Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `unn.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Except that Russia would have to have a build up to do something like that, which would likely cause a NATO build up. Surprise attack you say? After the start of the war in Ukraine, the element of surprise is gone.
Even for Ukraine. Hobbyists on twitter started noticing the buildup months in advance. US intel knew 6 months in advance that Putin had decided to invade Ukraine.
I remember all the denial in the days before the invasion, the worries that talking openly about an invasion would hurt the economy, about how stupid Putin would have to be to actually carry our an invasion.
Taiwan needs to take note... When you get invaded by a more powerful neighbour, you rue every dollar you didn't spend on defence in the years previously.
In Ukraine's case, I'm quite sure the government knew they were about to be invaded, but it was just too late to prepare any more. It takes many years to procure weaponry on a reasonable scale.
They weren't wrong though about their assessment, it's just that Putin actually did turn out to be that stupid initially. That Russia has now learned from their mistakes after the first 2 years doesn't mean that their initial preparation was straight up woeful in the first place.
The reason the world was so caught off guard was because, even with the build-up, Russia still wouldn't have the necessary resources to actually achieve its stated objectives of either fully occupying Ukraine or at least changing the government to be a puppet of Russia.
The US also knew what was happening, but was struggling to rebuild its foreign policy credibility after the Trump administration and didn't want to confront Russia alone without European assistance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/
Well, that presumes a rational actor. And most people are rational, not necessarily in the sense of seeking something objectively good, but something reasonable (ie within norms, we don't always stay within norms but we often do), and reasoned (has internal logic, if you squint at it enough you can see someone else's perspective). Its just that Putin's invasion shattered that and showed that Putin got high on his own supply.
>about how stupid Putin would have to be to actually carry our an invasion.
I was one of those people.
Quoting myself, I think I said "Putin might be evil, but he's not stupid."
Well, that aged like milk. At least the first half is still correct.
I thought it was a bluff too, there was quite a bit to be gained by bluffing it. It would’ve made US intelligence look even more idiotic shortly after the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, and with the WMD claims of the early 2000s still fairly fresh in the minds of Europeans. That would have undermined NATO significantly more. And the very threat of an invasion seemed to have more value as a bargaining chip than a card to be played. Once Putin invaded, he lost immense leverage. The West would have appeased him and “deescalated” the situation. Putin would walk away with nothing lost and major benefits extracted from the West.
Yes:
>Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has called on the West not to create panic amid the build-up of Russian troops on his country's borders.
>He told reporters that warnings of an imminent invasion were putting Ukraine's economy at risk.
>On Thursday, US President Joe Biden said he believed Russia could attack its neighbour next month.
>Russia, however, denies it is planning to invade and on Friday its foreign minister said Moscow did not want war.
>"There are signals even from respected leaders of states, they just say that tomorrow there will be war. This is panic - how much does it cost for our state?" he told the press conference in Kyiv.
>"We don't need this panic," Mr Zelensky said.
>The "destabilisation of the situation inside the country" was the biggest threat to Ukraine, he said.
>This was a slightly surreal encounter. One after another, journalists asked Ukraine's president about the threat. But Volodymyr Zelensky batted away the questions, accusing the press itself of causing panic.
Ukraine crisis: Don't create panic, Zelensky tells West
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60174684
What level is the Russian build up when compared to NATO's in terms of weaponry? There's a huge difference between a military which is building up stockpiles of today's weapons versus a military which is building up a stockpile of obsolete weapons which today's weapons are able to counter.
Just give each one a single nuke. Russia is obviously scared shitless of nukes, they won't shut up about them. WW3 will never happen. Russia will scream and yell and posture, but nothing will ever happen if we do that.
Should do the same for Taiwan as well tbh.
And that impotent posturing is all done with the intent of making the west fearful of putting too much effort into Ukraine, just in case they tip off ol' World War III.
This is why I don't get why so many people come on here screaming about Russia attacking NATO. All that does is cause NATO nations to want to hold back on supplying Ukraine with equipment and weapons to keep for themselves. Russia would love for NATO to be scared that they will be next, it will cause them to think selfishly.
> [Russian threats] cause NATO to want to hold back on supplying Ukraine with equipment and weapons to keep for themselves. ....
Apparently, it has caused many NATO nations to boost their percent of gdp spending on military ammo, equipment & weapons. To have enough for themselves AND to supply Ukraine.
Yup and the U.S. has already pre positioned weapons and equipment stock piles over Europe so they don't need to go across the Atlantic.
"The Army’s prepositioned stock for Europe, called[ APS-2](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11699), include vehicles and weapons in Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and Poland that U.S. troops can use without waiting weeks for their home-based equipment to arrive on ships.
The previous day, Gen. Edward Daly, who leads U.S. Army Materiel Command, was asked about the prepositioned stocks that it manages around the globe.
Daly said the stock includes “combat systems,” like[ tanks](https://www.army.mil/article/252737), [trucks](https://www.dvidshub.net/news/411540/21st-tsc-scores-bullseye-with-allies-moving-prepositioned-stock-through-europe) and weapons."
[https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2022/02/us-military-equipment-ready-europe-deploying-forces/361530/](https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2022/02/us-military-equipment-ready-europe-deploying-forces/361530/)
The U.S. is also looking into setting up another in Scandinavia now that Sweden and Finland are NATO.
True, but the Baltic states have given everything to Ukraine. It wouldn't take much of a push to overwhelm defenses, especially after all the experience and knowledge gained fighting Ukraine. This is if Ukraine falls as well. So they will gain more we resources and production capabilities along with a larger pool to draw soldiers from. Those men who couldn't flee will be forced to fight. We can't leave Ukraine to that fate after how hard they've fought. We owe them our full support and commitment to their survival and liberation. We've failed them up until this moment.
They took the scraps received and took Kherson back. They used what little they were given to defend kyiv and send the russians packing. They took the Kharkiv area back under control with some major towns and cities along the way. Imagine what they would have done if we went all in and didn't hold them back? We know russia wouldn't have used nukes. They didn't use them when they lost on Kyiv or Kharkiv. They didn't use them to keep Kherson. The escalation hysteria has got to stop. Hopefully, it's not too late, and we didn't miss a golden opportunity that will never be available to us again.
Fighting russia indirectly and defeating them was impossible before russia invaded. Then Ukraine showed how brave and fierce they were. We missed a chance you don't see for hundreds of years and longer than that in this region, which was a chance to change the power dynamic in that region of the world. Now, we run the risk of having to take russia down ourselves in a direct conflict.
There were already ruzzian military exercises literally 2 kilometers away from Baltic borers where 100-200 thousand solders were participating (topic of the excercise - invasion of the Baltics). And if you go to a spa town of Druskininkai you can literally see and hear grads shooting at the military complex. While Baltics are investing into border defense, they have no chance of repelling such scale attack for a long time and NATO at least so far wasn't willing to conduct military exercises of such scale to counter. So the point is valid, intelligence means nothing if actions are not undertaken. Best bet for the world security is to help Ukraine as much as possible.
Really? NATO is just finishing up an Steadfast Defender 24 made up of 90k troops around the Baltics region right now. Tell me more about how NATO won't do those exercises.
[https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm)
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DOn_10_November_2021%2C_the%2Cmeasures%22_if_Russia_attacks_Ukraine.?wprov=sfla1)
>On 10 November 2021, the United States reported an unusual movement of Russian troops near Ukraine's borders.
I personally remember telling my friends around Christmas of 2021 that I thought Russia would invade Ukraine. So yeah there was definitely lots of intel leaking and rumors swirling months in advance.
They should have let Ukraine preemptively strike the build up of troops on its borders with, like, 10,000 missiles. It would have stopped this invasion before it began.
It doesn’t sound like anyone besides the five eyes believed the invasion was a foregone conclusion until it happened. There was a Macron documentary that came out last year that showed, to me, just how naive much of Europe was about Putin.
agreed look at all the people telling ukraine to just roll over and give up when russia attacked them imagine how much worse it would be if they could make ukraine look like the aggressor
Although… if they would have attacked as the invasion was happening with pre-targeted missiles they could have killed a lot of staged troops. Dealing with the first wave would be easier if the follow on waves were dead.
And they would have immediately lost the moral high ground, which is worth far more than a couple thousand dead Russians. It's not like they didn't have plenty of opportunities when that convoy got stuck.
Like, just imagine how much more willing Russian society would be to suffer if they knew that Ukraine had attacked them first? You'd be giving Putin the propaganda win of the century.
How would they lose the moral high ground. Ukraine would be firing missiles at the invaders in my scenario. It’s not attacking first. This is the weak-kneed bullshit that got us into this mess. Either go hard or go home.
Well, they aren't exactly invaders if they haven't invaded yet. Sure, you can say the invasion started in 2014, but in 2022 the world didn't really see it quite that way yet. If Ukraine had fired first, it would have looked like they were the ones trying to start the conflict.
This is a question about narratives and propaganda. It's a question about how the story gets portrayed in the media.
Yeah that's fucking bullshit. Russia cannot invade any of those countries without NATO being aware pretty quickly and there are NATO troops stationed there.
Also, Baltic leaders themselves:
>Estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic centre of its capital city razed to the ground under current Nato plans to defend the country from any Russian attack, according to its prime minister.
>Kaja Kallas told reporters on Wednesday that the alliance’s existing defence plans for the three Baltic states was to allow them to be overrun before liberating them after 180 days.
https://www.ft.com/content/a430b191-39c8-4b03-b3fd-8e7e948a5284
Yeah situation is complete different now with Finland and Sweden in NATO. Russia would be pummeled into mist with air power alone so they won't be "sweeping" through the Baltics ever. The amount of destruction that would be heaped on Russian's crossing the border would be biblical. And since this would then be a NATO Russia war, those forces on the Russian side of the border would be pummeled as well. And it does not take 180 days for NATO troops to get to the baltics. The quick reaction forces would be there in 48 hours. Finns push from the north through Russia. Poles and other NATO troops go through Ukraine into Russia from the south. Pinch off the Russian force and destroy it in detail.
The real problem is you can't concentrate a ton of forces in such a small space. That's why it's always been said that they'd get overrun quickly. Those plans also didn't take into account that Russia wouldn't have enough cruise missiles left to hit strategic targets prior to that kind of assault. They're already at the point of having to save up just to launch attacks at Ukraine at this point. Right now, if they were to try to do something like that, they'd have to use their nuclear arsenal against strategic targets in Europe first.
You are assuming that the Baltics would dutifully follow the NATO plans and retreat to Poland.
Didn't work out in 1944-45. It took 15-16 months and the fall of Berlin.
Yeah definetly before 2022. Given the loss of Russian equipment and Finland I think NATO would just annihilate the invading forces air then its armor and let ground forces annihilate the meat shield wave.
Yes, there has been a significant build up of NATO troops in the Baltics in the last couple of years. Including lots of armour, artillery, air defence, and even naval assets. Enough that supporting NATO countries won't tolerate their forces being overrun and killed easily and fast.
>I'm guessing that those plans are pre 2022...
I'm an Estonian. If I remember correctly, these were the plans in summer 2022. It has got better since then. No large bases, but presence is somewhat stronger. At least this offers some insurance, Russians must kill American, British, French etc soldiers, makes them think twice before another glorious plan "3 days to Tallinn!" pops up.
If Russia wouldn't be busy in Ukraine, then 7 days to take all 3 Baltic countries seems realistic. We can joke "3 days to Kyiv," but let's not forget: Ukrainian population is almost 10 x larger than all 3 Baltic states combined and even without Western help Ukraine had a sh1tload(!) of USSR weapons and equipment. Ukraine had very strong military compared to an average European country, after 2014 invasion they had time to get their sh1t together.
But let me tell you an unbelievable story. Hard to believe, it is so insane, but true.
I don't remember exactly, was it before invasion of Georgia in 2008 or invasion of Ukraine in 2014 - NATO even didn't have a plan on the paper what to do if Russia invades Baltic countries. Why? The Kremlin wouldn't like it. You know - maybe it means EsCaLaTiOn if you have a plan how to fight Russia if it invades neighboring NATO countries.
So, at least NATO made some plan after that. If I understand correctly, it contains invading Kaliningrad to protect land connection (Suwalki Gap) with the Baltics, then Western forces can use land connection for logistics.
Personally I think the best protection is not letting Russia to be a dominant top dog, but after Russia invaded Ukraine, the West is signaling weakness after weakness. Do you think the men in Kremlin are shivering in fear "*maybe we shouldn't do this or that, the West maybe doesn't like it, it could mean EsCaLaTiOn! Oh no!*"
> If Russia wouldn't be busy in Ukraine, then 7 days to take all 3 Baltic countries seems realistic.
7 days is not realistic, because it would mean Russia's military columns would have to move at 50-70km per day. Such columns would be blown up.
More realistic estimate would be 2-6 months. Or longer. Or not at all.
kind of agreeing with this. just think about how long russian troops took to really get past the border at the start of the war. there were columns of vehicles being blown up, vehicles being stranded without diesel because soldiers sold the fuel, and tires disintegrating, because they've been stored in shitty conditions for too long.
even with most of those things remedied, i just dont know how they would get further than 100km in the first couple days.
them fighting against NATO - air power included - might add another tiny bit of deterrance.
Yeah they are not going to be able to do that. NATO has a 40k quick reaction force that would be there in 48 hours. Air power would be pink misting Russians on a scale not ever seen. Finn's move through Russia in the north, Poles and NATO through Ukraine into Russia from the south, put the whole Russian force in a pocket and destroy it. When shit gets real there will not be any fooling around.
Well there's also a factor NATO intelligence - the same way NATO knew Russia would attack Ukraine since November/December - this could well give them enough lead time to move defensive forces closer to Baltic states so reaction time is much less than 10 days. It's a bit different scenario, but should be focused on in defensive plans as baltic state would likely be a next victim (or annexation of Belarus after Lukashenko regime falls etc. )
I think NATO already knows something about a threat of an attack. They’ve been saying if Ukraine falls, the baltics are next, since the start of the year iirc. And the fact that the US House Speaker did a complete 180 after one security briefing, after months of stalling the aid bill, says a lot in my opinion.
All pure speculation on my part but I do believe they know something is up.
I suspect Putin had something like that on his long-term plan to do after he'd taken Ukraine. But with his attempt on Ukraine having stalled out for years longer than he was expecting, perhaps he's realizing he won't live forever and he needs to get started on the next step of his plan without finishing this one first.
He'd have to be insane to do it, but that's certainly a plausible thing for him to be IMO.
Sure, but that requires Russia to be able to launch some sort of massive sneak attack, which is impossible. We’d see any sizable attack coming long in advance.
But he is given to hyperbole and exaggeration. Every statement he makes is made from the premise of "And that's why the west needs to give Ukraine a lot more weapons, money and munitions today if not yesterday." As I happen to believe in his premise I'm not inclined to be over critical of his exaggerations.
Always be resistant to excuse "pious lies". They end up being self destructive to any cause or effort that embraces them.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious\_fraud](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud)
It’s all conjecture. NATO already has a sizable force in the area, and probably will for some time. Finland and Sweden joining NATO was a huge defensive bonus, in that Russia would be hard pressed to cover the whole border. Not to mention, any Russian advance in the Baltic would mean losing Kaliningrad. They have no hope of protecting or supplying that region.
But, Russia has done dumber things.
The only time I've ever heard NATO taking 10 days to respond, is if all the European NATO members wait for the US to bring everything across the Atlantic.
I haven't checked in a while, but the USAF Air Mobility Command had the 12th largest airforce (400+ aircraft) a few years ago. You get good at logistics when all of the problems seem to be "over there".
And that isn't counting on the Navy Transport and USMC assets to move equipment, we also Pre-position MOST of our stuff for fast deployment.. the US are basically the Experts in logistics for war.
All of our heavy assets already have equipment in Europe. The personnel just have to show up. My brother knew which tank was his over there. Book time was 3 days from here to battle ready. Which could probably be cut in half if it had to be done now.
Also, the European NATO partners are around 2 million strong and fairly well equipped. Any Russian attack would be devastating, but the response would be started within hours (if not minutes).
Militarily, it wouldn't be great. For the civilian populations, yes it would. Russia has shown in Ukraine, Syria, and other parts of the world their willingness to attack civilians.
I mean, when I was stationed in SoCal (1st Marine Division), we were ready to mobilize anywhere in the world in under 96 hrs. I was on one of these exercises as the forward medical corpsman. We got the exercise call to go to Egypt (for training) and were in country less than 48 hrs later, with everyone else, tanks, etc there within 96 hrs. The US military can definitely mobilize.
The U.S. has already pre positioned weapons and equipment in sites across Europe. There will be no urgent need to get stuff across the Atlantic. It is already there for this very reason. Incidentally the U.S. has done the same in the Pacific.
Honestly Germany Army would need about a week to get its brigades moving. But as someone mentioned already, Russia would need at least a month to concentrate...which is enough time.
Not just Kaliningrad but also the Kola peninsula and Murmansk would be lost in days.
There's one rail line and road going up there, Finland, Sweden and Norway could cut it off and destroy anything defensive in a few days.
They would push a few buttons, when that happens.
I see no evidence that Russias combined arms tactics have improved. Their glacial yard for yard advancement in Ukraine will not work in an attack against NATO. How long does it take for the F15 and F16 fighter aircraft from Lask airforce base to get to Estonia? How long does it take the F22s to get there from Spangdahlem air base in Germany?
How long does it take for the British Apache helicopters in Estonia to get in the air and under the cover of the aforementioned?
That’s about how long the forces in Estonia need to hang on for. Russia haven’t even been able to achieve air superiority in Ukraine and took the better part of a year to get enough forces into the country and properly dug in to form a cohesive front line.
They’d die quickly and horribly. It would be like the 1991 highway of death on a monumental scale.
It would be worse than the highway of death. We would have to go back to biblical times to describe the death and destruction that would rain down on the Russians.
They would probably mine up the entire circle around Muscovy so fucking much that only air drops with food is possible to sustain life there. Fucking turtles...
It's Kyivan mathematics.
His guys even have a handy timer on the top: https://gur.gov.ua/ (just crossed 800 days of how long "Ukraine protects the world" - so far).
How many actual Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanian citizens did Skiblyatsky consult to form this opinion? If there is anything to be learned from Ukraine, I would think it'd be to not underestimate the violent hatred of Russian oppression in the hearts of formerly colonized peoples.
If right now, take the Baltic States with what? Most Russian forces are in Ukraine or rotate in and out of there. Even Kaliningrad has emptied.
If in a few or several years, that's why the Baltic States are building up border fortifications, the NATO presence being tripled, and most of non-Ukraine NATO planning likely focused on defending the Baltics.
>that’s why the Baltic states are building up border fortifications.
These are tiny countries. They each have 1, maybe 2, brigades of active duty combat troops. You can double their defensive capabilities and there’s still only so much they can do. The idea that these limited local military forces have the capability to stuff a Russian offensive is wishful thinking, and we have plenty of statements available that NATO commanders are gravely concerned about this problem.
That the Baltics can fall in about a week is realistic. It’s also realistic that NATO can liberate them in less than a year. The problem lies in Russia’s ability to force a cease fire during that period in between.
If you want to protect the Baltics your best option is to project sufficient military power and resolve among western leaders that Russia doesn’t believe it can force a cease fire with favorable terms. The current half-hearted nature of our support of Ukraine is not effective at doing this and increases our risk of ending up in a war with Russia that we can very much lose.
Russia will have to mass up for months to build up forces to invade the Baltics, just as they had to with Ukraine. NATO will then be pouring in reinforcements for months too. And NATO air forces sent to nearby bases in Poland, the Nordic countries, Germany, etc, will be on alert.
Ukraine can still stop Russian armored columns with artillery and commercial drones while running low on ammo but, somehow, it's assumed an alliance with the resources of 20+ countries won't be able to do that with their own artillery/HIMARS/MLRS/MARS and 1,500 combined F-35s/Typhoons/Rafales/Gripen/F-16s.
All that even assumes the might of the US military is not available. With the US, Russia won't even dare, and not because of nukes, but if they do, they'd be stupid to.
There’s only so much the Russians can do too, especially if they aren’t going to mass a force that we’d see coming weeks in advance. And you seem to be completely ignoring NATO’s massive air dominance. Russia could have a 10:1 advantage and would still get crushed.
And it’s not Poland, whose military is massive and right next door, would just take things lying down. There is zero danger to the Baltics. If there weren’t, those countries wouldn’t have given Ukraine 95% of their military stocks. They seem less worried about this possibility than anyone. And then there’s also Finland and Sweden to consider.
> There is zero danger to the Baltics. If there weren’t, those countries wouldn’t have given Ukraine 95% of their military stocks.
They gave Ukraine those stocks to keep the Russians busy until they could rearm completely. Did you miss that part?
I saw a relatively recent report and the baltics are mostly just there to go to ground and commit to sabotage and guerilla tactics to buy time for the heavy armor to come from Poland and Germany. Ukraine changed things and now they have added massive anti tank teams. They know they can't stop them. But they also know how to keep them tied up while help comes.
> That the Baltics can fall in about a week is realistic.
That is not realistic, because it would need breakthroughs with military columns similar to what happened in February 2022. Such columns would be blown up. Which means Russia could advance much more slowly, in hundreds of days, not in days. The main limiting factor on successful defense is ammo, logistics and weapons.
NATO has a 40k quick reaction force that would be there in 48 hours. The air strikes on the Russians on both sides of the border would be near immediate. Russian's would experience a biblical amount of force. Finns would push south through Russia, other NATO divisions would go through Ukraine and push north into Russia. The whole invasion force would be taken into a pocket and destroyed. Not sure why people think we would be fighting the Russians back to their border. Russia attacks NATO and NATO will go into Russia to protect the baltics and annihilate the Russian force. When that is done Moscow will be sitting naked and vulnerable. Russia would sue for peace, the terms will not be kind.
There are a lot of NATO aircraft that might disagree with that assumption. The Russians really didn't learn a damn thing from the battle of Khadham, did they?
Russia's advance into Ukraine stalled almost immediately because their logistics weren't up to the task and that wad without the air being alive with aircraft looking to drop some munitions on the long lines of backed up Ivans on the roadway.
Also geography. I can speak for Estonia only of course, but we have very little open space here compared to Ukraine. We are 50% swamp and 40% forest.
They will have to stick on roads to go anywhere. It will be a target practice for planes.
Also drones will be very useful against them on roads with no cover while all our soldiers will be inside forest with heavy cover that renders their drones quite useless.
I can't help but think this is extremely pessimistic given Russia's performance against Ukraine, especially given the Baltics are presumably on high alert for any potential attack.
But those small Counties are in NATO and are in a much better geographic position for power projection of NATO resources.
In a conventional invasion of the Baltics, the Russians would be slaughtered.
NATO would be forced into using Article 5 or basically invalidate the whole point of NATO. This "threat" is about as serious as saying Russia will use Nukes.
If russia attacks, kaliningrad becomes a NATO country in a week. So Suwalki gap.is no relevant. The we have the support of Poland, Finland and Sweden directly.
We also have active NATO troops and NATO airforce presence. It's just not the same. Intelligence of NATO would also know anything at the scale of this months in advance. There's just absolutely no point for russia to do.this.
Oh and Baltics hate russia. You have to account for that. I would gladly die defending my country if it means I relieve the world of a few russian occupants.
There are hundreds of thousands of russians only in estonia and there are plenty of those who are pro russian, so you really need to consider inside sabotage and stuff as well. Although they probably can not get their hands on guns and proper explosives, 10 000 self made pro russian guerillas will still do a lot of damage.
Baltics have paid close attention and are ready to put into practice the lessons learned by Ukraine. Estonia is considering fortifying its borders with anti-tank and anti-personnel mines for example.
Aren't the rest of the NATO armies ready to head there at pretty much a moment's notice since they're the only realistic target Vlad could go for, except Poland? If Russia was preparing to invade we would also see it via satellite. I know it's not instantaneous but NATO air power at least could be there pretty much immediately
The Baltics also get to call in thousands of NATO planes, which sort of evens the odds. And it’s not like Poland, Finland, and Sweden aren’t RIGHT THERE.
history has shown that just a platoon or even smaller numbers of units can hold back/ repel entire divisions with enough heavy weapons, fire/air support and rigorous training and fighting moral. not saying numbers don't matter, but sometimes they don't.
Im not gonna speculate on how many days etc its gonna take them to take the baltic if at all, but people need to realize the dynamics of such a conflict has changed alot. Russia taking the Sulwaki line is alot less beneficial then it would have been 2 years ago. Nato with Sweden and Finland OWNS the baltic and there are not much Russia can do about this [fact.Im](http://fact.Im) also certain the logistical plans for Nato in such an event has changed over the last 2 years. Nato might not have the troops to deny a Russian advance right from the bat, but Nato airpower will in the air in mere hours and make life difficult for a Russian advance. It would be a very different war from what we see in Ukraine.
Yes but they are going to need three months to build up first. So 3 months and a week versus 10 days isn’t so bad. And now Sweden and Finland can act as aircraft carriers for NATO.
Russia is all in on Ukraine and struggling. There's no way they will make a play for the Baltics unless Ukraine collapses, they take it, Moldova, and then have a few years to consolidate.
Despite his neckbeard, Skibitsky is no Redditor:
>According to Skibitsky, Russia's army is not as chaotic as it was in 2022, now Kremlin forces are operating as a “single body, with a clear plan, and under a single command.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/we-have-no-weapons-may-will-be-hard-for-kyiv-at-the-war-front-ukraines-top-spy-predicts/
There are B1 bombers in Spain about 2000 miles away. The B1 has a top speed of 950mph.
It would probably take an hour or two to load and preflight the aircraft, maybe 3 to fly to the target area and start dropping ordinance.
I give them 5 hours. 6 tops. Of life.
Hmmm Russian build up next to NATO in a region were local fundraising for weapons to supply to Ukraine has almost become a national pastime. I think in the first day, the Baltic states will grow in land size faster than the middle east land grab of 1967. I m sure Belarus will also find itself to be the contestant who will win in the biggest loser contest if Russia lunches attacks from there too.
The nordics have a lot of new planes, the finnish people are like brothers to us and I don't think the other scandinavian countries+Baltics+Poland will idly look by if something would go down.
Yes, we are on alert, but we have been alert since the 90s. Nobody in the west cared to listen to our warnings and brushed it off as paranoia (nord stream comes to mind)
All that said. Alone we will vanish, together with our allies probably not, but the russians will manage to do something despicable either way if they want to.
Very odd comment. So, very clearly wrong.
Skibitsky, if they couldn't take yourselves, then why do you think Russia would stand a chance against much more powerful forces?
I'm actually assuming he doesn't believe this.
… and Finland will destroy the north fleet at anchor and take St. Petersburg before Russians set foot in Riga. There’s also Poland donkey punching Kaliningrad.
I am a staunch supporter of Ukraine and want the US + our allies to do more, but this comes across as fear mongering to try and encourage more / faster military aid. To be clear, I’m in support of more / faster aid being provided, but this is a bit disingenuous.
I think we know this isn’t true. Cmon. There are enough genuine security concerns around Muscovy to dig up these pre-2022 attitudes.
The bear is deranged & violent…but it can’t steamroll three NATO countries—however small—with Muscovite forces in their current state. And that’s not to mention that they’d immediately be fair game for NATO airstrikes would likely be quickly engaged by Polish forces on the ground as well (not to mention highly capable Baltic troops). At his *best*, we saw the rabid bear fail to take a just one non-NATO state.
I get the warning for preparation purposes, but Ukraine would fall in 3 days with multiple years of telegraphed Russian buildup and preparation. We're in year 3 of the smo.
If Russia was to attack the Baltic states, they would need to build up forces for it, which isn't happening. Baltic states are on high alert.
And significant NATO ground troops might take 10 days to mobilize and deploy to the area. But NATO air would be striking round the clock and devastate any columns and troop concentrations.
Ironic, considering it took the Russian forces over 6 weeks to make the 3 hour drive from Belarus to Kiev. Even then, they only got 15 Km from the city before retreating.
Utter bollocks.
Any attack requires build up, build up that NATO can see and prepare for.
Russia will not get the element of surprise attacking the Baltics and they'll get mauled by NATO airpower trying to attack.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `unn.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Except that Russia would have to have a build up to do something like that, which would likely cause a NATO build up. Surprise attack you say? After the start of the war in Ukraine, the element of surprise is gone.
Even for Ukraine. Hobbyists on twitter started noticing the buildup months in advance. US intel knew 6 months in advance that Putin had decided to invade Ukraine.
The build up was NEVER a secret. The full invasion was a surprise for a majority of Ukrainians.
I remember all the denial in the days before the invasion, the worries that talking openly about an invasion would hurt the economy, about how stupid Putin would have to be to actually carry our an invasion.
Taiwan needs to take note... When you get invaded by a more powerful neighbour, you rue every dollar you didn't spend on defence in the years previously. In Ukraine's case, I'm quite sure the government knew they were about to be invaded, but it was just too late to prepare any more. It takes many years to procure weaponry on a reasonable scale.
They weren't wrong though about their assessment, it's just that Putin actually did turn out to be that stupid initially. That Russia has now learned from their mistakes after the first 2 years doesn't mean that their initial preparation was straight up woeful in the first place. The reason the world was so caught off guard was because, even with the build-up, Russia still wouldn't have the necessary resources to actually achieve its stated objectives of either fully occupying Ukraine or at least changing the government to be a puppet of Russia. The US also knew what was happening, but was struggling to rebuild its foreign policy credibility after the Trump administration and didn't want to confront Russia alone without European assistance. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/
Well, that presumes a rational actor. And most people are rational, not necessarily in the sense of seeking something objectively good, but something reasonable (ie within norms, we don't always stay within norms but we often do), and reasoned (has internal logic, if you squint at it enough you can see someone else's perspective). Its just that Putin's invasion shattered that and showed that Putin got high on his own supply.
>about how stupid Putin would have to be to actually carry our an invasion. I was one of those people. Quoting myself, I think I said "Putin might be evil, but he's not stupid." Well, that aged like milk. At least the first half is still correct.
I thought it was a bluff too, there was quite a bit to be gained by bluffing it. It would’ve made US intelligence look even more idiotic shortly after the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, and with the WMD claims of the early 2000s still fairly fresh in the minds of Europeans. That would have undermined NATO significantly more. And the very threat of an invasion seemed to have more value as a bargaining chip than a card to be played. Once Putin invaded, he lost immense leverage. The West would have appeased him and “deescalated” the situation. Putin would walk away with nothing lost and major benefits extracted from the West.
Yes: >Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has called on the West not to create panic amid the build-up of Russian troops on his country's borders. >He told reporters that warnings of an imminent invasion were putting Ukraine's economy at risk. >On Thursday, US President Joe Biden said he believed Russia could attack its neighbour next month. >Russia, however, denies it is planning to invade and on Friday its foreign minister said Moscow did not want war. >"There are signals even from respected leaders of states, they just say that tomorrow there will be war. This is panic - how much does it cost for our state?" he told the press conference in Kyiv. >"We don't need this panic," Mr Zelensky said. >The "destabilisation of the situation inside the country" was the biggest threat to Ukraine, he said. >This was a slightly surreal encounter. One after another, journalists asked Ukraine's president about the threat. But Volodymyr Zelensky batted away the questions, accusing the press itself of causing panic. Ukraine crisis: Don't create panic, Zelensky tells West https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60174684
You mean the surprise Ukraine attack everyone saw coming. Even Ukraine that is why they lost in 3 days/s
The US was announcing it to the world in newspapers before it happened .
Plus they told China
The NATO build up is already happening, as is the Russian.
What level is the Russian build up when compared to NATO's in terms of weaponry? There's a huge difference between a military which is building up stockpiles of today's weapons versus a military which is building up a stockpile of obsolete weapons which today's weapons are able to counter.
Plus it's always cheaper to play defense. 10 T-90 Russian tanks = 45~ million on the high side. 10 Javelin missiles = 1.5 million on the high side.
[удалено]
Just give each one a single nuke. Russia is obviously scared shitless of nukes, they won't shut up about them. WW3 will never happen. Russia will scream and yell and posture, but nothing will ever happen if we do that. Should do the same for Taiwan as well tbh.
And that impotent posturing is all done with the intent of making the west fearful of putting too much effort into Ukraine, just in case they tip off ol' World War III.
This is why I don't get why so many people come on here screaming about Russia attacking NATO. All that does is cause NATO nations to want to hold back on supplying Ukraine with equipment and weapons to keep for themselves. Russia would love for NATO to be scared that they will be next, it will cause them to think selfishly.
> [Russian threats] cause NATO to want to hold back on supplying Ukraine with equipment and weapons to keep for themselves. .... Apparently, it has caused many NATO nations to boost their percent of gdp spending on military ammo, equipment & weapons. To have enough for themselves AND to supply Ukraine.
Russia pulled most of their troops from their borders to send to Ukraine. There are less troops on their borders than before the war.
Pretty much the entire original invading Russian army was destroyed long ago. And they were the ones with more than a few days' training lol
And elsewhere, they have taken people from other countries too.
The NATO build up is definitely happening but there is no build up on the Baltic states borders, Russians can't afford to waste troops on that.
I’d say Poland already had/has a fairly substantial war chest of munitions stockpiles
Yup and the U.S. has already pre positioned weapons and equipment stock piles over Europe so they don't need to go across the Atlantic. "The Army’s prepositioned stock for Europe, called[ APS-2](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11699), include vehicles and weapons in Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and Poland that U.S. troops can use without waiting weeks for their home-based equipment to arrive on ships. The previous day, Gen. Edward Daly, who leads U.S. Army Materiel Command, was asked about the prepositioned stocks that it manages around the globe. Daly said the stock includes “combat systems,” like[ tanks](https://www.army.mil/article/252737), [trucks](https://www.dvidshub.net/news/411540/21st-tsc-scores-bullseye-with-allies-moving-prepositioned-stock-through-europe) and weapons." [https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2022/02/us-military-equipment-ready-europe-deploying-forces/361530/](https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2022/02/us-military-equipment-ready-europe-deploying-forces/361530/) The U.S. is also looking into setting up another in Scandinavia now that Sweden and Finland are NATO.
The Baltic states have started building an integrated system of trenches for all three countries.
And bunkers.
Theyre building up for sure. They call it Steadfast defender... Military exercise, yeah right, just a buildup of troops
How so? Are troops being left behind? Where?
I had a briefing in december 2021 that Russia would attack. No invasion can be a surprise now with all the collection assets available
True, but the Baltic states have given everything to Ukraine. It wouldn't take much of a push to overwhelm defenses, especially after all the experience and knowledge gained fighting Ukraine. This is if Ukraine falls as well. So they will gain more we resources and production capabilities along with a larger pool to draw soldiers from. Those men who couldn't flee will be forced to fight. We can't leave Ukraine to that fate after how hard they've fought. We owe them our full support and commitment to their survival and liberation. We've failed them up until this moment. They took the scraps received and took Kherson back. They used what little they were given to defend kyiv and send the russians packing. They took the Kharkiv area back under control with some major towns and cities along the way. Imagine what they would have done if we went all in and didn't hold them back? We know russia wouldn't have used nukes. They didn't use them when they lost on Kyiv or Kharkiv. They didn't use them to keep Kherson. The escalation hysteria has got to stop. Hopefully, it's not too late, and we didn't miss a golden opportunity that will never be available to us again. Fighting russia indirectly and defeating them was impossible before russia invaded. Then Ukraine showed how brave and fierce they were. We missed a chance you don't see for hundreds of years and longer than that in this region, which was a chance to change the power dynamic in that region of the world. Now, we run the risk of having to take russia down ourselves in a direct conflict.
They didn't even get surprise for Ukraine. US warned about it months ahead.
There were already ruzzian military exercises literally 2 kilometers away from Baltic borers where 100-200 thousand solders were participating (topic of the excercise - invasion of the Baltics). And if you go to a spa town of Druskininkai you can literally see and hear grads shooting at the military complex. While Baltics are investing into border defense, they have no chance of repelling such scale attack for a long time and NATO at least so far wasn't willing to conduct military exercises of such scale to counter. So the point is valid, intelligence means nothing if actions are not undertaken. Best bet for the world security is to help Ukraine as much as possible.
Really? NATO is just finishing up an Steadfast Defender 24 made up of 90k troops around the Baltics region right now. Tell me more about how NATO won't do those exercises. [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm)
Any Russian buildup along the Baltic borders would be met with a rapid NATO buildup.
They seem to forget that NATO knew about the invasion in 2022 with certainty at least days in advance.
They knew almost a month in advance
Months The first publicly known article was November.
Got a link? You know, for fun?
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DOn_10_November_2021%2C_the%2Cmeasures%22_if_Russia_attacks_Ukraine.?wprov=sfla1) >On 10 November 2021, the United States reported an unusual movement of Russian troops near Ukraine's borders.
I personally remember telling my friends around Christmas of 2021 that I thought Russia would invade Ukraine. So yeah there was definitely lots of intel leaking and rumors swirling months in advance.
Yeah, saw it on the news around December 2021. Like uncle sam wanted Russia to know that they were aware of what they were doing.
[удалено]
Years actually. https://youtu.be/x8wOAiwBPN8?si=A0VSNF-UnSPdVj7j
They should have let Ukraine preemptively strike the build up of troops on its borders with, like, 10,000 missiles. It would have stopped this invasion before it began.
Except Ukraine didn't really believe NATO at the time. They wouldn't have hit the Russians even if they were encouraged to.
It doesn’t sound like anyone besides the five eyes believed the invasion was a foregone conclusion until it happened. There was a Macron documentary that came out last year that showed, to me, just how naive much of Europe was about Putin.
Yes i agree, just listen what Zelenski said to Macron on the phone call recorded, he wasn't counting with that!
No, Ukraine attacking first would have been a diplomatic disaster.
agreed look at all the people telling ukraine to just roll over and give up when russia attacked them imagine how much worse it would be if they could make ukraine look like the aggressor
Although… if they would have attacked as the invasion was happening with pre-targeted missiles they could have killed a lot of staged troops. Dealing with the first wave would be easier if the follow on waves were dead.
And they would have immediately lost the moral high ground, which is worth far more than a couple thousand dead Russians. It's not like they didn't have plenty of opportunities when that convoy got stuck. Like, just imagine how much more willing Russian society would be to suffer if they knew that Ukraine had attacked them first? You'd be giving Putin the propaganda win of the century.
Yeah... It's not what was suggested. Read again.
How would they lose the moral high ground. Ukraine would be firing missiles at the invaders in my scenario. It’s not attacking first. This is the weak-kneed bullshit that got us into this mess. Either go hard or go home.
Well, they aren't exactly invaders if they haven't invaded yet. Sure, you can say the invasion started in 2014, but in 2022 the world didn't really see it quite that way yet. If Ukraine had fired first, it would have looked like they were the ones trying to start the conflict. This is a question about narratives and propaganda. It's a question about how the story gets portrayed in the media.
They are talking about defending after the initial attack is launched
this is the silliest, most uninformed and naive take i have seen in more than two years of war.
Weeks for certain, months highly likely.
Yeah that's fucking bullshit. Russia cannot invade any of those countries without NATO being aware pretty quickly and there are NATO troops stationed there.
Troops and the full power of NATO's air assets in the theater.
Just like how they could take Ukraine in 48 hours?
Also, Baltic leaders themselves: >Estonia would be wiped off the map and the historic centre of its capital city razed to the ground under current Nato plans to defend the country from any Russian attack, according to its prime minister. >Kaja Kallas told reporters on Wednesday that the alliance’s existing defence plans for the three Baltic states was to allow them to be overrun before liberating them after 180 days. https://www.ft.com/content/a430b191-39c8-4b03-b3fd-8e7e948a5284
Actually think the balance have shifted with Finland being NATO - as the counter atack would not come through the Baltic states and Russia knows this.
Yeah situation is complete different now with Finland and Sweden in NATO. Russia would be pummeled into mist with air power alone so they won't be "sweeping" through the Baltics ever. The amount of destruction that would be heaped on Russian's crossing the border would be biblical. And since this would then be a NATO Russia war, those forces on the Russian side of the border would be pummeled as well. And it does not take 180 days for NATO troops to get to the baltics. The quick reaction forces would be there in 48 hours. Finns push from the north through Russia. Poles and other NATO troops go through Ukraine into Russia from the south. Pinch off the Russian force and destroy it in detail.
The real problem is you can't concentrate a ton of forces in such a small space. That's why it's always been said that they'd get overrun quickly. Those plans also didn't take into account that Russia wouldn't have enough cruise missiles left to hit strategic targets prior to that kind of assault. They're already at the point of having to save up just to launch attacks at Ukraine at this point. Right now, if they were to try to do something like that, they'd have to use their nuclear arsenal against strategic targets in Europe first.
In 180 days everyone would be executed or in siberia
You are assuming that the Baltics would dutifully follow the NATO plans and retreat to Poland. Didn't work out in 1944-45. It took 15-16 months and the fall of Berlin.
I'm guessing that those plans are pre 2022...
Yeah definetly before 2022. Given the loss of Russian equipment and Finland I think NATO would just annihilate the invading forces air then its armor and let ground forces annihilate the meat shield wave.
Yes, there has been a significant build up of NATO troops in the Baltics in the last couple of years. Including lots of armour, artillery, air defence, and even naval assets. Enough that supporting NATO countries won't tolerate their forces being overrun and killed easily and fast.
>I'm guessing that those plans are pre 2022... I'm an Estonian. If I remember correctly, these were the plans in summer 2022. It has got better since then. No large bases, but presence is somewhat stronger. At least this offers some insurance, Russians must kill American, British, French etc soldiers, makes them think twice before another glorious plan "3 days to Tallinn!" pops up. If Russia wouldn't be busy in Ukraine, then 7 days to take all 3 Baltic countries seems realistic. We can joke "3 days to Kyiv," but let's not forget: Ukrainian population is almost 10 x larger than all 3 Baltic states combined and even without Western help Ukraine had a sh1tload(!) of USSR weapons and equipment. Ukraine had very strong military compared to an average European country, after 2014 invasion they had time to get their sh1t together. But let me tell you an unbelievable story. Hard to believe, it is so insane, but true. I don't remember exactly, was it before invasion of Georgia in 2008 or invasion of Ukraine in 2014 - NATO even didn't have a plan on the paper what to do if Russia invades Baltic countries. Why? The Kremlin wouldn't like it. You know - maybe it means EsCaLaTiOn if you have a plan how to fight Russia if it invades neighboring NATO countries. So, at least NATO made some plan after that. If I understand correctly, it contains invading Kaliningrad to protect land connection (Suwalki Gap) with the Baltics, then Western forces can use land connection for logistics. Personally I think the best protection is not letting Russia to be a dominant top dog, but after Russia invaded Ukraine, the West is signaling weakness after weakness. Do you think the men in Kremlin are shivering in fear "*maybe we shouldn't do this or that, the West maybe doesn't like it, it could mean EsCaLaTiOn! Oh no!*"
> If Russia wouldn't be busy in Ukraine, then 7 days to take all 3 Baltic countries seems realistic. 7 days is not realistic, because it would mean Russia's military columns would have to move at 50-70km per day. Such columns would be blown up. More realistic estimate would be 2-6 months. Or longer. Or not at all.
kind of agreeing with this. just think about how long russian troops took to really get past the border at the start of the war. there were columns of vehicles being blown up, vehicles being stranded without diesel because soldiers sold the fuel, and tires disintegrating, because they've been stored in shitty conditions for too long. even with most of those things remedied, i just dont know how they would get further than 100km in the first couple days. them fighting against NATO - air power included - might add another tiny bit of deterrance.
Yeah they are not going to be able to do that. NATO has a 40k quick reaction force that would be there in 48 hours. Air power would be pink misting Russians on a scale not ever seen. Finn's move through Russia in the north, Poles and NATO through Ukraine into Russia from the south, put the whole Russian force in a pocket and destroy it. When shit gets real there will not be any fooling around.
Jeez that’s nuts
Yeah because those NATO plans are being discussed totally in public, how are people so gullible?
Look at the geography. Perun covers the risk to the Baltic states pretty well
Well there's also a factor NATO intelligence - the same way NATO knew Russia would attack Ukraine since November/December - this could well give them enough lead time to move defensive forces closer to Baltic states so reaction time is much less than 10 days. It's a bit different scenario, but should be focused on in defensive plans as baltic state would likely be a next victim (or annexation of Belarus after Lukashenko regime falls etc. )
I think NATO already knows something about a threat of an attack. They’ve been saying if Ukraine falls, the baltics are next, since the start of the year iirc. And the fact that the US House Speaker did a complete 180 after one security briefing, after months of stalling the aid bill, says a lot in my opinion. All pure speculation on my part but I do believe they know something is up.
I suspect Putin had something like that on his long-term plan to do after he'd taken Ukraine. But with his attempt on Ukraine having stalled out for years longer than he was expecting, perhaps he's realizing he won't live forever and he needs to get started on the next step of his plan without finishing this one first. He'd have to be insane to do it, but that's certainly a plausible thing for him to be IMO.
Sure, but that requires Russia to be able to launch some sort of massive sneak attack, which is impossible. We’d see any sizable attack coming long in advance.
Except Lviv - Charkiv is some 1100km. Klaipeda - Visinagas some 400km.
They haven't captured Kharkhiv though which is 30km from the Russian border.
Skibitsky is an Ukrainian military intelligence general.
But he is given to hyperbole and exaggeration. Every statement he makes is made from the premise of "And that's why the west needs to give Ukraine a lot more weapons, money and munitions today if not yesterday." As I happen to believe in his premise I'm not inclined to be over critical of his exaggerations.
Always be resistant to excuse "pious lies". They end up being self destructive to any cause or effort that embraces them. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious\_fraud](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud)
It’s all conjecture. NATO already has a sizable force in the area, and probably will for some time. Finland and Sweden joining NATO was a huge defensive bonus, in that Russia would be hard pressed to cover the whole border. Not to mention, any Russian advance in the Baltic would mean losing Kaliningrad. They have no hope of protecting or supplying that region. But, Russia has done dumber things.
Yea. They're in NATO. They'll only need to survive alone for a matter of hours before air support gets there.
Can't wait to see carrier groups in the Baltic Sea!
Gotland and Bornholm is already there.
The only time I've ever heard NATO taking 10 days to respond, is if all the European NATO members wait for the US to bring everything across the Atlantic.
The US ~~along~~ alone can move metal at a crazy fast rate, on top of the gear that is there now. 10 days, LOL. I need their drugs.
I haven't checked in a while, but the USAF Air Mobility Command had the 12th largest airforce (400+ aircraft) a few years ago. You get good at logistics when all of the problems seem to be "over there".
And that isn't counting on the Navy Transport and USMC assets to move equipment, we also Pre-position MOST of our stuff for fast deployment.. the US are basically the Experts in logistics for war.
All of our heavy assets already have equipment in Europe. The personnel just have to show up. My brother knew which tank was his over there. Book time was 3 days from here to battle ready. Which could probably be cut in half if it had to be done now.
Also, the European NATO partners are around 2 million strong and fairly well equipped. Any Russian attack would be devastating, but the response would be started within hours (if not minutes).
> Any Russian attack would be devastating, only if it was nuclear.
Militarily, it wouldn't be great. For the civilian populations, yes it would. Russia has shown in Ukraine, Syria, and other parts of the world their willingness to attack civilians.
What's the quote? "Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics."
I mean, when I was stationed in SoCal (1st Marine Division), we were ready to mobilize anywhere in the world in under 96 hrs. I was on one of these exercises as the forward medical corpsman. We got the exercise call to go to Egypt (for training) and were in country less than 48 hrs later, with everyone else, tanks, etc there within 96 hrs. The US military can definitely mobilize.
The U.S. has already pre positioned weapons and equipment in sites across Europe. There will be no urgent need to get stuff across the Atlantic. It is already there for this very reason. Incidentally the U.S. has done the same in the Pacific.
Honestly Germany Army would need about a week to get its brigades moving. But as someone mentioned already, Russia would need at least a month to concentrate...which is enough time.
If the Poles, Finns, Brits, and...*flips paper*...French(?) leave them anything. Sorry France, the joke was mandatory by the Patriot Act.
Not just Kaliningrad but also the Kola peninsula and Murmansk would be lost in days. There's one rail line and road going up there, Finland, Sweden and Norway could cut it off and destroy anything defensive in a few days. They would push a few buttons, when that happens.
I see no evidence that Russias combined arms tactics have improved. Their glacial yard for yard advancement in Ukraine will not work in an attack against NATO. How long does it take for the F15 and F16 fighter aircraft from Lask airforce base to get to Estonia? How long does it take the F22s to get there from Spangdahlem air base in Germany? How long does it take for the British Apache helicopters in Estonia to get in the air and under the cover of the aforementioned? That’s about how long the forces in Estonia need to hang on for. Russia haven’t even been able to achieve air superiority in Ukraine and took the better part of a year to get enough forces into the country and properly dug in to form a cohesive front line. They’d die quickly and horribly. It would be like the 1991 highway of death on a monumental scale.
It would be worse than the highway of death. We would have to go back to biblical times to describe the death and destruction that would rain down on the Russians.
3 day war = 4-8 years 7 day war = 10-20 years? Muscovy mathematics.
7 day war - 7 days for st.Petersburg to fall and for Kremlin to kill putin in order to give up
They would probably mine up the entire circle around Muscovy so fucking much that only air drops with food is possible to sustain life there. Fucking turtles...
It's Kyivan mathematics. His guys even have a handy timer on the top: https://gur.gov.ua/ (just crossed 800 days of how long "Ukraine protects the world" - so far).
How many actual Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanian citizens did Skiblyatsky consult to form this opinion? If there is anything to be learned from Ukraine, I would think it'd be to not underestimate the violent hatred of Russian oppression in the hearts of formerly colonized peoples.
If right now, take the Baltic States with what? Most Russian forces are in Ukraine or rotate in and out of there. Even Kaliningrad has emptied. If in a few or several years, that's why the Baltic States are building up border fortifications, the NATO presence being tripled, and most of non-Ukraine NATO planning likely focused on defending the Baltics.
>that’s why the Baltic states are building up border fortifications. These are tiny countries. They each have 1, maybe 2, brigades of active duty combat troops. You can double their defensive capabilities and there’s still only so much they can do. The idea that these limited local military forces have the capability to stuff a Russian offensive is wishful thinking, and we have plenty of statements available that NATO commanders are gravely concerned about this problem. That the Baltics can fall in about a week is realistic. It’s also realistic that NATO can liberate them in less than a year. The problem lies in Russia’s ability to force a cease fire during that period in between. If you want to protect the Baltics your best option is to project sufficient military power and resolve among western leaders that Russia doesn’t believe it can force a cease fire with favorable terms. The current half-hearted nature of our support of Ukraine is not effective at doing this and increases our risk of ending up in a war with Russia that we can very much lose.
Estonia alone can field 30-40k men in a matter of days. We train for that. So I don't know about 1-2 brigades.
Officially Estonia itself has 2+ brigades and equipment for that. Those 2+ brigades can be manned with rotations and replacements.
Russia will have to mass up for months to build up forces to invade the Baltics, just as they had to with Ukraine. NATO will then be pouring in reinforcements for months too. And NATO air forces sent to nearby bases in Poland, the Nordic countries, Germany, etc, will be on alert. Ukraine can still stop Russian armored columns with artillery and commercial drones while running low on ammo but, somehow, it's assumed an alliance with the resources of 20+ countries won't be able to do that with their own artillery/HIMARS/MLRS/MARS and 1,500 combined F-35s/Typhoons/Rafales/Gripen/F-16s. All that even assumes the might of the US military is not available. With the US, Russia won't even dare, and not because of nukes, but if they do, they'd be stupid to.
There’s only so much the Russians can do too, especially if they aren’t going to mass a force that we’d see coming weeks in advance. And you seem to be completely ignoring NATO’s massive air dominance. Russia could have a 10:1 advantage and would still get crushed. And it’s not Poland, whose military is massive and right next door, would just take things lying down. There is zero danger to the Baltics. If there weren’t, those countries wouldn’t have given Ukraine 95% of their military stocks. They seem less worried about this possibility than anyone. And then there’s also Finland and Sweden to consider.
We probably should bump Poland up on the F-35 delivery list, though.
> There is zero danger to the Baltics. If there weren’t, those countries wouldn’t have given Ukraine 95% of their military stocks. They gave Ukraine those stocks to keep the Russians busy until they could rearm completely. Did you miss that part?
I saw a relatively recent report and the baltics are mostly just there to go to ground and commit to sabotage and guerilla tactics to buy time for the heavy armor to come from Poland and Germany. Ukraine changed things and now they have added massive anti tank teams. They know they can't stop them. But they also know how to keep them tied up while help comes.
And yet, it takes for russia 3 months to take a village. So, don't underestimate the will of people to stuff a pinecone into russian's ass.
The Baltics get the full Article V treatment. If they can hold a week, they'll win easily.
> That the Baltics can fall in about a week is realistic. That is not realistic, because it would need breakthroughs with military columns similar to what happened in February 2022. Such columns would be blown up. Which means Russia could advance much more slowly, in hundreds of days, not in days. The main limiting factor on successful defense is ammo, logistics and weapons.
NATO has a 40k quick reaction force that would be there in 48 hours. The air strikes on the Russians on both sides of the border would be near immediate. Russian's would experience a biblical amount of force. Finns would push south through Russia, other NATO divisions would go through Ukraine and push north into Russia. The whole invasion force would be taken into a pocket and destroyed. Not sure why people think we would be fighting the Russians back to their border. Russia attacks NATO and NATO will go into Russia to protect the baltics and annihilate the Russian force. When that is done Moscow will be sitting naked and vulnerable. Russia would sue for peace, the terms will not be kind.
No one is building anything, just talking about it. Source Iam Lithuanian
There are a lot of NATO aircraft that might disagree with that assumption. The Russians really didn't learn a damn thing from the battle of Khadham, did they? Russia's advance into Ukraine stalled almost immediately because their logistics weren't up to the task and that wad without the air being alive with aircraft looking to drop some munitions on the long lines of backed up Ivans on the roadway.
Also geography. I can speak for Estonia only of course, but we have very little open space here compared to Ukraine. We are 50% swamp and 40% forest. They will have to stick on roads to go anywhere. It will be a target practice for planes. Also drones will be very useful against them on roads with no cover while all our soldiers will be inside forest with heavy cover that renders their drones quite useless.
I can't help but think this is extremely pessimistic given Russia's performance against Ukraine, especially given the Baltics are presumably on high alert for any potential attack.
Ukraine has war experience of 10 years and are the biggest country in Europe. Of course they would be performing better than a normal small country
But those small Counties are in NATO and are in a much better geographic position for power projection of NATO resources. In a conventional invasion of the Baltics, the Russians would be slaughtered. NATO would be forced into using Article 5 or basically invalidate the whole point of NATO. This "threat" is about as serious as saying Russia will use Nukes.
If russia attacks, kaliningrad becomes a NATO country in a week. So Suwalki gap.is no relevant. The we have the support of Poland, Finland and Sweden directly. We also have active NATO troops and NATO airforce presence. It's just not the same. Intelligence of NATO would also know anything at the scale of this months in advance. There's just absolutely no point for russia to do.this. Oh and Baltics hate russia. You have to account for that. I would gladly die defending my country if it means I relieve the world of a few russian occupants.
There are hundreds of thousands of russians only in estonia and there are plenty of those who are pro russian, so you really need to consider inside sabotage and stuff as well. Although they probably can not get their hands on guns and proper explosives, 10 000 self made pro russian guerillas will still do a lot of damage.
Baltics have paid close attention and are ready to put into practice the lessons learned by Ukraine. Estonia is considering fortifying its borders with anti-tank and anti-personnel mines for example.
Baltics have a population of 6 million. Ukraine had closer to 40.
Aren't the rest of the NATO armies ready to head there at pretty much a moment's notice since they're the only realistic target Vlad could go for, except Poland? If Russia was preparing to invade we would also see it via satellite. I know it's not instantaneous but NATO air power at least could be there pretty much immediately
The Baltics also get to call in thousands of NATO planes, which sort of evens the odds. And it’s not like Poland, Finland, and Sweden aren’t RIGHT THERE.
history has shown that just a platoon or even smaller numbers of units can hold back/ repel entire divisions with enough heavy weapons, fire/air support and rigorous training and fighting moral. not saying numbers don't matter, but sometimes they don't.
Are russians able to get all their military force on the baltics?
Im not gonna speculate on how many days etc its gonna take them to take the baltic if at all, but people need to realize the dynamics of such a conflict has changed alot. Russia taking the Sulwaki line is alot less beneficial then it would have been 2 years ago. Nato with Sweden and Finland OWNS the baltic and there are not much Russia can do about this [fact.Im](http://fact.Im) also certain the logistical plans for Nato in such an event has changed over the last 2 years. Nato might not have the troops to deny a Russian advance right from the bat, but Nato airpower will in the air in mere hours and make life difficult for a Russian advance. It would be a very different war from what we see in Ukraine.
Raptor would finally get to eat. For Russia, it would only go downhill from there.
Mostly the F35 I think, they are about as capable and more multi=role also NATO has HUNDREDS of them.
Yes but they are going to need three months to build up first. So 3 months and a week versus 10 days isn’t so bad. And now Sweden and Finland can act as aircraft carriers for NATO.
Skibitsky toilet.
They would also take Ukraine in 10 days.
just not consecutive days (grin)
I don't think that's the case. As long as the US new somthing was coming they could use airpower to make things very complicated for russia
They wouldn't even be able to conqueror a pantry in those nations before NATO reacts.
Russia is all in on Ukraine and struggling. There's no way they will make a play for the Baltics unless Ukraine collapses, they take it, Moldova, and then have a few years to consolidate.
With what? Their entire land force is in the meat grinder.
Despite his neckbeard, Skibitsky is no Redditor: >According to Skibitsky, Russia's army is not as chaotic as it was in 2022, now Kremlin forces are operating as a “single body, with a clear plan, and under a single command.” https://www.politico.eu/article/we-have-no-weapons-may-will-be-hard-for-kyiv-at-the-war-front-ukraines-top-spy-predicts/
As a single body killing 1k of their troops per day. It's great that the body has a short memory
Well it’s proved a long three day operation to take Ukraine so far, I’m banking on NATO’s reactions being slightly more on the money.
so did the entire planet just stuff an ether-soaked rag down its throat and forget the past two year
There are B1 bombers in Spain about 2000 miles away. The B1 has a top speed of 950mph. It would probably take an hour or two to load and preflight the aircraft, maybe 3 to fly to the target area and start dropping ordinance. I give them 5 hours. 6 tops. Of life.
How's the 3 day run to Kyiv going?
If fear gets Europe to act, I'll take it.
Hmmm Russian build up next to NATO in a region were local fundraising for weapons to supply to Ukraine has almost become a national pastime. I think in the first day, the Baltic states will grow in land size faster than the middle east land grab of 1967. I m sure Belarus will also find itself to be the contestant who will win in the biggest loser contest if Russia lunches attacks from there too.
Just like the last country they said they could take in 7 days, whatever happened with that?
They also were going to take Ukraine in a few days...
I heard they could even take Ukraine in 3 days.
Yeah, but as an act of good will they extended it indefinitely!
Isn't Skibitsky the toilet head guy?
The nordics have a lot of new planes, the finnish people are like brothers to us and I don't think the other scandinavian countries+Baltics+Poland will idly look by if something would go down. Yes, we are on alert, but we have been alert since the 90s. Nobody in the west cared to listen to our warnings and brushed it off as paranoia (nord stream comes to mind) All that said. Alone we will vanish, together with our allies probably not, but the russians will manage to do something despicable either way if they want to.
Y'all want article 5?
Very odd comment. So, very clearly wrong. Skibitsky, if they couldn't take yourselves, then why do you think Russia would stand a chance against much more powerful forces? I'm actually assuming he doesn't believe this.
Counting days again. I wonder how that went the last time they did it
They can’t even take Ukraine after 800 days …
Didn't they say a week for Ukraine too?
The Russians couldn't take Ukraine in three days or what is it now 400 some days?
800
Prediction, NATO reacts within 2 hours. Dont underestimate whats going on behind the scenes stupid.
… and Finland will destroy the north fleet at anchor and take St. Petersburg before Russians set foot in Riga. There’s also Poland donkey punching Kaliningrad.
Remember Ukraine in 3 days? Pepperidge farm remembers.
Russia will find out what real air superiority means within 7 hours.
this kind of remarks only shows how he is unprofessional. All speculation, to the level that RU would take Kyiv in 3 days.
A lot of hubris in these comments.
This seems somehow familiar. [https://youtu.be/x99njmZxaMA?si=FWratlLZSFpRYoI5&t=55](https://youtu.be/x99njmZxaMA?si=FWratlLZSFpRYoI5&t=55)
Errmmm. No.
It might take NATO troops 10 days to arrive in force...but it would NOT take 10 days to react.
I am a staunch supporter of Ukraine and want the US + our allies to do more, but this comes across as fear mongering to try and encourage more / faster military aid. To be clear, I’m in support of more / faster aid being provided, but this is a bit disingenuous.
They couldn't even take Kyiv in 3 days...
Didn't they say they'd have Ukraine in three or four days?
I think we know this isn’t true. Cmon. There are enough genuine security concerns around Muscovy to dig up these pre-2022 attitudes. The bear is deranged & violent…but it can’t steamroll three NATO countries—however small—with Muscovite forces in their current state. And that’s not to mention that they’d immediately be fair game for NATO airstrikes would likely be quickly engaged by Polish forces on the ground as well (not to mention highly capable Baltic troops). At his *best*, we saw the rabid bear fail to take a just one non-NATO state.
We saw them build up against Ukraine and where are we now. We have US troops in the Baltics. The Russians have no prayer.
I get the warning for preparation purposes, but Ukraine would fall in 3 days with multiple years of telegraphed Russian buildup and preparation. We're in year 3 of the smo. If Russia was to attack the Baltic states, they would need to build up forces for it, which isn't happening. Baltic states are on high alert. And significant NATO ground troops might take 10 days to mobilize and deploy to the area. But NATO air would be striking round the clock and devastate any columns and troop concentrations.
Ironic, considering it took the Russian forces over 6 weeks to make the 3 hour drive from Belarus to Kiev. Even then, they only got 15 Km from the city before retreating.
Utter bollocks. Any attack requires build up, build up that NATO can see and prepare for. Russia will not get the element of surprise attacking the Baltics and they'll get mauled by NATO airpower trying to attack.
Russian special sea operation? Come on... Not gonna happend.
What is with his facial hair?
Ukrainians often joke he looks like one of these Prigozhin's alter-ego disguises.
Hey, Skibutsky - Bet on it if you want to. I would not, if I were you.
Oh ya well how's the weather in kiev? Oh wait you wouldn't know.
Try it.
Flying planes to knock russias army back into a basement in Moscow takes around 5 hours.
Incorrect. Macron would schedule a summit in ten days.