This Is What Happens If Russia Invades The Baltics | Ep. 20 Lukas Milevski
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2024
- ➡️ PATREON: / decodinggeopolitics
This is a conversation with Lukas Milevski, a professor at Leiden University and an expert on strategy and defense and security of the Baltic countries.
In this interview, we talk about what would happen if Russia invades the Baltics, how prepared they are, if they could be successful and how big of a risk it actually is.
Thank you to everyone supporting this podcast - and now, enjoy the conversation.
00:00 - Intro
01:05 - What Changed Since 2022
05:50 - What Would Baltic Defense Look Like
08:03 - Most likely scenarios of Russian invasion
25:49 - The Suwalki Gap
36:22 - Role of NATO in Baltic Defense
43:09 - Escalate to De-Escalate
48:33 - Baltic Defense Line
51:00 - Can NATO hold off Russia?
I'm not sure I heard any mention of air force. Just the Nordic countries alone have around 150 x F-35s and Sweden has an extensive air force. That alone can achieve air superiority over the Baltics and provide air support for the ground forces. And I'm not even talking about what the other NATO allies could bring in in terms of air power. The idea that the russians are capable of a complex blitzkrieg after their showdown in Ukraine, is a completely ludicrous idea. Now I'm not saying we should not take it seriously, we definitely should prepare as well as possible. But I'm just not buying that Russia will even try.
North Korea is supplying cheap missiles that exhaust air defense systems rapidly, opening paths for precision weapons to hit vital targets. Russia’s military equipment production levels are eye-popping, and even ancient restored and upgraded tanks can in ways out-perform newer models. Their ammo production is many times greater than last year. They and their allies control strategic parts of the globe and have broad support in the Global South- North Korea already has a trained and disciplined standing army of about 8 million and also has by far the largest ammo stockpiles and ammo production, and now they have Russian technicians assisting them as well as an opening to becoming a major arms supplier. And they have nukes and ICBMs to deter attacks on their weapons production. Iran is on a similar path, and all three are working together and sharing to topple the West. Wagner has cultivated perhaps a dozen African countries rich in gold, diamonds,… and mercenaries. Right now they are just setting the table. If the West remains in a stupor of entertainments and fake Fox News and its associated political corruption - and at the moment that seems likely at least in the provincially-minded USA - that alliance of tyrants could be poised to make a real mess, maybe exterminate us all. They cannot abide free and happy people on their borders, or anywhere in the world. Misery loves miserable company.
Not mentioning Air Force when talking about NATO is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous than not mentioning artillery when talking about Russia. The air power of NATO is not matched by anyone, and in a modern war it will be crucial. You saw what happened when Iran sent their missiles and drones towards Israel. How many of Russia's nukes would even reach their target?
You are correct. It will take time for russia to re arm and rebuild its military after the invasion of Ukraine ends.
After the invasion of Poland by Germany and the USSR there was a period of limited hostilities called the "Phoney War" during which time the Germans rebuilt and rearmed their military, while militarising their economy and population. Which resulted in the invasion of Frace, Belgium and Holland by a much larger military force.
The fear is that a victory in Ukraine will result in a similar militarisation of the Russian economy and population. As well as the rebuilding of a far larger Russian war machine. Which will lead to the continuation of russias imperial wars against Europe.
Putins regimes rapid decent into fascism increase the likelihood of further russian aggression against its neighbours.
The Russian federation may chose to consolidate its power in Moldova, Belarus, Georgia and Azerbaijan before attacking NATO or it may feel that conquering the Baltic states is of greater strategic importance.
Its hard to know the plans of mad men.
@@user-cm8co5nx4k Russia's industry ceases to function within a week of violating NATO territory, because it means Russian industry can be freely targeted by NATO air superiority.
Invading NATO means NATO air and sea and special forces brings Russia's infrastructure to a grinding halt. The entirety of Russian oil production goes up in flames in the first week.
Invasion of NATO means the end of the Russian empire. The US will annex Siberia. All republics are lost and become independent.
If you think cheap North Korean missiles are threatening US air power, you are nuts.
Maybe think in smaller scale. 'Little green men' invading Narva is possible without noticeable force build up. Followed by nuclear threats. And because the city was fully Russianized during Soviet times, for once they wouldn't even need to fake referendum.
It would give Putin psychological victory over NATO
wrong approach. there is no Suwalk gap, there is Kaliningrad island. a small island. it can disappear very soon
Agreed. Some nice bookstores though.
Given apparent difficulty in massing forces near the contact line in Ukraine undetected, how likely would a meaningful buildup of Russian attack forces along the Baltic borders be?
All western commentators are failing to notice that Suwalki Gap is a very wet foresty marshland and any military equipment passage thru it is nearly impossible. As a result any military movement attempt would have to be conducted well North of SG. This fact is often subject of Polish army generals commentary in the media, so it is a fact and not just an opinion.
Trust me when I say the the issue of the SG is not lost on military planners in Europe. Neither is how to conduct Wet Gap (WG) crossings and how to fight in the terrain with modern equipment.
The ground freezes in winter. At least it did before global warming set in.
@@micahdembo5140 "global warming" doesn't exist -> 4.5 billion years of "climate change"
Not exactly. Su walk I is a generic term to describe the geographic phenomena of thin corridor. Axis of Russian attack could be through southern Lithuania with better road network with the same effect. Meanwhile Suwalki forest roads might be interdicted by drones, Mlrs and even artillery in case of troop/materiel movement from Poland to Lithuania.
@@nikitaananjevas1614 Axis of Russian attack will be Estonia and Latvia specifically daugpilis strategic city, sadly many "military experts " Ignore or don't talk much about that.
Just to remind you the same folks talking here were also commenting on the 3 day capture of Kyiv. It will be very difficult to gain ground against determined opponent. Don't think it will b easy at all for ruzhist to gain ground in Baltics. Just to understand, any troop build up on the border will be clearly visible in advance and prepared for (land mines etc). I feel it is the same 3-day war convo all over again.
Yep, and they are talking about "the time NATO troops will arrive..." like this will take 10 weeks or something. No mention of air superiority and complete control of Baltic sea.
@@jsv8898it’s insane to me that aren’t taking intelligence into mind when discussing this topic. Like, to not even mention it seems bizarre.
Lithuanian here, we had studies conducted way back after Crimean annexation, on how long it would take for Russian army to reach Baltic capitals. For Estonia, it was estimated, that Russian army could speedrun in about 10 hours, while for Lithuanian capital, Vilnius is basically 40 km near Belarus border, giving about 5 hours timeframe... While it's not clear what the Russian goal objective would be in the baltic, like: separating it from Suwalki gap or splitting Estonia and Lithuania by occupying Riga first. In my perspective they could still very easily overrun the baltics with their 500k-700k innexperienced army, since The Baltic region is not that big as compared to Ukraine, so I don't really believe, that we would have luxury to give up a single acre of territory, compared to Ukrainian army, where in the first month they lost a vast territory, but since Ukraine is so big, it didn't mattered, since they had time to regroup... Btw, here a lot of Lithuanians kinda are also feeling pessimistic, since they have this "realistic" idea. When Russia would overrun the Baltics, no one would come to the rescue, since Russia would play their Medvedev's nuclear threat card, thus making others doubtful about intervention to "free us", fearing nuclear escalation...
North Korea is supplying cheap missiles that exhaust air defense systems rapidly, opening paths for precision weapons to hit vital targets. Russia’s military equipment production levels are eye-popping, and even ancient restored and upgraded tanks can in ways out-perform newer models. Their ammo production is many times greater than last year and already has a capacity that far exceeds that of the West, and they have a two-year head start building it. North Korea already has a trained and disciplined standing army of about 8 million and also has by far the largest ammo stockpiles and ammo production, and now they have Russian technicians assisting them as well as an opening to becoming a major arms supplier. And they have nukes and ICBMs to deter attacks on their weapons production. Iran is on a similar path, and all three are working together and sharing to topple the West. They and their allies control strategic parts of the globe and have broad support in the Global South. Wagner has cultivated perhaps a dozen African countries rich in gold, diamonds,… and mercenaries. Right now they are just setting the table. If the West remains in a stupor of entertainments and fake Fox News and its associated political corruption and Trump-induced division - and at the moment that seems likely at least in the provincially-minded USA - that alliance of tyrants could be poised to make a real mess, maybe exterminate us all. They cannot abide free and happy people on their borders, including those of the history books and the digital space, which means there can be no free and happy anywhere in the world. Misery loves only miserable company.
@@Ignotas_Tunaitis Russia nuclear threat is good.. until we realize that NATO has an equally big nuclear crad. Baltics are part of NATO and Russia will get crushed if it attacks the Baltics, nukes or no nukes.
Thank you for such a brilliant analysis.
Very informative guest! Professor Milevski has a unique expertise specific to the Baltic countries- to the extent that I have not seen this amount of detail previously. Thank you!
Seems peculiar that a strategic analyst wouldn’t even mention how Kaliningrad would be crushed by surrounding NATO forces if the Baltic states were invaded.
I think he did mention that it would quickly be attacked by Poland and that Finland/Sweden's entry into NATO makes its position even more tenuous.
He commented that most of the build up in Kaliningrad has left the province. If that is the case, Russia must have concluded it doesn't make sense to keep much of force there because they could not defend it
Really appreciate hearing about this topic, which I haven't come across anywhere else.
nice variation on the usual topics being covered elsewhere. Maybe one on the prospects of china invading Russian Manchuria?
Very interesting, thanks
Fakt dobrá práce s tímhle podcastem!!
Air power. The big difference between Ukrainian defense and NATO defense should be total NATO dominance of the air. Where is the big NATO airbase closest to Tallinn?
thats a good question, but also not that important since they could turn the helsinki airport into an airbase in days.
Gotland has many prepared airstrips at least for Swedish Air Force capable of short takeoffs.
@@nox5555 months. Is there a difference in jet fuel for 747s as opposed to f-16s. Are systems in place to put rockets on wings, repair parts, revetments, AA, etc? They could land and take off, but the rest will take longer to provide unless it is started before needed. More likely Finland’s closest fight base will bulk up.
@@jimsack1the there have been plans for such a war since the 50s, so alot of airports are build with WW3 in mind.
there also are(or were) mobiil airfields in europe. I know that first handf because we trained that when i was in the german army. it takes about 12 hours to get the highway airstrips operational.
@@nox5555 gern gehört
Excellent talk!!!
NATO relies on air superiority. Without that, there might be trouble. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure NATO will have air superiority and then it's game over.
NATO has every superiority. Russians die young even in PEACE time.... Remember, we outnumber them like 10 to 1, and their gear is from BEFORE computers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, they didn't even mention air force? Strange
Great conversation, thanks for uploading!
Excellent content
Overriding lots of commentaries: this was a serious conversation. Thank you for an informative discussion!
Yeah, I am just not seeing it, its hard to think Russia could be a threat to NATO, no matter how little preparation the west has conducted since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Especially after the Ukraine war. You are talking about nation that barely holds 20% of Ukraine after years of full scale war, and also needs to include Crimea in that figure to top it off. Territory not even taken during the full scale war. So straight of the bat you lessen the chances of them opening a second war with NATO, its just not going to happen. Secondly they have decimated their military in a extremely short period of time. They are literally rolling out T55's for elite units, not to mention relying on meat wave tactics due to lack of equipment and their inability to conduct combine arms warfare. Their air force has not once achieve air dominance the entire war against a nation that barely has one. They lost on the sea, against a nation who has no navy. The list goes on and on. I struggle to even think they would have a chance against NATO who in every metric has a larger and more competent military, even if given the element of surprise. NATO air power alone is a staggering difference. It would literally be suicide for Russian to attack into NATO. Sure NATO would no doubt need to pull their finger out at break neck speed, but you are still talking a huge disadvantage to the Russians.
Poland and the Baltics would definitely insist NATO pull their fingers out to the max instantly.
I agree! Russia is super weak now, invading the Baltic's would end up in Russia likely having 2 choices, nuclear war or stopping to exist and fracturing into a bunch of regionally ran republics due to its destruction by NATO forces. A war vs NATO would barely last 2 weeks if Russia attacks, Russia is that weak now.
NATO can’t even decide to send a letter at breakneck speed, I doubt they could organize themselves for a full scale defensive war. These guys specialize in organizing meetings and discussing endlessly the parameters of upcoming topics up for discussion, which never get decided upon. Using the excuse of democracy as a cover for hesitancy and delay, these Europeans have taken “talking” to a high art. Russia is playing on this timidity and hesitation. Fortune favors the bold, even if they’re stupid and under equipped.
@@war-painter And yet those letters would still be more effective than Russian peasants being sent in meat waves supported by tanks made in 1948. 🤣 NATO has the advantage over Russia in every metric. Manpower, Land/air/sea assets, wealth etc. Even before the Ukraine war where Russia decimated their own military. There is no way you can spin this to make Russia look like it would have a chance against NATO. That doesn't even go into the finer details of Russia having to hold territory it captures . You really think ex Soviet nations are just going to roll over after the last taste they had of Russian rule? 🤣Not that Russia could even capture the territory in the first place. NATO could give Russia a head start and it would still be decimated.
Just like all the experts did prior to the war you wildly overestimate Russia abilities based purely on Russia attacking a weaker nation, that relies on military aid from the west in order to fight them off. Which is also a weird thing to use considering how poorly Russia performing in Ukraine.
@Stevekpb I think you're right and I hope you're right, but I sure am glad that the Balts and Poles are taking the threat seriously.
I think it's safe to say that no country is quite as strong as they think. And this is why war usually happens; countries think they're stronger than what they really are.
In the scenario of the Moscow Mafia extending its war to other European nations (essentially starting a world war) whilst still fighting in Ukraine, however, there's no question that they would still be far more disadvantaged than most of Europe/the West. But, of course, you can't really apply normal war logic to Putin's government, a government that would have no problems nuking the entire world - itself included - if it got to the stage of fighting (badly) a new world war.
Hi from Russia. Even in Soviet times a war with NATO considered to be impossible to win without nukes.
@paulzx5034 Russia would definitely lose a nuclear war.
The US would too. We all would, every one of us.
The experience of Ukraine seems to have pushed some analysts into a pre-1945 mentality where nuclear weapons don’t exist. IMO There would not be a protracted ground war in Europe that doesn’t result in an act of desperation that involves nuclear weapons. After that it’s not going to matter much who has the most artillery shells.
Your point is?
Because they wouldn't be a factor. NATO doesn't need to nuke a Russian invasion anymore. 1991 demonstrated it, as has every other NATO operation since. We can beat Russia conventionally. Russia would need nukes to defeat NATO, and it wouldn't come up because NATO doctrine doesn't involve an invasion of Russia. Nuclear weapons as a factor would just ensure nobody wins, hence why no war would be started with a nuclear attack.
@@dfmrcv862 agreed
If Trump leaves NATO, and Le Pen leaves NATO and the EU, suddenly only one side has nuclear weapons.
@@beatonthedonis you're forgetting Britain...
Great discussion. A quick question: why would you assume that NATO would simply operate in the Baltics in the case of an Russian invasion. The geography of region is largely flat and would lend itself to a fast mechanized pincer movement from Poland to the south and the Fins to the north (bypassing and perhaps surrounding St. Petersburg). Presumably we would see the buildup (like we did in Ukraine) and partially reinforce the Baltics and then start moving large forces by rail to the Polish border area. Putting St. Petersburg and it's Southern flank at risk would presumably put the Russians on notice that they were about to have an issue.
SPB is highly vulnerable. It is only about 150 KMs from NATO borders (Finland and Estonia).
Good points. How exactly would the Russians be able to concentrate anywhere like the numbers necessary to invade the Baltics in secret. NATO is at high alert and won’t think they’re bluffing this time.
@@procopiusaugustus6231 For a conventional invasion, they probably couldn't.
Great that you made this. There is too much repetition of abstract vague cliches on YT, rather than specific analysis. I think hybrid warfare is still a low cost deniable interim tactic for Moscow, pending it rebuilding its forces. I agree with Prof Milevski that Baltic countries are determined to defend themselves, and have a different perspective from that of the US, because of their small size, location and past experience of being occupied. Accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is helpful in multiple ways of course. However, Western forces have not been in full scale multi-dimensional conventional conflict with a near peer adversary for decades at least. I don't doubt NATO skill levels overall, but they are mostly inexperienced, so would have to learn very quickly. European defence is hollowed out - it will take many years to rebuild capacity for sustained defence, including reserves of trained people, ammunition and maintenance. For example, the UK Select Committee on Defence questioned Defence MInistry assumptions on ammo reserves and likely quantities needed as far bask as 1999. In Germany, Rheinmetall produced 70,000 rounds of 155 mm shells in 2022 (compare that with daily usage of some 10,000 or more shells in Ukraine by either side). I think the recent NATO guideline was for ammo reserves for 5 days, in line with the demonstrative function of defence in recent times. That has been raised to 1 month, which is still inadequate. Even if future rebuilt Russian land forces were poorly trained and operationally limited, they could still have initial success and then wear down thin NATO tripwire forces if NATO simply did not have reserves. Western media ignorant of military affairs and strategy would then broadcast negative messages about the situation, reacting to probable Moscow nuclear threats, potentially undermining resolve. NATO relies on airpower, I guess, but that cannot defend ground by itself or later retake any ground traded for time for NATO reinforcements to arrive. Also, Moscow would likely encourage its associates to act disruptively at the same time to distract and divert Western forces. European defence has to be much stronger to deter potential Moscow aggression, including hybrid attacks, because we want to deter and prevent conflict by being more ready for it. At least Poland seems to understand the danger and what action is needed.
"Even if future rebuilt Russian land forces were poorly trained and operationally limited, they could still have initial success and then wear down thin NATO tripwire forces if NATO simply did not have reserves. Western media ignorant of military affairs and strategy would then broadcast negative messages about the situation, reacting to probable Moscow nuclear threats, potentially undermining resolve." - agree, the media are already doing this to a certain degree. I cannot see Germany wanting to invoke article 4 for Estonia or Latvia, especially with the threat of a nuclear attack from Russia.
What you're leaving out is that Russia doesn't have the weapons they did before. Secondly, we all saw how we in the West reacted when Russia first invaded Ukraine and was surrounding Kyiv. It wasn't a loss in resolve, it was a *gain* in resolve. More support was demanded, the few protests in Russia were hyper-focused on to put pressure on Russia in the UN, and immediately, rapid packages of aid were getting prepared and announced. And that was to a non-NATO member *and* with blatant nuclear threats.
Can you imagine how pissed off we'd get if Russia did this to an *ally?*
No, resolve won't be lacking for quite a while, and that's a time that Russia can't afford.
Also, the argument about ammo isn't even valid anymore despite what the media may tell you. A reason why ammo deliveries to Ukraine got held up wasn't because we were running out of ammo but because politicians here were *holding it up.* You mention the UK, and while it's partly true most of Europe probably doesn't have the same ammo producing capabilities of the US, it *is* the US providing enough ammunition to both help Ukraine fight Russia, replenish Israel's stocks, *and* carry out major operations against Iranian proxies in the Middle East.
The argument about initial Russian success is only true *assuming no one notices the mass build up.* Remember, Ukraine didn't really react to the build up of Russian forces out of fear of escalating. NATO isn't really the same. They'd set up a similar build up if Russia does it, as we'd done on several occasions (most famously in 1983). But even *granting* initial Russian success, history has shown that it's kind of irrelevant to be successful at first. The North Koreans had a ton of early success, and it backfired hard in a few weeks once MacArthur landed in Icheon. Russia lacks a modern stealth fleet, and it lacks the intercept capabilities to stop US missile strikes.
I feel a lot of these analysis are forgetting all of that.
This was certainly interesting to watch. I think Finland and Sweden joining NATO has changed the picture somewhat.
We've had 10 years to prepare, or at the very least, 2 years. If we have not been ramping up production, enlisting trainees to military and para-military services and starting new manufacturing, well then we best START NOW!!
My humble opinion is that if there is a next, it would most likely be Moldova/ Transnistria. It would be a easier target with significant advantages afterwards regarding their posture, not to mention it would make it easier to defend/ exploit/ incorporate into their nation. Time however will tell, and that scenario acting out would be a break from the worlds traditional order of conflict in this region.
When nations move west to east they do secure that before advancing, and if you were moving east to west the opposite would be a more logical order.
I would agree, but Moldova does not have a border with Russia and it is therefore impossible to move significant forces into Transnistria. If Russians had captured Odessa, it would be almost guaranteed.
Many missed this, but on February 24, 2022 the first day the invasion to Ukraine started, TASS (official Russian news agency) announced "peace keeping exercises" in Transnistria to take place in the middle of March. I guess, by then, they expected to be done with Odessa.
Isn’t the failure of the Maginot line a misconception?
It didn’t make France impregnable. However, the fortified line was never breached - The Wermacht had to circumvent it.
Would the Baltics necessarily have to wait that long? U.S. intelligence was warning about an invasion weeks before. Isn’t that enough time for NATO forges to get to where the action would be?
Definition of strategic depth must consider terrain, too.
Why don't we also speak about Russian invasion of Moldova? That would surely be easier than the Baltics and would stretch European response even further if done in parallel. Moldova doesn't have a serious military.
Many missed this, but on February 24, 2022 the first day the invasion to Ukraine started, TASS (official Russian news agency) announced "peace keeping exercises" in Transnistria to take place in the middle of March. I guess, by then, they expected to have captured or gone around Odessa and were planning to take Moldova with little effort.
It’s unfair to criticise Europe for disarming. The age of war seemed to be very much over and large armies and stores of munitions seemed to be redundant.
Best day of my Life
The point and purpose of NATO has not changed so far as I'm aware since I served with USAREUR; the U.S. provides a nuclear umbrella, and the paucity of forces on the front lines are the tripwire. Once U.S. soldiers start dying, the threshold for tactical nuclear weapons is crossed and then expect imminent release. The Russians know this and intend to use nuclear weapons at the outset. So the whole argument is rather academic and of little consequence given the high stakes.
If Russia were to try a 'bite and hold' strategy, then for a temporary period NATO *may* remain in a conventional state but this would quickly change to theater exchange rather quickly. Putin knows this, it's why Russia has stripped its border of material to send to Ukraine; he knows we will not attack and he knows that any war directly with the west will be his undoing.
It makes no sense that a thief who has spent his life enriching himself would risk losing all of that for no reason.
With the recent experience with NLAWs and drones. Wouldn't the defender have a huge advantage nowadays?
Defenders always have a huge advantage.
@@plebius Sure, an advised 3 to 1 troop advantage for the attacking party is often mentioned. But the Ukrainians have said that drones have changed everything. Especially for the defending party.
@@brulsmurf this war has also showed the devastating effects of mines on both sides. They are only effective on the defensive. Drones change little in that regard.
Hi from Russia. Anybody who think the war with NATO would be a nuke-free conventional war - should read some books or educate itself in some ways.
@@paulzx5034 Probably not. A lot of countries bordering Russia are in talks with France. And france has a warning shot doctrine. Russia would probably be glassed in a NATO war.
People speak of vast russian soviet stores. They're forgetting something.
@@GreggGiles He also forgot something...
@@GreggGiles What did he forget? Russia's lost most of them. It's not even funny, we *have* satellite images of their old Soviet reserves vanishing since 2022. If the argument is that Russia can mass produce them quickly... well... I point to the fact we haven't seen any additional mass wave attacks of T-90s or T-80s in Ukraine...
@@dfmrcv862 you are correct. 80-90% of all russian production is refurbishment of soviet era stockpiles. As time goes on refurbishment is becoming complete rebuilding of equipment. The stockpiles are being depleted at a rapid rate.
Russia may be manufacturing 2-3 million rounds of artillery. However that is all artillery types.
It will take Russia a long time (if ever) to rebuild their stockpiles.
@@seanniemeyer5437 Yeah, I feel a lot of people have *really* forgotten that it's not 1940 anymore, and the USSR isn't getting lend lease or... well... existing...
@@dfmrcv862
Does supplies and munitions from Axis of Arseholes like Khameini, Kim and Xi?
They often faulty and yet it's still weapons and supplies.
The real problem is that Russia has formed a strategic alliance with Iran, North Korea, and to a smaller extent, China to get massive numbers of shells, drones and missiles. The threat is not that Russia could gain air superiority over NATO in the first instance. NATO has initial air supremacy with F-35s. The question is "what if the Russians simply adopt a policy of attrition as they have in Ukraine?" What happens after say 6 months when NATO countries are running out of air defense missiles drones and air assets? Lockheed is producing Patriot missiles are at the rate of 550 per year and cannot greatly increase production rates. The problem grows more severe if you massive drone attacks. Air defense would be totally effective in the beginning, but would degrade over time as air assets are expended. It all still depends on whether the US would massively reinforce. And if the US withdraws from NATO as Trump wants, then European defense production would have to be massively increased to make up the gap. That's where the threat of Nuclear War becomes so severe.
They are ignoring the fact that we would see it coming.
...just like the Ukraine!
@@Mike-br8zt difference is that all that would be taking place AFTER Ukraine ;)
No one is talking about Dr. Strangelove.
By the time ruzzia get's around to invading the Baltics (assuming it wants to), ruzzia would be too weak. It's probably too weak to fight a combined Ukraine and NATO force already, surely?
Well considering they are rolling out the T55's already for Ukraine, I am unsure how they could then take on the largest military alliance in human history. 😆 Not to mention doing it alone, China wont put their hand up to carry the Russians through a war like that. It would devastate China's economy.
@@StevekpbMy thoughts exactly.
Not that many troops here to defend against a mass assault of tens of thousands.
Russia is currently too weak to take more than 18% of Ukraine, if it takes on NATO its over for Russia existing as a cohesive country.
@@BigTimeRushFan2112 Which is why splitting NATO resources between Ukraine and the Baltics would help the Russians win there. Not many Russian forces are needed in Lithuania in order to carry out this plan, thus not weakening them elsewhere.
Kaliningrad needs to meet HIMARS. :)
0:00 talk about nato running out of shells, missiles and bullets before the russians do instead of suggesting individual target countries running out
Funny how people think this would stay conventional...same faulty assumptions with the Cold War...he who uses them first is less likely of loosing at all!
Unlikely scenario!
NATO strategy was not to attempt a recovery of land taken by Russia. The belief was it would take NATO over 100 days to defeat RU before the tide would change.
Looking at the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the northeast in 2022 has its value. However, we have to bear in mind important variables. If the Russians employ multiple operational echelons, then the prospect that 4 days and 90km in the first echelon runs out of steam matters less than if there is no second operational echelon. Soviet doctrine called for multiple echelons. Whether the Russians can field more than one echelon for an invasion of the Baltics is beyond my ability to say. If they can, then it would be in keeping with Soviet doctrine to push the first echelon forward until it drops in its tracks, then push the second echelon through. Whether the Russians will have the manpower or the trucks for this in the medium term is, again, beyond my ability to say.
The thing is that Europe together can fix this with its economy dwarfing that of Russia.
It would take years but so for Russia if they win or lose the war in Ukraine. It's even the question if they are able to wage a war after the war.
Good question..
@@stagecoachmechanicIt doesn't matter how big the European economy is. There is no European defense force, no European political will to commit the resources, no European industry able to sustain a war effort on its own. People should be running around with their hair on fire doing everything to put Europe on a war footing. They are not. We have been defeated before the battle has started.
North Korea is supplying cheap missiles that exhaust air defense systems rapidly, opening paths for precision weapons to hit vital targets. Russia’s military equipment production levels are eye-popping, and even ancient restored and upgraded tanks can in ways out-perform newer models. Their ammo production is many times greater than last year and already has a capacity that far exceeds that of the West, and they have a two-year head start building it. North Korea already has a trained and disciplined standing army of about 8 million and also has by far the largest ammo stockpiles and ammo production, and now they have Russian technicians assisting them as well as an opening to becoming a major arms supplier. And they have nukes and ICBMs to deter attacks on their weapons production. Iran is on a similar path, and all three are working together and sharing to topple the West. They and their allies control strategic parts of the globe and have broad support in the Global South. Wagner has cultivated perhaps a dozen African countries rich in gold, diamonds,… and mercenaries. Right now they are just setting the table. If the West remains in a stupor of entertainments and fake Fox News and its associated political corruption and Trump-induced division - and at the moment that seems likely at least in the provincially-minded USA - that alliance of tyrants could be poised to make a real mess, maybe exterminate us all. They cannot abide free and happy people on their borders, including those of the history books and the digital space, which means there can be no free and happy anywhere in the world. Misery loves only miserable company.
Trump derangement syndrome much?
The Baltics are an exemplar.
Vilnius here. Very interesting post. I think things have changed this week. I think the enemy now thinks they have mastered the art of successful attack which would be a blitz on infrastructure, causing civilians to block the roads and masses of troops in civilian cars for the ground attack. The goal would be to close the gap/corridor, form a defensive line that would take weeks if not months to breach, perhaps years, during which they could digest the rest of the territory at leisure. This week, Poland was reported as saying they would not send troops into Lithuania, period, as it violates their constitution. But perhaps I misheard that last bit.
Hi Steve from Vilnius. That sounds odd, especially as both Poland and Lithuania are in NATO. I have read that Polish PM Tusk confirmed in March that Poland would support Lithuania in the event of aggression against Lithuania.
@@CollectiveWest1 Poland as usual play its own game
scenario Nbr 1..... after some incidents Poland move on Kaliningrad , Russia request the passage of their troops to defend it
Lithuania refuse , Russian cut a corridor through Lithuanian defense after some hard fighting
NATO convene a meeting , Poland should leave Kaliningrad territory , Russia withdrawal from Lithuanian territory is subject to a no Foreign units allowed
@@CollectiveWest1 Ok. I did a little fact checking, but not thoroughly. It was the Lithuanian Prime Minister, who is well spoken, who said that Poland would likely not be able to send troops due to some legal complication and the Polish official who said they would. After the Polish 'farmer' protests and Slovak election, I am worried.
@@aSnailCyclopsNamedSteve Yes, that is what I found when I looked too - I shared your concern but I hope that the Polish government is better placed to assess the legal position in Poland. I am not dismissing the concern raised by the Lithuanian PM. This is very important to Lithuania, especially as Poland's importance is growing. I don't know what the answer is. But I thought there might have been a misunderstanding in your first comment. Thanks for looking and responding.
@@CollectiveWest1 Thank you for the polite response and the chance to correct the information. We have been listening to her during the presidential debates and she is very well spoken there, including during off the cuff responses. I now suspect that her remark was an oblique reference to the US House situation, i.e., any government can find an excuse not to act if it so wishes.
Bruh, clean your camera.
Nukes are not an option. Why spoil the prize when your victim repeatedly backs off lets you take it?
If it kicked off between NATO and Russia. Within a month of an air war NATO would have air superiority. All Russian infrastructure power plants, radar stations, command centres, air fields, air defence would be crushed and Russia would be sitting there with their pants around their ankles waiting for the inevitable.
They may sink a few allied ships and launch a few air strikes at NATO targets but the effect would be minimal. Their nukes would not work either.
What would happen then is either Putin steps down, is over thrown, tries to launch Nukes and the above happens. Or NATO steam rolls Russia into the ground. Which I doubt they would want to leave such a large Country in a bad condition.
What kind of rescue can you expect when all of NATO is in the same boat...unprepared? US can only do so much. If European countries only have a few weeks worth of ammo then they'd better start increasing production immediately. Relying on a group for defense only works if everyone in the group pulls their own weight.
Couldn’t NATO naval power press their clear advantage from the sea on the Baltic border?
Russian oil would stop, according to what I read they have a floating transfer point off Portugal to load Chinese tankers at sea to get around restrictions.
I'm not laughing at Russia they are too dangerous.
does putin pay well for posting this crud?
nah mate, all is real and reasonable, I can confirm that the Baltics aim to only delay, namely I am one of those delayers, 4 days is my job, 4 hellish days. Putin has to step over my dead body to erase my home and culture. We already know it will be an ethnical genocide, this is not the first attempt.
Manstein advanced 315km in the first 100 hours of the invasion
No satellites nor drones.
Then Manstein was defeated.
.?
The guest's pattern of speech is incredibly stilted, saying some phrases quickly with odd gaps in between. It makes it unlistenable at normal speeds and odd at faster speeds. The contrast between the guest and the host couldn't be more stark in this regard.
I'd be more inclined to comment that it's very impressive how articulate he is in his second (or third?) language!
sadam husein was defeat in a day, its same army different dictator
The guest needs to learn how to focus their camera.
russian submarines in Baltic?
yea they are there, and funnily, since it is the only threat on that sea, Sweden has had all the time in the world to build up a world class anti-submarine navy, so Sweden is a huge asset to NATO. There isn't a single navy with that strong of a specific focus as sweden has, developing its own.
"Expert" 😂😂😂
So Russia will not invade the Baltic states- just saying.
Russia is far more likely to go through the south of Ukraine to Moldova into Hungary and then Serbia and Bosnia H.
Pity we in the west aren’t more like them… never again…
NATO would easily March into the Kremlin if they wished to.
Bordering Russia means you have the option to catalytic deterrence. It's the option to escalate the conflict across the border into Russia to such a degree that it will force the world to intervene and shut down the conflict before Russia turns to their nuclear weapons to retaliate the escalation. You don't really need all that much to do this. Like 20% of the Baltic population, 1,5 mn people invading the Russian mainland with mortars, assault weapons and rocket launches would be a massive challenge for Russia to handle politicly without them launching a massive tantrum.
I would even say it could be done with far less and less dramatic. Bordering Russia means you do not need intercontinental rockets, you can do extremely much with low range rockets. Also with low range aircraft. You can do much with low range artillery, even. The Border countries are actually the spearpoint and achilles heel of Russia, because they can simply go over the border whenever they want and inflict much damage with relatively cheap weapons and manpower. I mean, Ukraine could go over the border anytime and circumvent the russian army in Ukraine and probably attack major russian regions directly, but they do not do this because the west tells them to avoid that. But they could. Anytime. And that is just Ukraine.
"You don't really need all that much to do this"
"1,5 mn people invading the Russian mainland with mortars, assault weapons and rocket launches"
??? How delusional are you people, wtf lol. This is real life, not a HOI4 where you can mass millions in a few days and charge. Holy fuck..
@@MagMar-kv9ne Yes, probably what Ukraine will do if they are on the verge of losing it's statehood. Russia is probably pretty strongly dug in at this moment tho so I think they will go trough Belarus and that will force Russia to mobilize troops in there and then they can utilize those freed up pockets to push into Russia. This is the problem for states like Russia and Pakistan, that have a rather low threshold doctrine for using it's weapons because then it can be used against themselves. If they don't follow protocol of using the doctrine the nuclear deterrence doesn't work.
I know you need to make money but BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO for the Patreon cut off plug at the end.
I don't know about an invasion of all the Baltic states; with the current NATO configuration, they are much less important and there is no benefit in holding them.
However, Lithuania and perhaps northern Poland are a different story.
From a geopolitical perspective, Putin is a very secure player; he takes very few risks and likes to have a distinct and valid(at least to Russians) justification for his geopolitical actions.
So, if he wants to both secure territorial connections to the exclave there and put substantial strain to the currently fairly strained NATO, that is how I believe he would do it.
The whole point here would be to strain the US, and to lesser degree Germany and France, over whether to implement article 5 while having the justification that this was a requirement to secure the vital exclave against countries geopolitically hostile that have a proven record to have closed down the Suwalki corirdoor at least once before.
I think it also important to mention that I consider it unlikely that the current Russian thinking involves occupying countries; occupation is a very costly affair and very hard to implement. It is more likely the Russian plan for Ukraine is to annex the seaside areas, move Russian populations there if there aren't already, link up with Transnistria and leave whatever remains as a destroyed Ukrainian state than to actually occupy and police Ukraine.
If article 5 fails, Russia can then exert crushing political influence on the other states and even restore Lithuania, since there would literally be no threat, nor will the country have any actual political will in geopolitical matters.
“Putin takes few risks”
Well, that argument was thrown out of the window when they committed to full scale invasion of Ukraine. Looking back, it was extremely high risk move, which has blown in their faces and slowly grinding away the effectiveness of ruZZian armed forces. They need a decade or more to recover from the losses. In fact, the 3 day SMO may still very well be the end of Putin.
“Belarusian” is written with one S, it’s not pronounced as “Bela” + “Russian”, it is pronounced literally with “S”. The way your guest pronounces it sounds very Russian-colonial towards Belarus. Thank you.
Well, and isn't it a colony of Russia right now?
Good try to preserve the image, sadly last time I went there it sure looked like a russian colony, Belarus is in the midst of "self-inflicted" ethnic genocide and the state has done quite a bit to kill off its own language, you would be the only "free" country to do that in the world. Belarus is THE ONLY former soviet country that doesn't have university education in its cultural language. Sadly not too suprised as per 2019 only 23.43% belarusians indicated they speak belarusian at their homes.
You are already a colony dummy
it would be nice if the US wasn't the only country that isn't afraid to have pew pew sticks and protect ourselves and allies.
The political assumption was not that the Ukrainians would crumble but that they would sue for peace with terms favourable to the Russian sphere of influence. Which is exactly what started to happen until bojo paid a visit to Ukraine
Well after listening to this I hope people do not follow this guys advise . 😅😅😅😅
This guy could compete with comical Ali.
Your paywall is bad.
Why so scared bro 😂😂😂😂
Two men with women's hairdo talk 10x too much about what to do.
What qualifies these two to debate or speak about this? Who are they? Anybody can get on You tube and pretend to be an expert.
Yes, anybody can discuss these things. And why not? Non-experts can be smarter and official experts can be dumber.
Stupid topic. Russia will not test NATO cause (if not being direct attacked.
...and they will never invade Ukraine....
@BerndBarsch LOL!
@@Mike-br8ztThey always said if Ukraine joins NATO, it would cause a war. The west thought they were bluffing. The Russians have NEVER said anything about invading a NATO country. Putin balked at this during Tucker's interview, as he said FOR WHAT LOL? This would only happen as a defensive move, such as if NATO troops enter the current war
r.SS:an troll
@@Heardbydeaf Just asking, are you able to talk in sentences or only in hieroglyphs ?
And if Russia doesn’t invade how nato will justify war?
Remind me, who invaded Ukraine?
why would nato go to war then, its a defence pact, not a damn invasive alliance like russia and china, id rather ask the next question, when will china invade taiwan if russia doesnt stir it up in europe?
Lukoshenko recently explained that “if NATO military forces invade Belarus, then a corridor connecting Belarus and the Kaliningrad region will be made.” There are no other reasons to attack NATO countries. If NATO troops enter Ukraine, no matter for what purpose, this will bring the nuclear forces of all countries to the highest level of readiness. For some reason I am sure of this.
I have some questions for you Baltic people:
1) Why do you want to damn your own souls and the souls of those around you by trying to revive pagan superstitions just to snub the Russian Orthodox Church?
2) Why do you want to take your own lives and the lives of those around you by constantly talking up war with Russia?
3) Why don't you remain on friendly terms with Moscow so that you can fill the role of the trade middleman, and during wartime stand down your armies and let whoever wants to pass through your territories to do so?
You don't have gold/iron/oil; you have lumber but the russians have a million times more; the fishes you catch from the Baltic Sea are toxic, buy some fresh arctic fish from Russia instead. ✌️
Да кому вы нужны, господи 🤦♂️
Why would Russia invade the Baltics?
Its part of the "russian world" (russkii mir), they dont acknowledge baltics as independent and have long sought control over them, this take dates back almost a thousand years, and they would LOVE to regain the perks of soviet union without the responsibilities of it. SU signed a border deal with Estonia for example(1920), then hidden it out of sight, and saying our country doesnt exist. So RF now says that its the soviet union that signed it, not us, and want to "inherit" the lands soviet union had. All while not honouring the border deal. I mean politics with russia has always been a bazaar of hypocrisy. And it isnt and will not be the only attempt to invade baltics. We got our taste of russia, it was sour, never again.
Ends with a Patreon beg when it finally takes off. Too bad, cancelled my subscription.
discontinue government separation from God with substantive human rights choice for divine central authority unity
Whose God?
Gott mit uns was on the lips of German troops in WW1 guess who lost!
Seems like an easy solve. Don't provoke Russia and they won't invade.
Baltic states pose no military threat by themselves. Stop treating the Russian population of the Baltic states as second-rate citizens and Russia will not bother them.
😂
@Oberschutzee
It is really funny. these guys spend all this time theorizing of how they will defend themselves, but the solution is simple. Don't....
How about sending them back to Russia. Then no problem.
another t.rrorist troll.
Well, maybe some of these people just should go back to Russia then. Traitors are less than second-rate citizens. And everyone is a traitor, who does not stand in for his home country, does not learn its language, does not lives his culture, as many Baltic people with Russian background do.
There is no need for such a thing.
Why ?
The enemy is NOT the Russians.
Look about the enemy among you ....
Here's some simple math. Biden let's in 7 million. If you want to stay with your family. You have to serve for 3 years. Then 10 in reserve. Done!!!!
Just so you're aware I'm blocking your content due to the way you cut short this interview on RUclips. Was interesting but leaves a much too sout taste
What a clown show.
Warmongers at their best.
Russia plans to attack Latvia and then Mars, Jupiter and Pluto😂😂😂😂😂
the only warmongers are the russians
Exactly. The very saddest of clowns. This entertainment machine must be called out for its grift; a kind of digital, armchair protection racket.
@@johnhigson6206 Putin loves you!
r.SSan troll :)
@@Heardbydeaf No I am a Klingonian
Russia is not a threat to any country. Ukraine just like the Baltics got their independence without any tension or arm struggle. The threat arrived the day NATO put their boots on the soil of those countries. Any threat on Russian border will be counter properly. Further those states stay from NATO greater is their security.
And why do you think did all these former Soviet republics joined NATO as fast as they could? Because they trusted the Russians that much? Because they liked them? Or maybe not?
@@scepticalchymist Bribed politicians and empty promises for prosperity. Instead prosperity all they got is front line in a confrontation between two superpowers. Something they didn't have to consider before. Ukraine is a great example. Ruined and depopulated. This is the future of any other ex republic who let to be used.
@@cheblack677Interesting, if politicians were bribed into joining NATO does that mean that the people didn't want to?
@@apgaismiba It's easy to trick people with promises for a prosperous life. In Ukrainian case is even worse because their politicians promise not what they will accomplish, but what the EU will give them for free. As we know there is nothing EU would offer Ukraine, but exploit them as they do now(used as a battle field, test ground for weapons and tactics... )and in worse case use them as buffer zone. All Ukrainians need to do is to eradicate the corruption and position themselves between Russia and EU and Chine - Russia corridor and Europe.
Baltic country want sacrifice people in Ukraine for not start russian war in Baltic region?All want sacrifice people in Ukraine?
r.SSan paid troll.
@@Heardbydeaf Why you thinking so.Chomu ti ne V Ukraini na Fronti?Baltic country buying russian gas&oil and Usa buying russian gas&oil.Stop buying russian gas oil for supporting russian war in Ukraine.Then you too kremlebot..You against truth. You support dictatorship regimes like in russia
@@Heardbydeaf Chomu ti tak dumaesh?You russian troll.You don't like truth
the population of the baltic states would love to be liberated by russia.
Russian troll detected. Hallo from Latvia.
@@aivisabele hello mr complicit in massmurder of ukrainian people ...35 yrs long now by the sockpuppetgovernaments placed in command by the world financial elites that hyjacked ukraine in the chaos after the fall of communism ..
Botnik
@user-hl1dq7nh4d You paid to support Putin or just an useful idiot?
Dude forgets the US purposly looses wargames to address the flaws in logistics and tactical. Wargames are speculation