[Goose]

Earlier in the conflict, there was a discussion here about the ability of the Baltics to defend themselves from Russian aggression.  I'm revealed my naivete by writing that NATO could deter aggression with 20k troops.  But the Baltics now are seeking 3 new multinational battalions and a Division HQ in case of a need to surge the number of troops there.  This article indicates that the Baltics' plans would result in a total of 9 battalions across the 3 countries: https://twitter.com/RobbieGramer/status/...qXqbIqAAAA.  And since the Baltics use NATO systems and equipement, they'd presumably have F-16s and Patriots.  Plus, if Finland and Sweden join NATO, there would be substantial additional resources in close proximity.  We also know that the Baltics are building physical barriers between themselves and Russian territory to provide fortification against an attack.  You all tell me whether or not that level of force and fortification would be a pushover for Russia.  On the surface, it seems like it would be a credible defense.  Of course, there's the big "if."  We don't know whether NATO actually would be willing to adopt the Baltics' proposed plan.  It's a big commitment of resources and it could be the type of provocation we don't want to try.

OK, I am crazy enough to take a crack at this. Right now, Russia is in no condition to even think about attacking anybody else. They are manpower limited in a big way. So, as far as attacking the Baltics, it will have to be sometime in the future, probably years from now. By that point, Russia may have been able to "fix" their current set of problems, or not. 9 battalions is 2/3 of a division, give or take. Another way to look at it is 9 BTGs (sort of). Russia used over 100 BTGs in Ukraine, so no, by themselves 9 battalions is not adequate to overcome such a force. OTOH, actually using 100 BTGs against the Baltics would be hard because there aren't that many ways in. The Russians may end up with gridlock again and NATO will not just sit there while they sort it out.

NATO isn't going to deploy 9 battalions forward in the Baltics. All that will do is get more NATO troops killed. The Baltics defense actually rests on the idea that Article 5 will result in NATO attacking Russia in places that will hurt the most at times of NATO's choosing and where NATO has an advantage. The Baltics are not such a place. Destroying Kaliningrad is much more important than holding Vilnius. Using DEAD to achieve air superiority (hopefully supremacy) over European Russia will be a priority. Defending the German ports will be a priority. NATO will deploy just enough troops in the Baltics to ensure that Americans and Germans (Brits optional) die if Russia attacks there. That is what they are there to do. It gives teeth to Article 5.

Right now, NATO is so under-resourced we should be glad the Russians are as TFU as they appear to be. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army. They list two Panzer divisions. 1st Panzer is kind of alright, two armored brigade and one infantry brigade (The Dutch are along for the ride). 10th Panzer is nothing like a Panzer division. They have one armored brigade, one mechanized infantry brigade, and one mountain brigade. The mountain brigade is the remnant of what used to be a mountain division. They were some of the best mountain troops in the world. They have little organic transport and have nothing at all in common with a Panzer division. They can't keep up walking. Germany used to supply 12 divisions, 8 of which were first rate and 4 of which would be three weeks or so after the war started (Reservisten Soldaten were about 20% of the troops). Today they have one Panzer division and one melange. The British Army of The Rhine was four division in the 70s. It no longer exists. So, if a war starts, thank God Russia appears to be in worse shape than we are. How long that will persist is the question.

[Goose]

Earlier in the conflict, there was a discussion here about the ability of the Baltics to defend themselves from Russian aggression.  I'm revealed my naivete by writing that NATO could deter aggression with 20k troops.  But the Baltics now are seeking 3 new multinational battalions and a Division HQ in case of a need to surge the number of troops there.  This article indicates that the Baltics' plans would result in a total of 9 battalions across the 3 countries: https://twitter.com/RobbieGramer/status/...qXqbIqAAAA.  And since the Baltics use NATO systems and equipement, they'd presumably have F-16s and Patriots.  Plus, if Finland and Sweden join NATO, there would be substantial additional resources in close proximity.  We also know that the Baltics are building physical barriers between themselves and Russian territory to provide fortification against an attack.  You all tell me whether or not that level of force and fortification would be a pushover for Russia.  On the surface, it seems like it would be a credible defense.  Of course, there's the big "if."  We don't know whether NATO actually would be willing to adopt the Baltics' proposed plan.  It's a big commitment of resources and it could be the type of provocation we don't want to try.

OK, I am crazy enough to take a crack at this. Right now, Russia is in no condition to even think about attacking anybody else. They are manpower limited in a big way. So, as far as attacking the Baltics, it will have to be sometime in the future, probably years from now. By that point, Russia may have been able to "fix" their current set of problems, or not. 9 battalions is 2/3 of a division, give or take. Another way to look at it is 9 BTGs (sort of). Russia used over 100 BTGs in Ukraine, so no, by themselves 9 battalions is not adequate to overcome such a force. OTOH, actually using 100 BTGs against the Baltics would be hard because there aren't that many ways in. The Russians may end up with gridlock again and NATO will not just sit there while they sort it out.

NATO isn't going to deploy 9 battalions forward in the Baltics. All that will do is get more NATO troops killed. The Baltics defense actually rests on the idea that Article 5 will result in NATO attacking Russia in places that will hurt the most at times of NATO's choosing and where NATO has an advantage. The Baltics are not such a place. Destroying Kaliningrad is much more important than holding Vilnius. Using DEAD to achieve air superiority (hopefully supremacy) over European Russia will be a priority. Defending the German ports will be a priority. NATO will deploy just enough troops in the Baltics to ensure that Americans and Germans (Brits optional) die if Russia attacks there. That is what they are there to do. It gives teeth to Article 5.

Right now, NATO is so under-resourced we should be glad the Russians are as TFU as they appear to be. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army. They list two Panzer divisions. 1st Panzer is kind of alright, two armored brigade and one infantry brigade (The Dutch are along for the ride). 10th Panzer is nothing like a Panzer division. They have one armored brigade, one mechanized infantry brigade, and one mountain brigade. The mountain brigade is the remnant of what used to be a mountain division. They were some of the best mountain troops in the world. They have little organic transport and have nothing at all in common with a Panzer division. They can't keep up walking. Germany used to supply 12 divisions, 8 of which were first rate and 4 of which would be three weeks or so after the war started (Reservisten Soldaten were about 20% of the troops). Today they have one Panzer division and one melange. The British Army of The Rhine was four division in the 70s. It no longer exists. So, if a war starts, thank God Russia appears to be in worse shape than we are. How long that will persist is the question.