View Single Post
Old January 24th, 2017, 10:05 AM

Grant1pa Grant1pa is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 104
Thanks: 127
Thanked 99 Times in 36 Posts
Grant1pa is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Russian Invasion of the Baltic States

Originally Posted by shahadi View Post
Originally Posted by IronDuke99 View Post
Originally Posted by shahadi View Post
I would still say don't bother. The Baltics are not defensible by NATO, in conventional terms, as of now.

What is more they could only be, perhaps, defensible if all Western European NATO nations increased their defence spending by at least 50% and the US made it a priority. Neither of which is very likely to happen.
You maybe right about the Baltics being indefensible.

So, let's say they can not be defended by Nato or by themselves, then a scenario, a timed objective, of a Russian airborne assualt, say a company tasked to secure a com station at a crossroads, or a bridge maybe just what the doctor ordered.

Sorry I came into this discussion late. As for the Baltic States being indefensible I would imagine that historically (and currently) this would be an accurate statement. The terrain offers immense opportunities for defense, but also affords open terrain for the offense (especially in the current infrastructure).

However, I don't consider the question of defensibility is pertinent to the potential of "if" it may occur. There are distinct strategic incentives for the Russians to stabilize their Baltic border, especially considering the Kaliningrad Oblast. Much as the Crimea gained tactical and strategic importance with the current Russian/Ukraine conflict, the Baltic states face similar pressure on the northern borders.

In gaming perspective, I consider the northern states a ripe zone for scenarios and I've spent much of my time focused on this region (Baltics, Finland, Norway). Perhaps it's my penchant for history, but history has a habit of repeating itself.

I believe the intrinsic forces in the Baltic would put up fierce resistance (much as seen in the Ukraine) but differing from the south, would soon be overrun due to their lack of substantive armor, air or anti-armor capabilities. Hence, in my scenarios, NATO falls into a support role with unfavorable odds.

In what I've developed to date, US participation is gauged on those rapid response units (GRF) able to deploy in theatre in 36-48 hours. Not a happy concept when you consider what we can conceivably get there quickest.

I have a second US scenario about ready to post (still not happy with it yet) based on this concept.

But, this is an interesting area and full of potential in this forum's context.

Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Grant1pa For This Useful Post: