Will HATO save its less important members if it does not suit them?

Russia is not dumb enough to bomb Poland or the Baltic states over political BS.

I am sure they wont invade, but bombing those places wouldn't be upsetting at all... no chance of hitting any decent WWII statues worth preserving for instance...

Russia will not use nukes over annexed territory, they aren't that insane or bloodthirsty unlike 90 percent of the members on this forum it seems.

If HATO "intervened" in Ukraine and sent in troops and decided to send them to the Crimean part of the Ukraine, would Russia ignore that?

You are using less than a percentage of the population you see on videos and crap to judge the entire west?

Of course... we must be judging the west from the internet because we don't both live in the west.... oops... hang on... yes we do...

Now that is also ignorant, sure you will find examples here and there but again I could do the same for the russians.

If they are just the same as us why does the west hate them so?

Please... if they were like the US they could go fuck themselves for all I care... the reason I like Russia is because they are different.

Not perfect... but different.

Congrats you finally said something that is logical, yes we would need a mass mobilization and that would take a few months but it would come and when it did the overstretched Russian army would quickly fall back.

What overstretched Russian Army?

Or are the mass mobilised HATO forces going to meet the Russians on the English Channel?

In order to defend and take on NATO, Russia would need a population much much much bigger then it has and would need an industry that it doesn't have. Russia could not win in a conventional war against NATO. It's completely illogical to think they can.

Why do you think a spat with a Baltic country would consume all the resources of Russia?

Russians support their military and they don't lie on why they fight for during a war.

More importantly they go to war for good reasons only. They were attacked in Georgia by the Georgian forces. In Syria, as Putin said... thousands of Russians and tens of thousands of men from eastern europe went to fight in Syria for terrorists... it makes sense for Russia to fight them there than let an ally be destroyed and then have them come back...

They would lose millions of men trying to keep that ground sure NATO would to, but NATO can afford millions of losses.

Hahahahahaha... yeah HATO is made up of countries that ran away or surrendered during WWII... Russia was one of those countries that just kept fighting... are you sure HATO would put up with millions of their young men killed in a war to protect the baltic countries that capitulated really fast to Nazi Germany and helped them kill Jews like the good little nazis they were. In fact many germans were horrified at what those baltic nazis did for them... but HATO will die by the million to defend their new allies... of course they will... HATO doesn't work if that is not true and HATO has to work... it is how the US controls europe.

Russia's population cannot afford that many men dead, it still hasn't recovered from ww2 and it will take decades more for them to even get close.

The only way either side could lose millions would be with a nuclear exchange and I doubt HATO would bother.

In the Ukraine the Ukrainian government forces are probably quite comparable to the military forces of the baltic states and how did they go against their own people? Not that great I hear... And against a properly armed and trained military force like the Russian Army I suspect they would do even worse... in fact like the Ukrainian soldiers in the Crimea did against the small Russian contingent of Sailors there... my understanding is that the Ukrainians quietly surrendered and not a shot was fired and nobody died... which is to the great credit of both sides.

But millions will die you say?

What if the Russians fund an opposition who claims the elections are rigged and that they are the real leader of the country and they need Russian troops in there to save peace and democracy... Hahahahahaha....

No the US and Europe would not just ignore Russia taking the Baltics because then that would simply make the Russians cocky that they can go further, this would not be permitted at all. Your logic is pretty much flawed, because if that the case they can do whatever they want since they will threaten the use of warheads.

Could say the same about east germany joining HATO... or hungary or poland or rumania etc etc etc etc... when exactly does europe become safe with HATO?

Supply lines aren't a big deal this isn't WW2 supply lines of that size are easy to cover.

Not what you said before...

Russia would get some targets sure but it doesn't have and will never have enough munitions to take out Europe, this is pure fantasy on your part and if it does that it well it will only push Europe harder which is fine. Do you really think Russia could knock out the EU with hundreds of missiles Lawls.

Russia has shown it knows what it is doing in recent conflicts. Russia has lots of weapons and could attack all sorts of targets but it wouldn't just attack everyone and everything for no reason... they aren't Israel.

I do not overestimate, Its simple as I have said Russia doesn't have the manpower to sustain occupation on such a wide area while maintaining defense on shorelines, fronts etc to fight back against NATO. It simply doesn't have the population for such a conflict and if it wanted to take the baltics whats what it would need to do.

The populations they are attacking include 30% which would be on their side... they can run the places... Russian troops would withdraw fairly quickly once the idiots are hung in the streets and normalcy returns...

We could also destroy their industry too, do you really think we can't bomb the shit out of their factories?.

When you try... that is when they will strike your power generation and ports and comms centres....

Again yes Russia in the opening stages would have an advantage, but as the months go on their advantages would be neutralized.

Taken straight from the cold war HATO text book... they have enormous armour advantages but we have technology and one of our tanks is worth 20 of theirs and once we win air superiority they will have no where to hide blah blah blah...

It would actually be worse for them to just seize the baltics not touch the rest of Europe as that would make mobilization efforts far easier, they would need to size all of Ukraine and Poland to make a good enough front, just taking the baltics is shooting themselves in the foot.

Yes... Russia wants to capture the ukraine and the baltics and belarus and pooland....

All the dreams of HATO come true at once.

Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine let alone the baltic states... why would they want to occupy them?

Then their fucked up economies and all their problems can be blamed on Russia.... Russia doesn't need that.

At best they will be bombed and have cruise missiles take out certain buildings seen as threats... most likely they will be ignored.

Once China finishes its military buildup, US will have to move 100% of its military in the Pacific leaving those baltics and Poland alone to face Russia and assume what they have been saying about russians for past 30 years.

As long as Russia has tactical nukes the Baltic states are not a problem and nor is Poland... they will continue to bark at the US because they need more troops based in their countries because Putin might poison them and invade.

A few Iskander brigades with new improved longer ranged missiles and nuclear payloads is all Russia needs in that direction... just as well there is global warming because gas supply is probably going to reduce when the Ukrainians decide stealing gas is their right because their economy has crashed and it is all Russias fault for letting them be fooled by the Americans to have a coup and turn to the EU.

Russia can just smile and ignore them while they bark away at how everything is Russias fault and they owe them trillions for all the mental damage they did to them, and for chernobyl and everything else ever...

They won't risk their population because they would use tactical nuks and NATO won't answer to that. No matter what you think.

US are shitting their pants about such an attack because they keep putting that scenario on the table and have nothing to counter that.

I never said they would win a conventional war against nato. I said NATO won't risk to attack Russia if it takes the baltics because Russia could use tactical nuks and conventionally Russia can damage very badly NATO.

That's a propaganda tool for US only. On paper NATO is strong but in reality it's not a military alliance but just a way for US to control EU and its falling apart just like the US.

No, they aren't the terrain while as means of travel are far improved, faster, and more efficient. You really don't know what your talking about...Honestly for example can you tell me how long it would take to drive from say Berlin to Warsaw in 1945 compared to now?. Its a much quicker trip. Those internet articles are hurting you, buddy.

And how much time btw US and Berlin ? Does US have some sort black holes to bring munitions and fuel and other stuff directly ?

And when they come in Warsaw they will find no operational airport or base and they will be bombed the first day.

You need to learn distances my friend in order for Russian missiles to threaten all of Europe btw the launchers need to be in the range of Tomahawks. While they would get some shots off a lot of their launchers would be destroyed as they attempt to use them. While Kalibers do have a range of 1500miles at max range and at the max range missile losses a lot of speed and power making them easy to intercept.

No genius. Cruise missiles don't loose speed at the end. They work like planes and they engines burns all the way. You are confusing with air to air missiles that have rocket engines.

Russian cruise missile carriers are all mobile. You will never hit them with a cruise missile. And tomahawks have smaller range.

You struggled finding Iraqi 400km range scud launchers with total air control and you think about destroying russian 2500km range missile launchers inside Russia.

Another proof you have no idea what you are talking.

1. Russia would not get everyone killed over the Baltics. No matter what you think they aren't that insane.

2. Russia could not win in a war against NATO, even the military leaders of Russia say this but some armchair expert online thinks he knows better?. Maybe you should march into the Kremlin then Iso and demand to lead Russia's military because you clearly know better than all of them.

Make me a fanboy? what because I am stating a fact lol. Not being a fanboy pointing out the truth, nothing I said was wrong. Don't like it tough shit, I am not here to appease your misguided views.

Russia isn't interested by the Baltics (for now). If they wanted them they can get them any day they want.

It is the US that won't risk a nuclear war over Baltics. Get over it, US attacks only weak countries and are big pussies when it comes to attacking a country that can defend itself. Iran is the best exemple, no support from anyone when they bombed the shit out of your soldiers in Iraq and you just shut up.

Even for Iraq and afghanistan you cried for coalitions. With the coalition in Iraq you won in 1991. Without the coalition you lost in 2003.

US "ruled" the world because USSR get destroyed. But it's over. China is getting the first place. EU is letting you. Russia is growing.

The last thing to fall will be Hollywood propaganda machine.

The largest most important country in Europe, Germany, has done a risk analysis and decided that no, there is very little chance that will be another war in Europe that will involve them. We can deduce this from the amount of money that they spend on defence, the equipment they buy and their operational state.

The other states excluding France, Italy and the UK, keep up their defence spending because they are vassals of the US and the US IC have sufficient background data on their leadership to ensure it stays that way. Much of it goes on US MIC products. The other three keep their spending up because they are ex colonial countries that still have delusions of grandeur. Whilst Greece is a vassal it has a bigger problem to defend against and that is Turkey.

The countries of Europe and Russia want trade and that requires peace. That is not what the US wants, it needs to keep Russia bottled up and has shown that it doesn't care about the economic consequences to Europe when it stirs up trouble. It is therefore likely that any war in Europe will be down the the US creating an incident that it then attempts to exploit in such a way that the blowback stays in Europe and doesn't spread to mainland US. When the Russians have shown that it is a game they really don't want to play the US will have to come up with something both very serious and believable. Which takes me onto the thread question.

The answer to the question up until around 1990 was almost certainly yes and it was due to cultural ties. Since then, as new countries joined, those ties have become much weaker with every new member. The countries in western Europe, say Spain, France and UK, have virtually nothing in common with for example the Baltics or ex Yugislavia. There is I believe no way those three countries would support Article 5 unless it was with an original NATO member, their populations wouldn't wear it and they no longer have the money to pay for it. Those new countries are holiday destinations and places military can be sent on detachment in some kind of attempt to stay relevant in PR campaigns, like Baltic Air Patrols and flights of B-52s.

As to the discussions on how a war would go, it is difficult to imagine that were it to happen that either side would have the luxury of getting ready for it, it would tip the other off, virtually guaranteeing a stalemate. No, it would be fought with what's there on the ground with virtually no resupply capability in the West. It would have to be a blitzkrieg, everything unleashed up front, no WW1/2 slow build in prospect. No time for tank armies to slug it out, it will be all about air superiority and especially airfield and communications denial. But this looks onesided.

US/NATO have some first class air defence assets but they are in the wrong place, on ships. SAMs or SHORAD on airfields/radar sites etc are almost non existent. AEGIS Ashore sites in Europe are first strike optimised against Russia, not air defence. The only answer to cruise missile attack is fighters, bit like an updated version of the RAF against the German V1 cruise missiles in WW2. But, unlike a mobile SAM system the fighter's base can't be moved.

In the first hours there may be hundred or thousands of cruise and ballistic missiles along with aircraft flying through the skies but it seems to me that only one side has done anything to defend themselves against them. So one side will see many getting through but the other will be unable to stop most. A case of spending unbelievable amounts of money of what have turned out to be products good against fleeting tactical third world targets whilst losing sight of the fundamental need to defend the homeland.

Clearly NATO did risk analysis as well and decided that it didn't need to defend itself properly against a Russia that was never going to initiate an attack against it.

Agree with all but the tank use.

Russia can send its ground troops to actually capture baltic with all their airports and militarybinstallations.

NATO tank forces are pathetic. UK 2 weeks ago said they won't replace their Challys and go only with light vehicles thinking other states will provide them that capacity.

France has 200 or so leclerc and barely train its crews. Same for Germany that used to have a huge amount of leo 2. A few hundreds in service.

They also have nothing to counter the thousands of ATGM russia produces every year and they are much easier to use than western ones. European theater is perfect for their use in ambushes by teams on foot.

Nato bets everything on air force. Yet they are not realizing that the huge costs makes them buy smaller and smaller air forces and they are just easy targets for cruise missiles and ballistic missiles during the 90% they are on the ground. A premptive strike with 500 cruise missiles will destroy all the european air forces.

Russia also has around 200 ka52 and mi28 and some 400-500 mi-24/35 that will hunt anything that looks like a military vehicle when its drones will clear the way.

But the HATO can beat Russia in x number of weeks claims have to continue because otherwise europe might realise it is not actually in its interests to make Russia an enemy... they have done it several times before and we know how that worked out... trillions of wasted dollars so that the MICs of come countries can make a quick buck... it also creates an organisation that can be used around the world by the US to ensure its money flow... HATO doesn't do poverty or famine... its business is oil.

I remember a bit of Blackadder in the last series about WWI which really doesn't get enough credit for the fantastic piece of history it is... he explains it all very well.

His inept colleagues (House and Baldrick) follow the party line and blame the Germans for the war, but as Blackadder explains powerful countries got together in alliances and agreements to defend each other, and were dragged into a war that was really none of their business by the little countries in their groups who wanted to fight each other.... made terribly brave by the big powers that they thought supported them. The idea of two massive opposing forces facing each other acting as the others deterrent meant a big war could never happen... he said. To which Baldrick said.... but this is a sort of a war... (meaning WWI). Yes, said Blackadder... the problem with the plan for deterrence was that it was Bollocks.

I wonder if Blaming Russia for everything and absorbing all its little hostile neighbours into HATO, a military organisation with no purpose except to confront Russia, will keep the peace in Europe...

Blaming Germany after WWI created WWII, blaming the Soviets created the Cold War, now it is Russia and China that are the bad guys... I am sure they will have learned their lesson that making enemies is ultimately destructive and terribly wasteful of resources... or not.

They win when there is no war but basically Europe does not trade with or cooperate with Russia so they have to trade and cooperate with the US instead.

Russia has no interest in the baltic states, no interest in finland, no interest in ukraine or georgia... at the moment they are keeping Belarus a viable country and when Luka is gone they can have a proper vote and decide who they want to lead them... I doubt very much that Russia would force them to vote for a pro Russian candidate, because that will always be counter productive and backfire massively... if the new leadership of Belarus want Russia out I am sure they will withdraw and leave Belarus to it...

It is the US that promotes an aggressive Russia that wants to invade and attack... but it is HATO bases moving closer to Russia and not vice versa...