It appears the situation in Georgia and yet another unproductive meeting in Brussels expose the little value in Western diplomacy in solving military conflict. The OSCE failed to come out with a statement. The EU is still divided. NATO? Will see today.

Bruno and Peteris had an interesting exchange in the Georgia thread about NATO’s reaction. I’m curious to learn other people’s opinion: how safe and secure you think Latvia - and other Baltic states - should or can or must feel watching what is unraveling in Georgia and participating in the way the West has reacted so far? How plausible is the use of the Article V if the Baltics are attacked? Will Uncle Sam, or Brother Jose Manuel, come to our rescue?

Fighter jets may be helpful, but their NATO countries commitment to patrolling our sky is set to expire while we invest our eggs into the honor guard cavalry with swords. The Lielvarde Air Base still needs a lot of upgrade, but Vinets Veldre, the former health minister turned the defense minister would rathe rpursue his equestrian hobby.

Any thoughts anyone?

I think that the three Baltic States (in the context of NATO) should jointly undertake the following medium-term projects, asking NATO for appropriate assistance, consultations and training support:

1) Create at least one heavily armed, state of the art anti-tank regiment in each of the Baltics (fast vehicles, helicopters, active-armor defeating missiles and munitions).

2) Create a Baltic air defense wing of say, 50 -60 aircraft, including interceptors and multi-role (close air support) aircraft capable of operating from dispersed and mobile bases (like the Swedes, who could use highways as runways and re-arm and fuel aircraft from mobile support vehicles)

3) Significantly upgrade the air defense capabilities of each of the Baltics (mobile Patriot and advanced anti-aircraft missiles).

4) Negotiate the stationing of trip-wire NATO forces in each of the Baltics (a naval squadron, an air wing, a permanent “training mission"of US Army or Marines).

5) Negotiate the semi-permanent presence of an Aegis (anti-aircraft) cruiser or cruisers and its battle group in the Baltic Sea.

Although a properly prepared military is important - turning the Baltics into an armed camp may just get the type of result you’re hoping to avoid. And on who’s dime ? Naval air wings, an air defense wing, various missiles and an Aegis battle group ? Oy, Oy, Oy...You’re going to have to arrange some pretty big bake sales to get that kind of money together.

And has no one been paying attention to warfare in the last 30 years ? Having a highly technical military doesnt necessarily guarantee success. If the Balts want to worry Moscow - create a national militia. The last thing Moscow wants is a protracted ground war against an armed local populace.

Personally, I dont believe the Baltics are facing Russian military aggression at this point. They dont have to occupy us with an army to control us. Political intrusion and economic power is much cheaper to affect - and arguably more effective. Nor do I think we are really that big of a prize to Moscow right now. Georgia and the Ukraine are much more important to them.

Not a bad start Juri,but a more proficient approach may be anti tank squads of special forces size and many Stinger type anti-aircraft weapons .Baltics would not last the 72 hrs with conventional warfare defense but a well armed and trained small unit groups could decimate the “hordes” until help arrives.

However , aleksis, was merely searching for the white flag of surrender.

I believe Aleksejs was asking a question - you offered the flag actually.

Will NATO respond with military force if one of the Baltic nations is attacked by Russian military ?

If Russia attacks Estonia - Finland and Sweden will go crazy and possibly respond. Needless to say, while that battle is going on Russias ability to navigate in the Baltic will be difficult.

If Lithuania is attacked - Poland will undoubtedly respond militarily regardless of whether the aggression originates from K-grad or Belarus. Southern and eastern Lithuania has a substantial Polish population and many interests.

If Latvia is attacked from the east...umm...I expect Denmark may author a strong condemnation ?

NATO wont involve itself in a war over influence of “former Soviets”. It wouldnt make any sense.

Russia well understands that the European neighborhood is more complicated than the Caucuses. It couldnt pull off what it did in Georgia. NATO may well become involved if the conflict escalates and there are ample opportunities for things to get out of control. The Georgian conflict, as with previous instances of “Russian” aggression, shows that Moscow doesnt have alot of control over its military forces from a distance.

Vidas

Wahabist,
Of course the Baltics, especially Latvia, are threatened by energy-dependency, by politicized Russian investment, by rabbit-on-the-autobahn staring at headlights of “the huge Russian market"(even if that were so, no Latvian company has the ability to gear up its production to that level of demand), by its own mutt government and mutt politics, etc.
What the invasion of Georgia has done is to give what amounts to “proof of suspicion” that nothing has changed in Russian behavior, that they are still fundamentally imperialist. This proof of suspicion has to trigger (if everything were done rationally) some kind of policy response, and the most logical is to prepare for defending against a Russian invasion, something that has become significantly less hypothetical since around ten days ago. I am not saying that it is likely, simply that it is no longer a matter of abstract discussion (such as what could happen between a nuclear Israel and a near-nuclear Iran).
If this country can afford to build bridges that exceed the cost of the Verrazano Narrows bridge in New York, if it can put up pricey cultural structures (the concert hall that resembles overturned rubbish containers, the much prettier National Library), if it can squander the cost of fully armoring one (or even several) Humvees on a ceremonial horse guard, if it can spend the price of one or a couple of Hellfire missiles on swords, then it can consider spending more on some military hardware. With a strictly NATO supervised procurement program (so that fly-by-night mutt middlemen don’t get in the way7), Latvia could purchase, say, 150 TOW-carrier Humvees to start with, then look to getting a squadron or two (say 25 - 40) light anti-tank helicopters (it could even be civilian choppers upgraded to carry missiles and a sophisticated targeting platform).
We already have a militia of sorts—the Zemessardze (National Guard), which could be equipped with shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons and trained to operate in small unit, hit-and-run operations (also with snipers).
Bringing an Aegis battle group into the Baltic sea would be a mostly American operation, but having that counter-threat would be a relatively cheap deterrent for the whole Baltic region. Beside, the Aegis could move in only when there was a Russian military build up.
Combat aircraft are further down the road, but inevitable if Russia continues to follow its apparently socio-genetic destiny (and here I mean socio-historical factors that have the effect of biologically inherited traits, the aggressive-expansive-brutalitarian “firmware” that characterizes the Russian state, regardless of its political color).

Some thoughts on NATO from the NY Times’ Tom Friedman.  Bound to provoke ire.

August 20, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
What Did We Expect?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams.

Full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Juris Kazha - 18 August 2008 11:27 PM

I think that the three Baltic States (in the context of NATO) should jointly undertake the following medium-term projects, asking NATO for appropriate assistance, consultations and training support:

1) Create at least one heavily armed, state of the art anti-tank regiment in each of the Baltics (fast vehicles, helicopters, active-armor defeating missiles and munitions).

2) Create a Baltic air defense wing of say, 50 -60 aircraft, including interceptors and multi-role (close air support) aircraft capable of operating from dispersed and mobile bases (like the Swedes, who could use highways as runways and re-arm and fuel aircraft from mobile support vehicles)

3) Significantly upgrade the air defense capabilities of each of the Baltics (mobile Patriot and advanced anti-aircraft missiles).

4) Negotiate the stationing of trip-wire NATO forces in each of the Baltics (a naval squadron, an air wing, a permanent “training mission"of US Army or Marines).

5) Negotiate the semi-permanent presence of an Aegis (anti-aircraft) cruiser or cruisers and its battle group in the Baltic Sea.

Sveiks Juri,

I think you are certainly on the right track.  The key point being that Latvija and Estonia by themselves will not prevent the Russians from conquering their countries, but that they will be able to inflict significant damage and have weapons caches for a guerilla campaign until Uncle Sam, John Bull, and Dudley Dooright arrive and send Ivan packing.

While the Georgians got their asses handed to them on the ground, they did get a few decent shots in:

source:  http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20080817.aspx

money quote:

Russian troops beat the Georgians on the ground, not so much because of superior numbers, but because the Russians had more troops with combat experience, and very recent experience in fighting this kind of war. The Russians got this way by fighting a successful campaign just across the border, in Chechnya. There, several hundred thousand Russians and pro-Russian Chechens have gotten valuable combat experience. The Chechen rebels (a mixture of nationalists, gangsters and Islamic radicals) have been reduced to a few hundred hard core fighters. The Russians basically use Chechnya as a training ground where their “contract soldiers” (volunteers, who are much more effective than conscripts) can get some combat experience. These volunteers are particularly common in paratrooper and commando units. Both were apparently used in the ground operations that pushed the Georgians out of South Ossetia, and conquered key areas elsewhere in Georgia. Some of the “Russian” troops were apparently Chechen paramilitary units.

The Georgian troops had received training and weapons from the U.S. and Israel over the last few years. But the U.S. training was mainly for peacekeeping operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was of limited use against experienced Russian counter-terrorism troops. A small number of Georgians received special operations training, but not enough of these troops were available to defeat the Russian advance.

The Georgians did better in the air and at sea, even though they were greatly outnumbered there as well. Georgian warplanes shot up the Russians pretty badly (killing the commander of Russian ground forces, for example) before the Russians were able to shut down the Georgian air force. But in the process Russia lost at least four aircraft destroyed, and a number of others badly damaged.

At sea, Georgian missile boats hit several Russian warships, which had not been equipped with equipment, or crews, that were capable of dealing with this kind of threat. Two Russian warships were damaged sufficiently that they had to withdraw from the area. Within a few days, however, Georgia’s miniscule navy and air force were destroyed, largely by the much larger Russian air force.

The Russians ran a large scale Information War campaign, shutting down Georgian access to the Internet for several days, and blanketing the world media, and Internet, with Russian spin on what was going on in Georgia and why.

I suppose the most appropriate analogy would be that of the bear and the bee’s nest.  With NATO as the beekeeper, a system should be developed to make sure the bear suffers a series of painful stings that will keep him occupied fending off the small swarm until the sugar daddy arrives with his shotgun.

Latvia will certainly not be able to afford a decent air wing, but we could invest in a shitload of SAMs, stingers, truck-mounted bazookas and the makings for IEDs.  Sure, they are probably “against the rules” according some stupid treaty or other—but then again, a Russian incursion into the Baltics would be damned illegal too.  It might be just worth the tongue-lashing we get from the Sven Svensons and the letter from the UN saying how unhappy they are at us for deploying mines.

/R

p.s.  You should know better than to pay any mind to what the Lithuanian says.  After all, if you want to surrender and collaborate—do as the Lithuanians do.  But we are Latvians, you and I.  We are of the red-white-red.  Unlike that rainbow banner to our south, Latvian Colors Do Not Run!

Attack on a NATO member nation would be considered an an attack against all the member nations.  Then we are talking WWIII.  Moscow knows that. One does not have to be a genius and read the NATO articles of formation, to figure that out. 

Visu labu,

“If this country can afford to build bridges that exceed the cost of the Verrazano Narrows bridge in New York, if it can put up pricey cultural structures (the concert hall that resembles overturned rubbish containers, the much prettier National Library), if it can squander the cost of fully armoring one (or even several) Humvees on a ceremonial horse guard, if it can spend the price of one or a couple of Hellfire missiles on swords, then it can consider spending more on some military hardware. With a strictly NATO supervised procurement program (so that fly-by-night mutt middlemen don’t get in the way7), Latvia could purchase, say, 150 TOW-carrier Humvees to start with, then look to getting a squadron or two (say 25 - 40) light anti-tank helicopters (it could even be civilian choppers upgraded to carry missiles and a sophisticated targeting platform).”

Sure, but if there’s no assurance of a defensive response by the rest of NATO - something you and I know we’ll never get - what purpose will be served by spending all this money on what will amount to a momentary annoyance of the Red Army in the case of an invasion ? The Baltic nations have an obligation in their NATO membership to spend a certain amount every year on defense. Nothing against spending some more if it can afford to - but heavy spending ? I enjoy playing armchair Eisenhower as much as the next guy - but come on…

“Bringing an Aegis battle group into the Baltic sea would be a mostly American operation, but having that counter-threat would be a relatively cheap deterrent for the whole Baltic region. Beside, the Aegis could move in only when there was a Russian military build up.”

What about the Балтийский флот ? Sailing a battle group into a sea that has only one narrow entranceway - nearby which a substantial rooskie military holds court seems, umm, rather suicidal. I think you can scratch the Navy Juri. Aint gonna happen.

And Bobciks chortled:

“The key point being that Latvija and Estonia by themselves will not prevent the Russians from conquering their countries”

Khe...Really ? You think thats a key point of fact going in ? Good to know !

“but that they will be able to inflict significant damage and have weapons caches for a guerilla campaign until Uncle Sam, John Bull, and Dudley Dooright arrive and send Ivan packing.”

Hmmm....Latvia’s waited for John Bull to come bail it out once before, right ? How did that go again ?

Vidas

The spineless former leaders of france and Germany have been replaced ,therefore , only the election of the spineless Obama and his “white flag “dems could impede the NATO deployment. Putin may be popular,but he is not overly bright and is very predictable. By one little invasion he has brought reality to the foreign policy yokels of the EU and demonstrated that holding hands and singing kumbaya with the lefties does not even slow down a military machine.

Except for the usual “white flaggers” , NATO may take this action as a wakeup call.Nice approach Robert ! Also, nice to have you back flaying the russkies instead of the muttsies,Juri.

“The spineless former leaders of france and Germany have been replaced ,therefore , only the election of the spineless Obama and his “white flag “dems could impede the NATO deployment.”

Khe...Oh yeah. Germany and Merkel are just itchin’ to go kick some rooskie ass ! To hell with their billions in investments there ! Same with the French - although I’d have to ask Bobciks if its ok to acknowledge the French yet. I’m still working on my freedom fries…

The only thing that impedes NATO from firming up its resources in Europe is a moronic two front war/occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Putin may be popular,but he is not overly bright and is very predictable. By one little invasion he has brought reality to the foreign policy yokels of the EU and demonstrated that holding hands and singing kumbaya with the lefties does not even slow down a military machine.”

Laughable.. Putin has his way with Europe. Does what he wants. Leaders round the world line up to kiss his ass - including Bush.

Clearly not overly bright...Georgia was being invaded as Putin sat next to Bush in Beijing...I’m sure the CIA predicted Bush’s looking like an idiot.. In retrospect.

Putin’s risks are long term - not short term. Even though the US and NATO are largely toothless today - that will likely change with time. Putin’s adventurism may actually work to end the idiotic occupation of Iraq in favor of the familiar cold war nostalgia that is so treasured by the “dinosaurs”.

It may also refocus those who think that democratic governments are valuable in Europe. Present company excluded of course.

Vidas

Wahabist,
The Winter War (Finland vs the Soviet Union) proves that small countries (OK, given geography) can defend and hold their own against vastly superior forces. By some accounts, the Finns fought the initial invading force to a standstill and attritted it to a point where, only by sending massive reinforcements was Stalin able to get Finland to agree to a ceasefire and peace that left the nation largely intact.
Israel in 1973 is another example, it was hit from two sides(Syria and Egypt), but also managed to defeat both (Syria in a touch and go tank fight near the Golan Heights, Egypt by crossing the Suez Canal and surrounding the spearhead of the Egytptian invading force).
The idea of Baltic defense would be to have the capacity to kill at least one Russian armored or mechanized division.
The current Russian military is not the Soviet Red Army at its best. It has a limited but possibly effective force of Chechnya war veterans with combat experience. Some of these will be leaving the military as time passes, those remaining (now with the Georgia conflict as another experience) will have to be dealt with, a difficult but not impossible task.
Invading any of the Baltic States could be made into a nightmare with tank columns coming under constant missile fire from small mobile units and helicopters (and most Baltic units, dispersed on a war warning, having survived any bombardment), with towns seeded with real and dummy car bombs (the real ones explode, the fakes are pre-targeted by snipers who kill the bomb squad). Gas stations along the road (a convenient source of fuel for the semi-marauder Russian armor) sometimes are a bounty of good fuel and elsewhere, the fuel is laced with engine-destroying chemicals, so the tank breaks down after a few kilometers, the snipers and special forces move in, blowing the tanks with satchel charges, killing or capturing the crews, tying down any infantry left to guard the tanks.
There could be other elements—advanced electronic warfare, drones flying around jamming or spoofing GPS signals, confusing units as to their location, the use (well, when fighting barbarians, you can let the Geneva Convention fray a bit) of laser dazzle weapons against Russian helicopter and aircraft crews (a retina toaster costs less than a chopper and probably less than an anti-aircraft missile).
In a real combat situation, I also don’t think there would be ZERO support from NATO, you could count on ammunition and weapons replacement. possible defensive air support (firing on Russian aircraft entering Baltic/NATO airspace), maybe some fire support (cruise missiles from submarines or ships fired at Russian units).
Putting all of these elements together, the conquest of the Baltics would be a very costly adventure, with thousands of Russian deaths and substantial losses of frontline fighting vehicles and aircraft. Engaging in significant urban combat would also mean that there would be badly damaged infrastructure, making it difficult to do much in the post-invasion scenario. Also, urban combat (despite what it would do to cities and towns) favors defenders against armored and mechanized troops, so even more tank, APC and personnel losses.

Bruno the Lett - 20 August 2008 01:15 PM

Attack on a NATO member nation would be considered an an attack against all the member nations.  Then we are talking WWIII.  Moscow knows that. One does not have to be a genius and read the NATO articles of formation, to figure that out. 

Visu labu,

All seem correct in theories. Russian residents, just men and women, with which I communicate daily, are run away that if tomorrow Russia will want to hit upon Poland or Baltic, that NATO will do nothing to protect their own members. They have clear seen that NATO has done nothing in Georgia.

Gradually a confidence appears in Russia, that NATO hardly can anything, but Russia can and has shown this in Georgia.

NATO kept silent about, this is much dangerously first of all for NATO itself, in my oppinion.

Regards,

Juris

AugustaDels et al.,

Unfortunately, for Georgia, it is not a NATO member.  Best it can do is speak up in the UN.

Visu labu,

V wonders:

Wahabist - 20 August 2008 05:01 PM

Hmmm....Latvia’s waited for John Bull to come bail it out once before, right ? How did that go again ?

Vidas

Hey Winestain!

If you really want to know, the Royal Navy sent a battleship down the Daugava river and blasted the bejeesus out of Latvia’s enemies.  Afterwards, the Latvian Army harried the invaders as they retreated to our southern borders until our allies suggested we stop. 

How about you tell us about how well the Lithuanian republic has defended itself?  Oh, wait a sec… you can’t.  Outside of a cowardly attack upon an unarmed French garrison in Memel, the Republic of Lithuania has no military victories to speak of.  Clearly Lithuania is the weakest link of the three Baltic States.

/R