It can also mean that Russia is posturing and retaliating for the US's announcement that Ukraine can strike inside Russia with US missiles. This feels more like the same kind of exercise that North Korea does with their missile tests than it does an actual invasion.
I never really liked the whole sabotage is just "posturing" opinion.
Like there's real physical stuff destroyed (or in most circumstances digital stuff). How hard is it to impound ships that break stuff and etc so that the ones responsible are actually punished?
Probably no harder than impounding illegal unsafe unregistered oil shipping transports making their way through the Baltic->Black sea right now, evading sanctions.
Possibly, but only by hours—the news about the missile announcement was on Sunday afternoon, and the cable was cut Sunday morning. But it's unclear when the policy was actually communicated to Ukraine and Russia almost certainly found out about it immediately after Ukraine did (or even before).
yes. What Russia does currently is probing and testing - what it takes to disrupt all the necessary cables simultaneously to create communication breakdown and a lot of chaos, what resources and time it takes to repair (and thus planning the options on blocking those repair resources, etc.) It takes tanks half-a-day to cross the Baltic states to reach the sea. That is the time Russia wants to buy. Once Russian forces are already in Riga, Tallinn, Vilnus, the NATO will have a decision to make on whether to bomb the Russian forces already placed by that time among the Baltic states population.
> Once Russian forces are already in Riga, Tallinn, Vilnus, the NATO will have a decision to make on whether to bomb the Russian forces already placed by that time among the Baltic states population.
NATO has forward deployed forces to assure that to take Riga, Tallin, and Vilnius, Russia will have to attack and defeat armed forces of the UK, Canada, and Germany respectively. More than that, really, those are just the lead nations in the NATO forward-deployed battlegroups in those countries. There are also five other forward-deployed battlegroups, four of which — as well as reinforcement of the original four in the Baltics + Poland – were deployed in response to the 2022 Russian escalation in Ukraine.
Cutting undersea cables is not going to prevent (or even meaningfully slow) a response given that.
Baltic states have 30K military total combined - Russia loses 20-30K/month in Ukraine. So, with all the respect to the Baltic states military - with them being responsible for the defense of about 700km long strip of land, it isn't about full invasion force, it is about having NATO not responding long enough.
You're comparing frontal assault on battle hardened troops vs. potentially highly maneuvering invasion. It is somewhat like comparing Harkiv operation in the Fall 2022 vs. counteroffensive in the South in the Summer 2023.
In Kursk Russian forces can't maneuver much, they have to directly push on Ukrainians. The density of Russian and Ukrainian forces in this war - like ~500K each on the 1000km of the battle lines - is order of magnitude higher than that of the Baltic states militaries. Potential invasion in the low density situation of the Baltic states would make sense by cutting through un/low-defended areas with encircling/etc. of the more fortified areas without direct assault of them, at least initially.
If fighting starts in the Baltics (or Poland) Russia will face the greatest air force in the world fairly quickly. The conventional conflict will be over in a few months. Hopefully it will not escalate into nuclear conflict.
I would imagine at least US Air Force getting involved. And that would mean Russia will be pushed out of Baltics fairly quickly (assuming the conflict remains a conventional conflict and does not escalate into nuclear conflict).
Nice try. Almost like the "perfect phone call" never happened. Except it did.
Apparently you haven't seen the map going around with Trump's proposed solution. Ukraine gives up all of what Russia is occupying right now, and doesn't keep Kursk. Ukraine can't join NATO for "20 years" (aka never). "European" troops are supposed to sit on a "DMZ" (which they will never agreed to).
Aka Ukraine surrenders, and Russia will just organize a hybrid-warfare coup to get a Lukashenko-style puppet gov't back in in Ukraine. Or come back in with troops in a few years.
Basically it's crappy bargaining, from a weak president. If you were Putin, and you saw that map... why stop now? You'd be laughing. No consequences.
Trump is a puppet not so much of Putin, but of the oil and gas sector. And Russia is an energy superpower. They both speak on behalf of the same global financial interests. They are very tired of this conflict and care little about Ukraine.
I cannot see Trump playing along with an Article 5 reaction to Russian aggression. And Putin is not stupid enough to use direct conventional warfare against a NATO state anyways. It's just more and more hybrid provocations, to wear down western solidarity, to topple gov'ts or undermine response, and all excused by useful idiots in the west.
Apparently you haven't seen the map going around with Trump's proposed solution.
Because apparently there isn't one. It seems some Republican "strategist" put out a map, but it has since been disavowed by the incoming administration.
"Bryan Lanza was a contractor for the campaign," said the spokesperson, who declined to be named. "He does not work for President Trump and does not speak for him."
The Trump - Zelensky call was about discrediting Biden not about appeasing Putin. OK, moving on...
Trump is not longer Putin's puppet but the puppet "of the oil and gas sector". OK, moving on...
This thread is about about Russian military invasion in the Baltics and you reply with "And Putin is not stupid enough to use conventional warfare against NATO".OK, moving on....
"topple govt's" - Putin cannot even topple Ukraine...
Maybe, but that's assuming their war economy lasts for that long, that they still have people to run those things, etc. Besides, Europe was caught with its proverbial pants down; in 5-10 years, they will (should) have their military up to speed again, with fresher, better equipped and better trained people than Russia has. The border countries have all upgraded their defenses already, and if they invade a NATO country they suddenly have all of Europe and - if still applicable at the time - the US on their back.
There are no scenarios in which Russia can have any significant victories. The only thing they maybe have is nukes, but nobody wins if those are deployed.
Not a single serious war. A war against Russia will be similar to ww1 and ww2. meaning men from all age groups will die in large masses. Or you believe a war will be similar to sandal terrorists.
There's no secret real russian army just waiting to invade some another country, or just chilling in Urals. If russia did not have nuclear weapons, road to moscow would be open.
What non-NATO European country are they going to invade (and hold!) as a bargaining chip?
Any how many of those tanks go straight to Ukraine? Do you think Russia can afford to stockpile tanks (and everything else necessary) for several years for an invasion of Europe while simultaneously engaged in the their current war in Ukraine?
They would not need a direct attack. Orban talked about allowing free access to any Russian citizen towards Hungary. We have seen this film yet and is called "green men 2".
They might occupy some area, sure, but if they invade a EU or NATO country they'll get that full force on top of them. And they have a lot of aircraft to deploy too; tanks have zero chance against an airstrike.
NATO cannot stop Russia in Ukraine, even with help of 1 million Ukrainian army. NATO have no enough tanks, shells, soldiers to stop 2 million army in few first weeks, even if Russians will just march with their AK-s in hands. The only thing that will stop Russia for sure is a nuclear strike. Planes are good for strikes, but ground must be captured and hold by soldiers.
> NATO cannot stop Russia in Ukraine, even with help of 1 million Ukrainian army.
I mean, they are doing pretty good for a total NATO deployment of 0 combat forces. Funny to describe the only country with troops involved as “helping” and treating the nonexistent NATO presence as the primary force.
> NATO have no enough tanks, shells, soldiers to stop 2 million army in few first weeks, even if Russians will just march with their AK-s in hands.
In the event of a Russian invasion of Eastern flank NATO members and the NATO forward-deployed battlegroups in those countries, NATO policy, unlike in Ukraine, would not restrict the use of long range weapons against command and control, logistics, and combat aviation facilities in Russia, nor would NATO forces be short on their own combat aviation to use against the invasion itself.
Ukraine isn’t NATO, and while impressive for their conditions, what Ukraine can do is not a model for what NATO can do.
Russia is at war with NATO. Ukraine is invaded because Ukraine wants to join NATO, to make NATO weaker. Same for Georgia. If Ukraine will fall, Russia will win, NATO will lose.
Long range weapons will hit hard for sure, but millions of soldiers still must be defeated in close combat to take ground. Ukraine has western tech, it good, but it not good enough when Ukrainians are outnumbered. To win the war, Ukraine must dominate in the war, but western allies fail to deliver anything that will dominate over Russia.
No, its not. Russia is at war with Ukraine. No NATO countries are fighting Russia, Russia is fighting no NATO countries.
> Ukraine is invaded because Ukraine wants to join NATO
Even if that was true, invading Ukraine is war with Ukraine, not NATO.
But it is not true, you have cause and effect reversed. Ukraine had a legal dedication to neutrality when Russia invaded in 2014, that provision was eliminated and its pursuit of NATO membership, which had been abandoned years before in favor of neutrality, resumed after the invasion. Ukraine wants to join NATO because Russia invaded it, not vice versa.
None of the western air forces are involved. In the Iraq war most of the Iraqi casualties were due to air force, not ground forces (like Iraq' Highway of Death for example). If US Air Force ever gets involved in this conflict it will be a turkey shot.
F-16 are already in Ukraine. They fail to demonstrate great results, because of Russian air defense. Both RF and Ukraine can launch glide bombs at enemy.
Eh, western militaries are holding a lot of weaponry back from Ukraine; like the vast majority of it. They have run low in a few areas that have been key in this war, like artillery shells, but that's in part because these countries haven't prioritized that production in recent history in favor of other systems.
I actually do think that the US and Europe should be moving faster to increase their military manufacturing capacity, especially Europe given the situation they are now facing. But to say that NATO countries have been throwing everything they have to Ukraine is wildly off the mark.
Conversely, I have no doubt that Lithuania's armed forces have learned from Ukraine's experience: those Russian tanks would all be destroyed within the first few kilometers.
...and that assumes Russia still has enough tanks to even mount an offensive, in sufficient numbers to capture several capital cities, belonging to nations with a fearsome grudge against them.
(Three years ago, I would have fully agreed with your assessment!)
yes. That is why Russia hasn't yet moved, and still looking for a way to do it. Russia is deliberately stuck in the past where for example the "War scare of 1927" laid ground and provided the excuse for the militarization of and repressions in USSR and ultimately to the USSR starting WWII together with and as ally of Hitler. And the first thing USSR did back then in 1939 was the "solution" of the perceived issues of the 1927 (the issues which there for the last several centuries) - Finland, Poland and the Baltic states. If you look at the current Russian TV, chats, etc. - their thinking and perception are the same as back then. For them it isn't an issue of whether to do it, it is an issue of how to do it. It took 12 years from 1927 to 1939 during which the country got prepared for the war, at least how they perceived the necessary preparations - in particular it was industrialized and the society was militarized and put completely under dictatorship, and i think we see that today too.
>The Soviet Union was right to be scared back then. The next invasion from the west happened 1941.
Not really. The USSR was scared about what they perceived as Anglo-led forces and so united with Germany against them and attacked them first. The invasion of 1941 came from Germany who was still an ally even just the night before the invasion -
Hitler even fed Stalin (and Stalin went for it!) the fake that the German forces got accumulated on the USSR border to mislead Britain into thinking that Germany plans to attack USSR while instead Germany was supposedly preparing to invade Britain.
>And I guess there is still some paranoia in Russia. The NATO Neocons are busy feeding it.
The Russian paranoia hasn't changed much since Ivan The Terrible, long before neocons.
The invasion from Nazi Germany, the USSR's ally in the invasion of Poland, and the one it signed extensive trade agreements with and helped to avoid sanctions.
yes, due to geography, success at Voznesensk basically saved Odessa and the rest of the unoccupied South. That is the point - if Russia took Odessa back then it would basically be game-over. I don't see such strategic points like Voznesensk in the Baltic states though.
There is vast difference between just driving somewhere and actually controlling it. Russia learned that in first month of the invasion. If they weren't stopped at Voznesensk, they would be stopped somewhere else - there was singular BTG driving somewhere deep into hostile territory.
I don't believe they'd be able to keep and reinforce it, given that they were only able to bypass Mykolaiv due to the early day chaos. And Mykolaiv was giving rest of russian forces there enough problems.
However, at this point it's only speculation, probably not worth getting deeper into it.
There's plenty of alternative communications systems in place and I presume the military does not depend exclusively on one, two, or even three systems, least of all the relatively vulnerable internet cables. NATO, borders, and the Russian invasion response playbooks predate the internet by decades, too.
While theoretically it's possible that Russia would simultaneously dismantle or jam the internet, mobile phones, radio, sattelite, and runners in fast cars, if that does happen it's already red alert everywhere.
> It takes tanks half-a-day to cross the Baltic states to reach the sea
And how long does it take for the F35 to fly across all Baltic States? 30 minutes at max speed. Without air supremacy, Russia would be dead in the water.
> That is the time Russia wants to buy. Once Russian forces are already in Riga, Tallinn, Vilnus, the NATO will have a decision to make on whether to bomb the Russian forces already placed by that time among the Baltic states population.
If you think Poland and Finland would sit on their hands and do nothing, you're being naive.
RF has no air supremacy in Ukraine, so they have high loses, but they advance anyway. Small or large losses will not stop an empire, except Imperial Japan maybe.
Ukraines Air Force is tiny and poorly equipped. Compare it to just the Nordics for example who are soon on hundreds of F-35 and Gripen. Staging any mass movements against that kind of air support will be challenging.
Besides NATO already has a large land based army as well. US, Turkey, Poland , Finland all have large ground forces
We can look at October 7th in Israel how long, with all the communications and infrastructure working, it took to organize defense in a very technologically developed country which basically had been living in the state of war readiness. Now add broken significant communications, chaos of non-working banks/ATMs, power shut-offs, clogged highways, etc. (don't get me wrong - i'm not saying that Russia can do all that, i'm saying that Russia is actively working on those capabilities, and whether they achieve it to the needed extent is the key to how the events would go in the near future)
I still don’t get how Oct 7 was not an inside job. With mossad crabs everywhere how do you miss such a major plot to attack with so many actors involved?
You're right, but I think there were a lot of other factors involved there unrelated to basic infrastructure. Not to get too in to politics but i think there was a lot of underestimation, dismissal of warning signals (focus was elsewhere, as you can see with how precise intelligence seems to be in Lebanon), and just bad timing for them. I don't think anyone living in Russia's shadow, seeing what is actively happening, will be that unprepared.
Hey! I woke up at 06:00 to check what was wrong with a service. It turned out, a server in Germany could not reach a server in Finland in the 20" timeout I had set.
I suggest you revisit the history of the first days of the invasion, specifically the depth which the ground armored forces reached in the first 2-3 days and what and how they were stopped. The Baltic states "width" is much smaller, and thus there is much less time to organize defense, etc. It is hardly enough time even just for taking the decision to initiate defense. Of course, like in the case with Ukraine, Russia wouldn't succeed if the quick invasion turns instead into a face-to-face war midway. That is why they are looking for a way to create blackout and chaos.
I’m sure they have a plan to deal with this and loads of NATO troops there armed to the teeth and air superiority so it will be shooting fish in a barrel. We don’t know what will happen but I’m not sure cutting the internet won’t affect Russia pretty badly too - certainly China will not be a fan of the huge disruption it will cause them too.
Russia does not have the manpower or logistics to invade anywhere (else). They have spent 2 years tossing meat-waves against Ukraine to grind them down, take a few km a week, and cause demoralization until their stooge could get into the Whitehouse and give it all to them for free.
Invading the Baltics or Poland or Sweden... not on the table.
"Hybrid" warfare, yes. But that's been going on for two decades.
Thing is: cutting people's fiber optic lines isn't going to get them out of this sanction regime.
