Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Smitty-48]

Crimea was a fait accompli, and the Ukrainians capitulated, nary a shot fired, rather than face being overrun by Russian force of arms, that's a de facto acceptance of the Russian terms.

[Smitty-48]

I don't know about tougher, and while I tbh have only national stereotypes to rely on here, I'd suspect they'd be more disciplined.

More disciplined perhaps, but not a North Vietnamese Communist Dictatorship prepared to hunker down and burn the village to save the village just to prevent the Russians from taking Aland or whatever.

Are the Finns prepared to destroy Helsinki to save Aland? Are the Swedes prepared to destroy Stockholm to save Gotland? Are the Norwegians prepared to destroy Oslo to save Svalbard? I think not, and rightly so, because that would be a foolish exchange, some things are not worth burning the village down over.

Ultimately, are the Americans prepared to destroy Washington, to save Latvia? No, and Ivan well knows it, which is why Latvia is in peril.

[Smitty-48]

To wit, a Russian military move in Northern Europe, is not going to be for all the marbles, they're not going to be driving on Paris from Svalbard, they're just going to be seizing a buffer zone of strategically located bases of operations, to foil a NATO poisition against them over the trace, and ultimately, is NATO really prepared to fight World War Three over that? Would it be a rational exchange for NATO to fight World War Three over that? Are you game to be on the brink of a nuclear war, over Gotland, Kaliningrad, and Svalbard?

In the face of the hydrogen bomb, surely nothing burgers like that are expendable downrange, martyrs for the cause? If you're so gung-ho to defend the international order, come what may, why haven't you gone to war over the nothing burger in Crimea? Crimea, Svalbard, what's the difference? Article V? Yeah, OK, sure.

Bear in mind; Washington Treaty; wide spectrum of responses therein, World War Three at the one end, yes, but at the other end; strongly worded letter of protest.

Let's just look at how it went last time, hydrogen bombs in effect; the Communists took Cuba, the United States attempted to take Cuba back by force, the Communists put nuclear weapons in Cuba to prevent that, the United States went to the brink of nuclear war, but then backed down in the face of the abyss, the Communists withdrew the missiles from Cuba, but the United States agreed not to try to take Cuba by force of arms in the process, Communist mission accomplished, Soviet/Russian base in Cuba ever after.

Mr. Ivan can sieze a strategic base by nuclear blackmail, 90 miles off the coast of Florida, but he couldn't do that in Gotland, Estonia, or Svalbard? Yeah, right, sure.

He wasn't even that heavily armed in 1962, Curtis LeMay was right, America could have taken him in a first strike with ease, but no way was JFK going to risk it, but now Trump would put Trump Tower in the breach, for Svalbard, in the face of the monster that is the Soviet nuclear arsenal built after Cuba? Why do I doubt that?

[ssu]

That's all sound I suppose, but you're sort of contradicting yourself now, first you invoked the Russian long ranged rocket artillery, to which I responded that you would be fucked if they rolled out the long ranged rocket artillery to bombard you into submission, but now you're saying they wouldn't do that.

On the one hand you said you needed BUK-M3 to manuever your AD through the woods in a shoot n' scoot against the overwhelming Russian firepower advantage, now you're saying the Russians wouldn't need to use their overwhelming firepower advantage, all they have to do is grab some Islands in the Baltic in a quick and dirty smash and grab, so, which is it?

Ok, perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Extensive use of firepower fits well into the Russian doctrine. Yet that pounding into submission is a long and a very costly process, won't look so good and exactly for what? Far better if the same objectives can be taken in a quick limited war where the benefits are far higher than the costs. Hence short quick war where you get what you want and then can put the "crisis" into a slow burner. Yes, the Russians do well know the art of Urban renovation through bombing:

Grozny after the fighting:


First and foremost is to think of the goals and objectives of a war. Which would they be for Russia? Would Putin really want to annex Finland? Sweden? Really put his forces here as an occupational army? Transfer what is left of the five million into Siberia? No. He's no Stalin and his Russia isn't Stalins Soviet Union.

Far likely are the objectives that Russia and Putin have stated quite clearly: That Finland or Sweden joining NATO would be a REALLY bad decision which would have consequences. St Petersburgh to be in the range of NATO artillery rockets isn't what Putin wants. Hence "occupying" the Åland Islands or Southern Finland or in the Swedish case Gotland (in an anti-terrorist operation) could perhaps do the trick.

Hence a Limited war with Limited objectives is a far more likely scenario than a total occupation... or a long bomb into ruins campaign. Of course that "Limited war" can turn in the end to a "bomb into stoneage" campaign.

This is in my view important as still politics and the political agenda sets out just how some crisis is fought.

Both Georgia and Ukraine show this. You see taking Tbilisi or Kiev could have likely been achievable, but is it worth it and at what cost? What's the end prize? Risks of failure start to increase, the political and economic cost rise. The possibility of an insurgence looms there. Now Putin threatened to do it (not publicly, but still), that his tanks could easily roll into Kiev, yet occupation of Ukraine would basically take all the resources Russia de facto has. And then he would be mired in a quagmire that would really start to stretch his resources.

And if some Aleppo gets sympathy, how about when it isn't a Civil War fought in a Muslim country, but Russia bombarding an European country? The Ukrainian crisis, just like the interventions into Georgia show Russia fights these wars. That Russia didn't (or doesn't) use at all combat aircraft except drones is a way to keep the West not to give huge quantities of arms to Ukraine. You can see the difference when it comes to Asian countries... like Afghanistan or Syria.

And the most likeliest thing is that Putin tries to get what he wants without a fight but By other means.

[Smitty-48]

Right, but I think Putin could actually take Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Gotland, Aland, and Svalbard, fait accompli, without much of a fight, some local resistance perhaps, but not NATO actually firing on him in earnest, nuclear blackmail would be sufficient to bring NATO to the table, wherein the Russians would, at the very least, be met halfway, with a NATO withdrawal from the Baltic's, in return for Russia giving Gotland, Aland and Svalbard back.

[TheReal_ND]

I think you're just making up countries now...

[Smitty-48]

Gotland is Sweden, Aland is Finland, Svalbard is Norway, Kaliningrad is Russia.

[TheReal_ND]

http://online.seterra.com/en/vgp/3007

Coincidentally I was just taking this geography quiz

[Smitty-48]

The thing to understand, is that, the nuclear blackmail component notwithstanding, and as ssu has eluded to, the Putin Doctrine is not to fight a total war to conquer Europe, the Russian war plan would be to force the United States and its proxies to the bargaining table, to effect a Finlandized buffer zone around the Russian Near Abroad, and to accept Russian Manifest Destiny within the Russian Near Abroad itself.

They get the Baltic's, Eastern Ukraine, and Transcaucasia back, NATO pulls back to where it was at the end of the Cold War, everything in between is a Finlandized buffer zone. France, Germany, Spain, Italy; broker the deal.

[ssu]

Are the Finns prepared to destroy Helsinki to save Aland? Are the Swedes prepared to destroy Stockholm to save Gotland? Are the Norwegians prepared to destroy Oslo to save Svalbard? I think not, and rightly so, because that would be a foolish exchange, some things are not worth burning the village down over.

Now your making my point. It's not about WW3, annexations of countries... but confusing things that, heck, would get people to argue here.

If you start with bombing Helsinki or Stockholm, I presume to know what's the outcome. To save Åland might be the cause, but what if it's questionable just what there is to save? Is it really annexed? This is what Hybrid warfare is about. What about if it's just that those Russian troops are there "for an anti-terrorist operation" (with a battallion of S-400s for some reason)? What if Russia openly says it doesn't have any claims to Gotland or Åland? And if Sweden or Finland takes hostile action against it's troops, it will defend itself. The troops will go back once the situation normalizes... as the Anti-Russian neo-nazi "Death Vikings" terrorist group is contained in Gotland and Åland. Add to the situation some Pro-Russian European countries that would side with the laughable lie. Or with everybody panicking that it's WW3, the nuclear Holocaust on the door, it could happen too. Or if Russia just asks to use wants rights to use some ports? Because unlike with Crimea, it's rather unlikely that Russia could imply like old-Soviet Union could do that Ålanders and Gotlanders have this "urge" to join Russia. Like uh, the Baltic people had in 1939.

Here's the thing. Both Sweden and Finland have as doctrine "total defence". The total defence is built upon stubborness and what you would call stupidity in the face of a conventional attack. That's why there is a broad consensus on defence policy in Finland. A smart effort what you call a "brainwashing" has been done behalf of government to get Finns believe that fighting is reasonable. I think that is one of the thing missing in some Western countries... for the government to make clear just why something like the armed forces is needed. History has shown it's worth to fight, and hence we perhaps foolishly think so even now. Perhaps we aren't as tough as my grandparents generation, who knows.

High school girls learning about the defence of their country (and get course credits for it):

Ultimately, are the Americans prepared to destroy Washington, to save Latvia? No, and Ivan well knows it, which is why Latvia is in peril.

Which is why the Baltic States are copying some things from Sweden and Finland (even if Estonia has had a lot in common in defence with us). Unfortunately before especially Latvia and Lithuania went with the 90's NATO thing that armies are for only international deployments.


Btw. Poland is increasing the size of it's army By 50% and getting 70 JASSM-189ER missiles with 1000 km range.

Some new punch to the Polish F-16s: