian satrapies, that these nations have no right to self-determination.
Similar arguments were made in the past about Poland and Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. No doubt if things continue as they are, in a few years people here will be making similar arguments about how Poland being in NATO is madness.
Of course if the Baltics fall, there probably won't BE a NATO, since it will have shown it can't defend member states. But I'm sure the argument will be extended to how, irrespective if how the Poles feel, Poland would be better off as a Russian client state.
posted by happyroach at 10:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
if you are reading this and not a US citizen, it should be a warning about just how dangerous Americans are.
aaaaaand we've officially jumped that shark, Fonz.
Sitting in Europe, I can tell you that plenty of people here correctly view what danger there might be that does not come from Washington, despite all attempts to oversimplify.
posted by C.A.S. at 10:27 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
aaaaaand we've officially jumped that shark, Fonz.
Sitting in Europe, I can tell you that plenty of people here correctly view what danger there might be that does not come from Washington, despite all attempts to oversimplify.
posted by C.A.S. at 10:27 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
ennui.bz, I'll admit that offering NATO membership to the Baltics was a gross breach of the adage "don't let your mouth write a check your fists can't cover."
But we've seen that Russian belligerence against their former colonies extends to more than just NATO membership, and that they are actively seeking to disrupt economic integration with the West by very poor populations that could use it.
Besides acquiescing, and writing off the Romanians, Moldovans, Ukrainians, Caucasians and Baltics, what do you propose?
posted by ocschwar at 10:29 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
But we've seen that Russian belligerence against their former colonies extends to more than just NATO membership, and that they are actively seeking to disrupt economic integration with the West by very poor populations that could use it.
Besides acquiescing, and writing off the Romanians, Moldovans, Ukrainians, Caucasians and Baltics, what do you propose?
posted by ocschwar at 10:29 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
But, destabilization helps both Putin and the US; he serves as a useful foil for militarists like you. Putin is your best enemy.
ennui.bz
This is and some other comments in this thread are good examples of an unfortunate tendency of some people making rightful critiques of American foreign policy to disappear up their own asses.
The US has certainly caused its share of problems, but it doesn't therefore follow that the US is the sole cause of all problems.
Putin isn't something the US made up. You can rant until you're blue in the face about the US destabilizing the Ukraine, but Russia did conduct an actual invasion and annexation of Crimea and has conducted a secret de-facto invasion of eastern Ukraine.
There is legitimate reason to worry about potential Russian military threat in the Baltics and the region. This is not a false smoke-screen manufactured in Washington. There are real people there under real threat. What are they to do? Bloviating about abstract geopolitical games won't protect them.
ennui.bz, what exactly would you have the people under threat in the region do? Practice their Russian for the event of the apparently inevitable takeover? Pray really hard for God to help them because no one else will?
posted by Sangermaine at 10:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
ennui.bz
This is and some other comments in this thread are good examples of an unfortunate tendency of some people making rightful critiques of American foreign policy to disappear up their own asses.
The US has certainly caused its share of problems, but it doesn't therefore follow that the US is the sole cause of all problems.
Putin isn't something the US made up. You can rant until you're blue in the face about the US destabilizing the Ukraine, but Russia did conduct an actual invasion and annexation of Crimea and has conducted a secret de-facto invasion of eastern Ukraine.
There is legitimate reason to worry about potential Russian military threat in the Baltics and the region. This is not a false smoke-screen manufactured in Washington. There are real people there under real threat. What are they to do? Bloviating about abstract geopolitical games won't protect them.
ennui.bz, what exactly would you have the people under threat in the region do? Practice their Russian for the event of the apparently inevitable takeover? Pray really hard for God to help them because no one else will?
posted by Sangermaine at 10:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Speaking of the Crimea, I hear there's a lovely resort town there, and we can all fly there to discuss these issues in comfort, over a samovar of good Russian tea. Shall we reconvene in Yalta?
posted by ocschwar at 10:46 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ocschwar at 10:46 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
1. Losing lots and lots of equipment when NATO rolls back in from Poland. And people too, of course.
Doesn't the recently revised Russian military doctrine allow for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the incoming NATO troops moving through Poland? And some analysts say that Putin would go further, betting that a small-scale nuclear strike on a third-tier NATO city (say, Bratislava or Kosice or somewhere) would deter NATO from any more conventional retaliation whilst not triggering a global thermonuclear war (a variant of Richard Nixon's greater-madman doctrine of projected volatility).
Also, Russia has never shied away from sacrificing its citizens en masse, be it in wartime or peacetime; they, after all, have a lot of surplus citizens, and it has been understood since Czarist times that life is cheap and may be disposed of at the discretion of the Czar. They're not as squeamish about it as, say, America or post-WW2 Germany are.
posted by acb at 10:53 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Doesn't the recently revised Russian military doctrine allow for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the incoming NATO troops moving through Poland? And some analysts say that Putin would go further, betting that a small-scale nuclear strike on a third-tier NATO city (say, Bratislava or Kosice or somewhere) would deter NATO from any more conventional retaliation whilst not triggering a global thermonuclear war (a variant of Richard Nixon's greater-madman doctrine of projected volatility).
Also, Russia has never shied away from sacrificing its citizens en masse, be it in wartime or peacetime; they, after all, have a lot of surplus citizens, and it has been understood since Czarist times that life is cheap and may be disposed of at the discretion of the Czar. They're not as squeamish about it as, say, America or post-WW2 Germany are.
posted by acb at 10:53 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
And some analysts say that Putin would go further, betting that a small-scale nuclear strike on a third-tier NATO city (say, Bratislava or Kosice or somewhere) would deter NATO from any more conventional retaliation whilst not triggering a global thermonuclear war (a variant of Richard Nixon's greater-madman doctrine of projected volatility).
I remember hearing this a while ago and it frankly makes zero sense to me. In what world is the response to nuking Bratislava (and killing a million-ish people just to prove you could) going to be, "Shit, fuck that place, better run away so mean old Mr. Putin doesn't get mad again" and not "Holy shit, this regime is a very real danger to everyone and everything, so we need to stop it at almost any cost!"?
Hell, once you've decided that Putin doesn't care about other countries or body counts at all, why wouldn't he start by nuking London and Paris instead of dicking around the Slovakians? If his actual goal is to terrify NATO into slinking away, crippling them would seem like a better place to start than outraging them.
posted by Copronymus at 11:39 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I remember hearing this a while ago and it frankly makes zero sense to me. In what world is the response to nuking Bratislava (and killing a million-ish people just to prove you could) going to be, "Shit, fuck that place, better run away so mean old Mr. Putin doesn't get mad again" and not "Holy shit, this regime is a very real danger to everyone and everything, so we need to stop it at almost any cost!"?
Hell, once you've decided that Putin doesn't care about other countries or body counts at all, why wouldn't he start by nuking London and Paris instead of dicking around the Slovakians? If his actual goal is to terrify NATO into slinking away, crippling them would seem like a better place to start than outraging them.
posted by Copronymus at 11:39 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, there aren't enough NATO forces in the Baltics yet to immediately repel an invasion, but I doubt there need to be. There probably only need to be sacrificial tripwire forces to make sure that any invasion has to kick the US military and/or the British Army and/or the Bundeswehr right in the teeth and you really really don't wanna do that.
If you read the article, they address this. The suggestion is that because the Russians would win in the short term any invasion of the Baltic states, the US is left with three options.
Option 1 is the response you presume above, but they lay out in detail the problems that taking back the Baltic states would present, including (beyond the obvious lives and costs) that a) it might require a wider war with Russia to achieve the goal, which would be a much more dangerous strategic situation (imagine if the US had opted for a general war with China during the 1950s, except with nukes) or b) even if it didn't require a general conventional war with Moscow to take back the territories, Russia might be willing to turn it in to one to defend them.
Option 2 is nuclear war with Russia with all the problems that involves.
Option 3 is concession... in which the BEST case scenario would be a new cold war.
Thus, the paper argues, it would be better to use conventional forces to deter a Russian play for the Baltic states rather than to have be stuck with any of these three alternatives post facto.
I'm not sure that works... but they've thought about it a lot more intently than a lot of people in this thread seem to give them credit for. Disagreement is certainly reasonable, but I don't think facile disagreement is.
I am made nervous by the fact that the study is funded by the Army, since naval elements seem under thought and since the conclusions are so clearly applicable to an increase in U.S. Army strength one wonders about the role of interservice rivalry in seeking out these kind of recommendations.
posted by Jahaza at 11:55 AM on February 5, 2016
If you read the article, they address this. The suggestion is that because the Russians would win in the short term any invasion of the Baltic states, the US is left with three options.
Option 1 is the response you presume above, but they lay out in detail the problems that taking back the Baltic states would present, including (beyond the obvious lives and costs) that a) it might require a wider war with Russia to achieve the goal, which would be a much more dangerous strategic situation (imagine if the US had opted for a general war with China during the 1950s, except with nukes) or b) even if it didn't require a general conventional war with Moscow to take back the territories, Russia might be willing to turn it in to one to defend them.
Option 2 is nuclear war with Russia with all the problems that involves.
Option 3 is concession... in which the BEST case scenario would be a new cold war.
Thus, the paper argues, it would be better to use conventional forces to deter a Russian play for the Baltic states rather than to have be stuck with any of these three alternatives post facto.
I'm not sure that works... but they've thought about it a lot more intently than a lot of people in this thread seem to give them credit for. Disagreement is certainly reasonable, but I don't think facile disagreement is.
I am made nervous by the fact that the study is funded by the Army, since naval elements seem under thought and since the conclusions are so clearly applicable to an increase in U.S. Army strength one wonders about the role of interservice rivalry in seeking out these kind of recommendations.
posted by Jahaza at 11:55 AM on February 5, 2016
Hell, once you've decided that Putin doesn't care about other countries or body counts at all, why wouldn't he start by nuking London and Paris instead of dicking around the Slovakians? If his actual goal is to terrify NATO into slinking away, crippling them would seem like a better place to start than outraging them.
Because Slovakia doesn't have nuclear weapons of their own and once the Russians have shown they're willing to use them, everyone will want to try damn hard to make sure nuking Paris or London doesn't happen... and standing down unilaterally may be the best way to achieve that.
On the other hand, if you nuke Paris or London, those countries DO have their own nuclear weapons and the retaliatory impulse will be powerful and it will be a lot harder for those countries to act with restraint if the mushroom cloud is over their own territory than if it's in a eastern Europe.
posted by Jahaza at 12:01 PM on February 5, 2016
Because Slovakia doesn't have nuclear weapons of their own and once the Russians have shown they're willing to use them, everyone will want to try damn hard to make sure nuking Paris or London doesn't happen... and standing down unilaterally may be the best way to achieve that.
On the other hand, if you nuke Paris or London, those countries DO have their own nuclear weapons and the retaliatory impulse will be powerful and it will be a lot harder for those countries to act with restraint if the mushroom cloud is over their own territory than if it's in a eastern Europe.
posted by Jahaza at 12:01 PM on February 5, 2016
Option 3 is concession... in which the BEST case scenario would be a new cold war.
And that's the best case from the POV of the West. A more common scenario, and the one that Putin may be gaming for, is that NATO collapses, countries withdraw from the EU, and Russia dominates everything east of the German border.
With a victory like that, a former KGB agent may consider it worthwhile to use tactical nuclear weapons, gambling that Germany and France won't be willing to escalate.
And for your enjoyment: World War 3 Flow Chart.
posted by happyroach at 12:33 PM on February 5, 2016
And that's the best case from the POV of the West. A more common scenario, and the one that Putin may be gaming for, is that NATO collapses, countries withdraw from the EU, and Russia dominates everything east of the German border.
With a victory like that, a former KGB agent may consider it worthwhile to use tactical nuclear weapons, gambling that Germany and France won't be willing to escalate.
And for your enjoyment: World War 3 Flow Chart.
posted by happyroach at 12:33 PM on February 5, 2016
Absent from this discussion is the option Russia has already exercised multiple times:
Carve out unrecognized autonomous enclaves, accepting the resulting illegality under international law, and the hardship it imposes on the residents, including economic isolation, locals resorting to organized crime to get by, organized crime moving it, and the resulting instability causing more trouble to the targeted country than it causes to Russia.
So far they've done this with Transnistria, Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea, Ossetia, and Abkhazia.
They could do this to the Baltic States, to Romania (the Magyar regions), Serbia (the Magyar regions), and elsewhere.
It's like a mirror-image Marshal Plan. So maybe Putin really is the perfect foil for someone like me. And the question becomes what to do about it. Obviously, Marshal-izing the living shit out of the Russian areas in the Baltics, not to mention the Baltics at large. And perhaps doing it with Kaliningrad.
posted by ocschwar at 12:41 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Carve out unrecognized autonomous enclaves, accepting the resulting illegality under international law, and the hardship it imposes on the residents, including economic isolation, locals resorting to organized crime to get by, organized crime moving it, and the resulting instability causing more trouble to the targeted country than it causes to Russia.
So far they've done this with Transnistria, Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea, Ossetia, and Abkhazia.
They could do this to the Baltic States, to Romania (the Magyar regions), Serbia (the Magyar regions), and elsewhere.
It's like a mirror-image Marshal Plan. So maybe Putin really is the perfect foil for someone like me. And the question becomes what to do about it. Obviously, Marshal-izing the living shit out of the Russian areas in the Baltics, not to mention the Baltics at large. And perhaps doing it with Kaliningrad.
posted by ocschwar at 12:41 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
The second World War is an obsolete model for a future theoretical conflict in the Baltics. Russia has strugglef against Ukraine and in Syria. Attacking one of the Baltic states would be suicidial. Even without nuclear weapons.
posted by humanfont at 1:11 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by humanfont at 1:11 PM on February 5, 2016
Re: "US policy of attempting to maintain it's Cold War international role"
And the Russians haven't been trying to re-claim some of that old Soviet lustre?
posted by milnews.ca at 1:13 PM on February 5, 2016
And the Russians haven't been trying to re-claim some of that old Soviet lustre?
posted by milnews.ca at 1:13 PM on February 5, 2016
Being Estonian and living here, this thread is really helping me better to understand mansplaining.
If you feel like it, I'd like to read what you think too. Like most Americans my ignorance on the subject is vast.
posted by ridgerunner at 1:24 PM on February 5, 2016
If you feel like it, I'd like to read what you think too. Like most Americans my ignorance on the subject is vast.
posted by ridgerunner at 1:24 PM on February 5, 2016
Attacking one of the Baltic states would be suicidial.
Assuming the NATO reports are correct, would it really? If NATO gives up the Baltic states and either fragments due to being a paper tiger, or somehow reestablishes itself west of Russia's new sphere of influence, would Russia really end up losing in the long term? The West could slam down harsh sanctions against Russia, banning a few dozens of officials from setting foot in the US or EU, outlawing exports of anything to Russia and so on, and these would last until we need Russia to not veto our shit on the UN Security Council when dealing with the next North Korean provocation or whatever follows the Iranian nuclear programme or ISIS, in which case all but a symbolic figleaf would get quietly backpedalled. Meanwhile, Estonia's e-government in exile would go on ticking away fictitiously somewhere in an Amazon data centre in Dublin or Oregon, while Russia extended its grip, rooted out resistance and reintegrated its former colonies. Sure, with sanctions, the cost of war and ongoing low oil prices, times may be tough in Russia, but not so tough as to cause the state to implode (the Russian people have a high tolerance of misery). And lack of cooperation with the West would give Russia carte blanche to act like pirates, extending its protection of criminal enterprises that target the “Amers” in return for a windfall tax of their lucrative profits; in a sense, doing what North Korea does, only on a scale several orders of magnitude larger and more sophisticated. (Imagine the sorts of ransomware that could show up if the FSB lent its full technical resources to making it effective.)
posted by acb at 1:28 PM on February 5, 2016
Assuming the NATO reports are correct, would it really? If NATO gives up the Baltic states and either fragments due to being a paper tiger, or somehow reestablishes itself west of Russia's new sphere of influence, would Russia really end up losing in the long term? The West could slam down harsh sanctions against Russia, banning a few dozens of officials from setting foot in the US or EU, outlawing exports of anything to Russia and so on, and these would last until we need Russia to not veto our shit on the UN Security Council when dealing with the next North Korean provocation or whatever follows the Iranian nuclear programme or ISIS, in which case all but a symbolic figleaf would get quietly backpedalled. Meanwhile, Estonia's e-government in exile would go on ticking away fictitiously somewhere in an Amazon data centre in Dublin or Oregon, while Russia extended its grip, rooted out resistance and reintegrated its former colonies. Sure, with sanctions, the cost of war and ongoing low oil prices, times may be tough in Russia, but not so tough as to cause the state to implode (the Russian people have a high tolerance of misery). And lack of cooperation with the West would give Russia carte blanche to act like pirates, extending its protection of criminal enterprises that target the “Amers” in return for a windfall tax of their lucrative profits; in a sense, doing what North Korea does, only on a scale several orders of magnitude larger and more sophisticated. (Imagine the sorts of ransomware that could show up if the FSB lent its full technical resources to making it effective.)
posted by acb at 1:28 PM on February 5, 2016
So is there any suggestion of what would be needed to effectively stall a Russian invasion long enough for a Division or Two of Nato forces to be deployed in a defensive manner?
My guess is that your major concern vis-a-vis the Russians is the deployment of Armored formations supported by Gunships with the understanding that Russia is potentially dramatically outclassed in terms of a conventional struggle for air superiority.
So is the major concern that there are insufficient anti-tank weapons available for defensive purposes and that major Baltic cities could be effectively surrounded quickly and that retaking said cities would be extremely costly?
Because I can see that being the issue, NATO doesn't have local forces necessary for a defensive mission but a quick Russian offensive could allow Putin to lock in major territorial claims and that reversing that position is more or less impossible. Basically the warfare equivalent of possession being 9/10ths of the law.
posted by vuron at 1:35 PM on February 5, 2016
My guess is that your major concern vis-a-vis the Russians is the deployment of Armored formations supported by Gunships with the understanding that Russia is potentially dramatically outclassed in terms of a conventional struggle for air superiority.
So is the major concern that there are insufficient anti-tank weapons available for defensive purposes and that major Baltic cities could be effectively surrounded quickly and that retaking said cities would be extremely costly?
Because I can see that being the issue, NATO doesn't have local forces necessary for a defensive mission but a quick Russian offensive could allow Putin to lock in major territorial claims and that reversing that position is more or less impossible. Basically the warfare equivalent of possession being 9/10ths of the law.
posted by vuron at 1:35 PM on February 5, 2016
On a tangent: A piece in Der Spiegel about Russia's propaganda campaigns to undermine Europe
posted by acb at 2:01 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by acb at 2:01 PM on February 5, 2016
the understanding that Russia is potentially dramatically outclassed in terms of a conventional struggle for air superiority
I wouldn't say dramatically outclassed.
posted by dazed_one at 2:25 PM on February 5, 2016
I wouldn't say dramatically outclassed.
posted by dazed_one at 2:25 PM on February 5, 2016
During the Cold War, many Soviet fighters actually handled better than their US counterparts. The avionics and electronic control systems weren't as good as in western fighters, but there were companies in third countries which specialised in retrofitting Soviet jets with Western-grade avionics (typically for non-aligned nations).
posted by acb at 2:28 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by acb at 2:28 PM on February 5, 2016
Really you are suggesting a prototype fifth generation airframe as proving that the Russians aren't outclassed in terms of current air superiority? Even excluding the F-22 and F-35 from the equation it's not entirely clear that the Russian Air Force would be able to maintain air superiority vs the existing 4th generation fighters of NATO. The F-15E vs SU-35 matchup is not a fun one for either side but it appears that the numbers of SU-35s (40) vs F-15Es (213) dramatically favor NATO and that's excluding any Eurofighter numbers from the equation.
posted by vuron at 3:14 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 3:14 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not saying they're not outclassed. I'm just saying they're not dramatically outclassed. It would not be a piece of cake to go toe to toe with the Russian air force. Numbers would certainly tell.
posted by dazed_one at 3:51 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by dazed_one at 3:51 PM on February 5, 2016
There are infinitely many possible scenarios that one can imagine where Russia does X attack and NATO responds Y. It might even be likely that NATO folds if Russia launches a military offensive against the Baltic states. It might be that there is a very low chance that nuclear weapons use would be considered. How certain do Russian leaders and military planners have to be; before they invade?
Also think about the military commitment Russia would have to make in order to launch an invasion of the Baltic States. These countries are 6 times the population of Chechnya. For the second Chechen war, Russia needed 9 months and 80,000 soldiers. Russia had total air superiority and they faced an opponent with few advanced weapons. Conditions will be very different in the Baltic States. It would certainly require a much bigger commitment than anything they have done recently. Even if we assume that Russia will have equivalent air and ground combat capabilities to NATO; it is still a really difficult operation.
Furthermore while the recent simulations and reports by NATO identified specific shortcomings; that kind of the purpose of these reports and simulations. NATO will now go out and make sure that the Baltic states have the equipment and training they need to stop Russian tanks and shoot down the gunships. NATO forces will be redeployed to provide better security and more joint exercises will be scheduled.
Finally the strategy followed by Russia in Ukraine and South Ossestia were unique to the political problems in those countries. The Baltic states are in a different place economically and politically. These countries and NATO are on the lookout for Russian separatist movements threatening the security of these states. I don't think it is likely that Russia would be able to pull it off in the same way they have managed it in Ukraine. Also Ukraine hasn't exactly been a smashing success for them. They continue to suffer casualties and costs for what is a pretty meager prize.
posted by humanfont at 3:54 PM on February 5, 2016
Also think about the military commitment Russia would have to make in order to launch an invasion of the Baltic States. These countries are 6 times the population of Chechnya. For the second Chechen war, Russia needed 9 months and 80,000 soldiers. Russia had total air superiority and they faced an opponent with few advanced weapons. Conditions will be very different in the Baltic States. It would certainly require a much bigger commitment than anything they have done recently. Even if we assume that Russia will have equivalent air and ground combat capabilities to NATO; it is still a really difficult operation.
Furthermore while the recent simulations and reports by NATO identified specific shortcomings; that kind of the purpose of these reports and simulations. NATO will now go out and make sure that the Baltic states have the equipment and training they need to stop Russian tanks and shoot down the gunships. NATO forces will be redeployed to provide better security and more joint exercises will be scheduled.
Finally the strategy followed by Russia in Ukraine and South Ossestia were unique to the political problems in those countries. The Baltic states are in a different place economically and politically. These countries and NATO are on the lookout for Russian separatist movements threatening the security of these states. I don't think it is likely that Russia would be able to pull it off in the same way they have managed it in Ukraine. Also Ukraine hasn't exactly been a smashing success for them. They continue to suffer casualties and costs for what is a pretty meager prize.
posted by humanfont at 3:54 PM on February 5, 2016
NATO will now go out and make sure that the Baltic states have the equipment and training they need to stop Russian tanks and shoot down the gunships. NATO forces will be redeployed to provide better security and more joint exercises will be scheduled.
Isn't part of the point that any deployment sufficient to present a nontrivial problem to an invading Russian army would be overwhelmingly large, effectively turning the Baltic states into highly militarised garrison states, at tremendous expense?
posted by acb at 4:13 PM on February 5, 2016
Isn't part of the point that any deployment sufficient to present a nontrivial problem to an invading Russian army would be overwhelmingly large, effectively turning the Baltic states into highly militarised garrison states, at tremendous expense?
posted by acb at 4:13 PM on February 5, 2016
What do I know about this compared to RAND corporation, but I think their war game has a pretty big flaw. I thought it was weird when the PDF listed 1 French squadron as being available because while the French Air Force isn't the USAF, it's more than one squadron. It made sense when I got to the bottom of the document and saw that they literally war gamed it on a hex grid. They were focused on what was available in theater at the moment and they seem to fail to account for the fact that the units that are presently committed to NATO service aren't the sum total of what would be available in the case of war. The USAF would be flying everything it has from every base across the globe, with every tanker it can get airborne working to keep the whole show in the air. They do hint at this with references to some of the REFORGER style US Army plans, but if this actually happened, you would see an air war kick off that would probably be unparalleled in size since WW2, and if Russia loses, those massive armor columns would be sitting ducks for the largest air force in the world. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that NATO would win, but this paper focuses heavily on the ground war and doesn't seem to contemplate that response.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:16 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:16 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I linked to the aircraft in development in my earlier comment to show that the Russians aren't lagging behind technologically. Their current strength isn't exactly lacking, either.
Russian Air Force Combat Aircraft:
MiG 29 - 252
MiG 31 - 135
Su 34 - 61 (with another 62 on the way)
These are just the air to air combat aircraft. Source.
The MH17 incident has shown that the Russians also have some fairly effective SAM systems too. Considering, as the report in the post states, NATO would be trying to take back ground already controlled by Russia, the battle for air superiority would be taking place over areas covered by such systems, giving a boost to the Russians.
NATO would likely win, but I definitely wouldn't say that the Russians would be dramatically outclassed in the struggle.
posted by dazed_one at 4:18 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Russian Air Force Combat Aircraft:
MiG 29 - 252
MiG 31 - 135
Su 34 - 61 (with another 62 on the way)
These are just the air to air combat aircraft. Source.
The MH17 incident has shown that the Russians also have some fairly effective SAM systems too. Considering, as the report in the post states, NATO would be trying to take back ground already controlled by Russia, the battle for air superiority would be taking place over areas covered by such systems, giving a boost to the Russians.
NATO would likely win, but I definitely wouldn't say that the Russians would be dramatically outclassed in the struggle.
posted by dazed_one at 4:18 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
And all this discussion is moot. Before NATO could establish air superiority, warheads will be passing each other over the North Pole and the unlucky few would have far larger concerns... like "Is this dented can of dog food still edible?" "Did this water kill that deer or was it already sick and dying?" and my personal favorite "Oh dear God, why is it so dark and cold?".
posted by PROD_TPSL at 4:26 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 4:26 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Isn't part of the point that any deployment sufficient to present a nontrivial problem to an invading Russian army would be overwhelmingly large, effectively turning the Baltic states into highly militarised garrison states, at tremendous expense?
$2.7 billion/year, according to RAND.
The Russian plan would be to hit fast and hard and get in control before NATO can react. They can then use the same logic as in Crimea and annex the captured land, which in turn then means that they can plausibly threaten to go nuclear against any attack on the new 'Russian territory'. Would NATO solidarity hold together in the face of that threat? I doubt it.
RAND's proposal is not to put forces in place that are sufficient to repel a full-scale Russian assault on the Baltics indefinitely. They just want enough to prevent the Russians from winning in the first week or so. That week would give NATO a chance to reinforce. It also makes the whole operation more complex and risky from the Russian perspective, and so decreases the temptation on their side to roll the dice.
Is RAND's ~$2.7bn a year worth it to buy that week? It's a lot of money, but less than 0.5% of the US defence budget, or 5% of the UK one. Depends if NATO still means anything to the people with the purse strings.
posted by Urtylug at 4:31 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
$2.7 billion/year, according to RAND.
The Russian plan would be to hit fast and hard and get in control before NATO can react. They can then use the same logic as in Crimea and annex the captured land, which in turn then means that they can plausibly threaten to go nuclear against any attack on the new 'Russian territory'. Would NATO solidarity hold together in the face of that threat? I doubt it.
RAND's proposal is not to put forces in place that are sufficient to repel a full-scale Russian assault on the Baltics indefinitely. They just want enough to prevent the Russians from winning in the first week or so. That week would give NATO a chance to reinforce. It also makes the whole operation more complex and risky from the Russian perspective, and so decreases the temptation on their side to roll the dice.
Is RAND's ~$2.7bn a year worth it to buy that week? It's a lot of money, but less than 0.5% of the US defence budget, or 5% of the UK one. Depends if NATO still means anything to the people with the purse strings.
posted by Urtylug at 4:31 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
The MH17 incident would seem to show that the Russian air defense equipment and crews have serious deficiencies in target identification and tracking. They shot down a large civilian aircraft. That capability has been in their reach since the 1960s.
posted by humanfont at 4:38 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by humanfont at 4:38 PM on February 5, 2016
The MH17 incident would seem to show that the Russian air defense equipment and crews have serious deficiencies in target identification and tracking. They shot down a large civilian aircraft.
Or the Russians handed the equipment over to untrained goons, giving them a “Anti-Aircraft For Dummies” booklet with it and telling them to have fun. Which may have been an error in judgment over which some officer got severely chastised, or a deliberate greater-madman strategy to cause chaos and project the image that There's No Telling What The Russians Will Do.
posted by acb at 4:42 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or the Russians handed the equipment over to untrained goons, giving them a “Anti-Aircraft For Dummies” booklet with it and telling them to have fun. Which may have been an error in judgment over which some officer got severely chastised, or a deliberate greater-madman strategy to cause chaos and project the image that There's No Telling What The Russians Will Do.
posted by acb at 4:42 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The MH17 incident would seem to show that the Russian air defense equipment and crews have serious deficiencies in target identification and tracking. They shot down a large civilian aircraft. That capability has been in their reach since the 1960s.
Agreed, but I still wouldn't want to be flying above one of those systems in either a civilian or a military plane.
posted by dazed_one at 4:43 PM on February 5, 2016
Agreed, but I still wouldn't want to be flying above one of those systems in either a civilian or a military plane.
posted by dazed_one at 4:43 PM on February 5, 2016
A copy pasta summary of this thread. Thanks to all for their contributions.
the refugee crisis which had me scratching my head.
Propaganda about Russian military adventurism
a cynical game played by our overlords
If the EU does fall apart
Orwell spinning in his grave
may become strategically important
Weaselly language just makes the case
RAND and NATO do not enrich corporate partners
nothing at all to do with young Ukrainians
NATO is going to take steps
that makes their current clusterfuck
keep cash flowing to contractors
I don't understand, ennui
European austerity
destroyed their economies
the Baltics and the region
is nuclear war with Russia
the BEST case scenario
Disagreement is certainly reasonable,
the hardship it imposes on the residents
causing more trouble
than it causes to Russia
Assuming the NATO reports are correct,
Because I can see that being the issue
There are infinitely many possible scenarios
sufficient to present a nontrivial problem
turning the Baltic states into
a deliberate greater-madman strategy
posted by vicx at 5:25 PM on February 5, 2016
the refugee crisis which had me scratching my head.
Propaganda about Russian military adventurism
a cynical game played by our overlords
If the EU does fall apart
Orwell spinning in his grave
may become strategically important
Weaselly language just makes the case
RAND and NATO do not enrich corporate partners
nothing at all to do with young Ukrainians
NATO is going to take steps
that makes their current clusterfuck
keep cash flowing to contractors
I don't understand, ennui
European austerity
destroyed their economies
the Baltics and the region
is nuclear war with Russia
the BEST case scenario
Disagreement is certainly reasonable,
the hardship it imposes on the residents
causing more trouble
than it causes to Russia
Assuming the NATO reports are correct,
Because I can see that being the issue
There are infinitely many possible scenarios
sufficient to present a nontrivial problem
turning the Baltic states into
a deliberate greater-madman strategy
posted by vicx at 5:25 PM on February 5, 2016
If 2.7 billion dollars worth of materials and skilled service personnel prevent Vladimir Putin from making a physical confrontation against any NATO member state, I would call that a bargain.
NATO expansion was a mistake. Now we have a dollar amount tacked on to just how big a mistake it was. Now lets just call it a sunk cost, an insurance policy against a thermonuclear war.
Hopefully the Russian people will choose a future leader that works for them that also is less likely to commit further incursions into neighboring nation states.
A boy can dream... because... I don't like the thought of scrounging for food as I slowly freeze to death and fight off other raving, starving, mad people.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:29 PM on February 5, 2016
NATO expansion was a mistake. Now we have a dollar amount tacked on to just how big a mistake it was. Now lets just call it a sunk cost, an insurance policy against a thermonuclear war.
Hopefully the Russian people will choose a future leader that works for them that also is less likely to commit further incursions into neighboring nation states.
A boy can dream... because... I don't like the thought of scrounging for food as I slowly freeze to death and fight off other raving, starving, mad people.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:29 PM on February 5, 2016
Hopefully the Russian people will choose a future leader
I don't think that's how it works.
posted by acb at 6:04 PM on February 5, 2016
I don't think that's how it works.
posted by acb at 6:04 PM on February 5, 2016
Looks like the fix is in. War is the answer to Europe's economic problems. An economic problem turned into a security problem. Money well spent.
posted by vicx at 6:09 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by vicx at 6:09 PM on February 5, 2016
The MH17 incident has shown that the Russians also have some fairly effective SAM systems too.
As long as nobody is really shooting back at them, using that scenario.
Re: the nuke option, I had to share this tidbit (SLYT) from "Yes, Prime Minister" about whether the U.K. would EVER use a nuke if poked, then pushed, by the then-Soviets - with scenarios that we could quite easily see today.
posted by milnews.ca at 4:12 AM on February 6, 2016
As long as nobody is really shooting back at them, using that scenario.
Re: the nuke option, I had to share this tidbit (SLYT) from "Yes, Prime Minister" about whether the U.K. would EVER use a nuke if poked, then pushed, by the then-Soviets - with scenarios that we could quite easily see today.
posted by milnews.ca at 4:12 AM on February 6, 2016
I'm pretty flabbergasted in where this thread has gone. There are arguments the best retort to Russia jeopardising the ability of Ukrainian youth to getting a bar job in Paris is a military action!
I am completely on board with self determination of any baltic populations, and I am starting to think that might mean a fragmentation of some of the current borders, but the rush to war here, along with cries that Putin is doing it, and certainly is likely to do more, so we need a military response are just fantastical.
Is there any real threat to older NATO countries no matter how wild Putin went in former USSR territories? I suggest none.
Is the motivation to develop freedom, economic advancement and broad advancement in Baltic states helped by conducting wars in their borders? I suggest no.
The strategic goals of the west are in no way served by military action in these countries, so surely the priority must be using economic and diplomatic avenues?
If the argument boils down to pride that there are some Baltic states that were accepted into NATO, then NATO needs to address its membership and ensure those countries are still fully committed to the treaty (including their ethnic Russian populations) and accept changes to their own borders if they have regions that are not interested.
But this approach of brinkmanship and military positioning and STRATEGEMS INVOLVING NUKES!!! is just counter productive. If you are doing this and didn't live through the cold war, you need to grow up. If you are doing this and you did live through the cold war you need your head read.
posted by bystander at 6:22 AM on February 6, 2016
I am completely on board with self determination of any baltic populations, and I am starting to think that might mean a fragmentation of some of the current borders, but the rush to war here, along with cries that Putin is doing it, and certainly is likely to do more, so we need a military response are just fantastical.
Is there any real threat to older NATO countries no matter how wild Putin went in former USSR territories? I suggest none.
Is the motivation to develop freedom, economic advancement and broad advancement in Baltic states helped by conducting wars in their borders? I suggest no.
The strategic goals of the west are in no way served by military action in these countries, so surely the priority must be using economic and diplomatic avenues?
If the argument boils down to pride that there are some Baltic states that were accepted into NATO, then NATO needs to address its membership and ensure those countries are still fully committed to the treaty (including their ethnic Russian populations) and accept changes to their own borders if they have regions that are not interested.
But this approach of brinkmanship and military positioning and STRATEGEMS INVOLVING NUKES!!! is just counter productive. If you are doing this and didn't live through the cold war, you need to grow up. If you are doing this and you did live through the cold war you need your head read.
posted by bystander at 6:22 AM on February 6, 2016
It seems to me thaf Russian complaints over NATO are unavoidable. Even had the alliance stayed within its cold war borders, Russia would still be complaining. I dont think NATO can better defend its interests on idea that we must draw an imaginary border that NATO may not cross for fear of Russian complaints. I also think that a Russian war in the Baltics is very far from a realistic probability at this point.
posted by humanfont at 11:10 AM on February 6, 2016
posted by humanfont at 11:10 AM on February 6, 2016
I also think that a Russian war in the Baltics is very far from a realistic probability at this point.
It's not probable, but very far from realistic? I'm not so sure.
posted by dazed_one at 3:54 PM on February 6, 2016
It's not probable, but very far from realistic? I'm not so sure.
posted by dazed_one at 3:54 PM on February 6, 2016
I'm pretty flabbergasted in where this thread has gone. There are arguments the best retort to Russia jeopardising the ability of Ukrainian youth to getting a bar job in Paris is a military action!
An amusing little straw man. We're talking about all this because Putin's ready retort to anything nowadays appears to be military action.
posted by ocschwar at 5:40 PM on February 6, 2016
I'm pretty flabbergasted in where this thread has gone.
What?
This thread started with a post about a report on how a Russian war of aggression against the Baltic states would be fought. To be upset that people in the subsequent comments are talking about how that situation may play out seems strange.
Is there any real threat to older NATO countries no matter how wild Putin went in former USSR territories? I suggest none.
The strategic goals of the west are in no way served by military action in these countries, so surely the priority must be using economic and diplomatic avenues?
Not sure exactly who you mean by 'older NATO countries', but NATO members, be they recent members or not, have expressed an obligation to mutual defense. While it's highly unlikely Russian troops will be landing on US/British/French/German soil, those countries have a vested interest in demonstrating their willingness and ability to uphold such a treaty, even with small countries like the NATO members in the Baltic. Should push come to shove and Russia does make a move against a NATO member, then the strategic goals of the west would most assuredly be solved by military action in said country. Before it comes to war, economic and diplomatic avenues are the modus operandi, but diplomatic maneuvering only works if the powers involved are understood to stand by the treaties they have signed. Reneging on something as important as a mutual defense treaty like NATO would in no way serve the strategic goals of the west.
this approach of brinkmanship and military positioning and STRATEGEMS INVOLVING NUKES!!! is just counter productive.
Isn't the post about possible military action in the Baltic states? Not mentioning military strategy in the subsequent discussion would be ridiculous. The potential situation that's being analyzed in the Rand report will have moved beyond brinkmanship once Russian troops set foot across a NATO member's border.
posted by dazed_one at 1:00 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
What?
This thread started with a post about a report on how a Russian war of aggression against the Baltic states would be fought. To be upset that people in the subsequent comments are talking about how that situation may play out seems strange.
Is there any real threat to older NATO countries no matter how wild Putin went in former USSR territories? I suggest none.
The strategic goals of the west are in no way served by military action in these countries, so surely the priority must be using economic and diplomatic avenues?
Not sure exactly who you mean by 'older NATO countries', but NATO members, be they recent members or not, have expressed an obligation to mutual defense. While it's highly unlikely Russian troops will be landing on US/British/French/German soil, those countries have a vested interest in demonstrating their willingness and ability to uphold such a treaty, even with small countries like the NATO members in the Baltic. Should push come to shove and Russia does make a move against a NATO member, then the strategic goals of the west would most assuredly be solved by military action in said country. Before it comes to war, economic and diplomatic avenues are the modus operandi, but diplomatic maneuvering only works if the powers involved are understood to stand by the treaties they have signed. Reneging on something as important as a mutual defense treaty like NATO would in no way serve the strategic goals of the west.
this approach of brinkmanship and military positioning and STRATEGEMS INVOLVING NUKES!!! is just counter productive.
Isn't the post about possible military action in the Baltic states? Not mentioning military strategy in the subsequent discussion would be ridiculous. The potential situation that's being analyzed in the Rand report will have moved beyond brinkmanship once Russian troops set foot across a NATO member's border.
posted by dazed_one at 1:00 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just keep in mind that Rand wants to encourage more defense spending. Also while Russia may make some bellicose and bullying moves; their military budget is 10-15% the size of the US. Add in the NATO budget and they are outspent nearly 20 to 1. Remember during the Cold War we also had plenty of reports about how soviet tanks would surely overrun Germany before we could do anything. We should calibrate our alarm and anxiety accordingly.
posted by humanfont at 9:12 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by humanfont at 9:12 PM on February 7, 2016
NATO ministers approve new force for Eastern Europe.
posted by dazed_one at 1:40 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dazed_one at 1:40 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Looks like some people took that RAND report seriously.
posted by dazed_one at 1:41 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by dazed_one at 1:41 PM on February 10, 2016
« Older Why, Why, Why? | WOT!! No Anti - Virus Software ..... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by srboisvert at 5:43 AM on February 5, 2016