[Goose]

Interesting post from Goose. The factual premises seem correct. The West’s militaries don’t have sufficient readiness and Europe is far too reliant on Russian energy. I’m no expert in the field, but I’m not so pessimistic on the conclusions to draw from those premises. 

Building the necessary military strength may not be so unpopular as you think. Right wing nationalists who support a strong defense are ascendant in Europe. Recall that strong militaries were very popular during the Cold War. I’m not convinced either way here, but I could imagine the West mustering the necessary resolve.

I can too, but not if it depends on right wing nationalists. It has to be the policy of essentially all the parties or you have France in 1930-1939. Each party undoes what the previous administration did. We also have to deal with a Germany that has been in a "don't scare the bear" mode since reunification. It has served their national interest to be militarily weak for quite a while. Convincing the current generations (who have never seen otherwise) that is not a good idea is a heavy lift.

It’s certainly plausible to frame the calculus of defending the Baltics the way you did. But there are other ways to see it. If the West were to allow Russia to overrun the Baltics, what’s to stop Russia from taking Poland or the country after that?  And why should we consider the Baltics indefensible?  If we were to permanently station 20,000 heavily armored troops there along with Patriot batteries, isn’t that a really strong deterrent?

It sure would be a deterrent. Right now, the Army has ten active divisions. Exactly one such division is armored (1st), although many others have significant armor. A US division is about 15,000 personnel. Which 10% of our total active army strength do you suggest we deploy to countries that are easily cut off from sea support by the Baltic fleet (or just a good minefield) and are connected to Europe by a relatively narrow corridor of Polish territory that is right next to Belarus and under the Kaligrad IAD? We could do this, but I suspect it is a non-starter.

Why would Kaliningrad be any more defensible for Russia than the Baltics are for the West?  It would be pretty embarrassing for Putin to have territory taken from Russia in a defensive response to an attack on the Baltics.

It isn't more defensible. In fact it is much less so. Poland alone could probably do the job. However, Germany held it for quite a while even after it was cut off. The DKM could still get there because the Russian navy was ineffective (until the very end). Russian air was a big problem however. Different war, different time. Russia has packed it with missiles to allow it to really mess up Poland and Germany before it falls. However, the deal here is that it is part of Russia, and if you attack it, Putin has repeatedly made it clear that would probably result in him using at least tactical nuclear weapons. Now, would he actually do so is another question, but is NATO feeling lucky? I hear at one time Konigsberg was a nice city.

I’m not saying that any of these possible outcomes is likely, but I see Russia taking these possible outcomes into account. If Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine, maybe it would be sufficiently confident to dismiss these possible outcomes, but given what we’ve seen in this war so far, what makes us think that Russia could realistically take and hold anything more than the Donbas and the East bank of the Dneiper River in the South?

Recently Russia has not exhibited lots of realism in it's actions. This war never made any sense as far as anyone can tell. One thing that helps Ukraine is that it has lots of territory, so losing some of it doesn't take it out of the war. The Baltics are much smaller, so losing much territory hurts them a lot more.
IMHO Ukraine will keep fighting if Russia cuts them off from the Sea of Azov. Probably they will keep fighting if Russia attempts to keep the Kherson Oblast. The Ukraine needs these areas because they are critical to it's transportation network. As long as Ukraine fights, it is possible they will collapse and Russia gets it all. The opposite outcome is also possible. A war of attrition can actually defeat both parties. That is where we are right now IMHO. Negotiating a peace is going to be real hard. If Ukraine would give up Crimea and the Donbas while getting back everything else, that MIGHT work for them politically. Not sure it would for Putin. Also, the security assurances in terms of real troops are going to be expensive and "interesting".

---

Slovakia sent Ukraine their S300 missile defense battery some days ago it has just been reported. US will send Slovakia a Patriot battery. 

https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22881118/slov...raine.html

Slovakia's S300 is a relatively modern variant, the S-300PMU which may have a somewhat better radar and longer range missiles than most of Ukraine's systems. Only one battery though, Ukraine estimated to have 70-80 in service at the moment.

https://web.archive.org/web/201210291743...0_nato.htm

This is great news. Unfortunately as this war drags on attrition will become a greater problem. Do you (or anybody reading this) know if Ukraine has a Regimental radar like "Big Bird"? I can't find any reference saying they do, but given they still are running a Russian style integrated air defense it would sure be a "nice to have".

[Goose]

Interesting post from Goose. The factual premises seem correct. The West’s militaries don’t have sufficient readiness and Europe is far too reliant on Russian energy. I’m no expert in the field, but I’m not so pessimistic on the conclusions to draw from those premises. 

Building the necessary military strength may not be so unpopular as you think. Right wing nationalists who support a strong defense are ascendant in Europe. Recall that strong militaries were very popular during the Cold War. I’m not convinced either way here, but I could imagine the West mustering the necessary resolve.

I can too, but not if it depends on right wing nationalists. It has to be the policy of essentially all the parties or you have France in 1930-1939. Each party undoes what the previous administration did. We also have to deal with a Germany that has been in a "don't scare the bear" mode since reunification. It has served their national interest to be militarily weak for quite a while. Convincing the current generations (who have never seen otherwise) that is not a good idea is a heavy lift.

It’s certainly plausible to frame the calculus of defending the Baltics the way you did. But there are other ways to see it. If the West were to allow Russia to overrun the Baltics, what’s to stop Russia from taking Poland or the country after that?  And why should we consider the Baltics indefensible?  If we were to permanently station 20,000 heavily armored troops there along with Patriot batteries, isn’t that a really strong deterrent?

It sure would be a deterrent. Right now, the Army has ten active divisions. Exactly one such division is armored (1st), although many others have significant armor. A US division is about 15,000 personnel. Which 10% of our total active army strength do you suggest we deploy to countries that are easily cut off from sea support by the Baltic fleet (or just a good minefield) and are connected to Europe by a relatively narrow corridor of Polish territory that is right next to Belarus and under the Kaligrad IAD? We could do this, but I suspect it is a non-starter.

Why would Kaliningrad be any more defensible for Russia than the Baltics are for the West?  It would be pretty embarrassing for Putin to have territory taken from Russia in a defensive response to an attack on the Baltics.

It isn't more defensible. In fact it is much less so. Poland alone could probably do the job. However, Germany held it for quite a while even after it was cut off. The DKM could still get there because the Russian navy was ineffective (until the very end). Russian air was a big problem however. Different war, different time. Russia has packed it with missiles to allow it to really mess up Poland and Germany before it falls. However, the deal here is that it is part of Russia, and if you attack it, Putin has repeatedly made it clear that would probably result in him using at least tactical nuclear weapons. Now, would he actually do so is another question, but is NATO feeling lucky? I hear at one time Konigsberg was a nice city.

I’m not saying that any of these possible outcomes is likely, but I see Russia taking these possible outcomes into account. If Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine, maybe it would be sufficiently confident to dismiss these possible outcomes, but given what we’ve seen in this war so far, what makes us think that Russia could realistically take and hold anything more than the Donbas and the East bank of the Dneiper River in the South?

Recently Russia has not exhibited lots of realism in it's actions. This war never made any sense as far as anyone can tell. One thing that helps Ukraine is that it has lots of territory, so losing some of it doesn't take it out of the war. The Baltics are much smaller, so losing much territory hurts them a lot more.
IMHO Ukraine will keep fighting if Russia cuts them off from the Sea of Azov. Probably they will keep fighting if Russia attempts to keep the Kherson Oblast. The Ukraine needs these areas because they are critical to it's transportation network. As long as Ukraine fights, it is possible they will collapse and Russia gets it all. The opposite outcome is also possible. A war of attrition can actually defeat both parties. That is where we are right now IMHO. Negotiating a peace is going to be real hard. If Ukraine would give up Crimea and the Donbas while getting back everything else, that MIGHT work for them politically. Not sure it would for Putin. Also, the security assurances in terms of real troops are going to be expensive and "interesting".

---

Slovakia sent Ukraine their S300 missile defense battery some days ago it has just been reported. US will send Slovakia a Patriot battery. 

https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22881118/slov...raine.html

Slovakia's S300 is a relatively modern variant, the S-300PMU which may have a somewhat better radar and longer range missiles than most of Ukraine's systems. Only one battery though, Ukraine estimated to have 70-80 in service at the moment.

https://web.archive.org/web/201210291743...0_nato.htm

This is great news. Unfortunately as this war drags on attrition will become a greater problem. Do you (or anybody reading this) know if Ukraine has a Regimental radar like "Big Bird"? I can't find any reference saying they do, but given they still are running a Russian style integrated air defense it would sure be a "nice to have".