How competent are the batlic states armies? Would Russia manage to invade or occupy them quickly even without NATO intervention?
How competent are the batlic states armies?
How competent are the batlic states armies? Would Russia manage to invade or occupy them quickly even without NATO intervention?
those are really small countries - Russia could literally zergrush them on foot
but there are nato forces stationed there - and if any possibility of invasion arises there will be minefields deployed - and they worked miracles so far
Oh yeah, that went marvelous in Ukraine, you half aborted vatnik puke.
Ukraine even before war had more soldiers than all baltic countries combined.
>Oh yeah, that went marvelous in Ukraine, you half aborted vatnik puke.
they captured 20% of ukraine you moron so the size of a small country
>captured 20%
>large % was captured in 2014 when there was no significant resistance to them yet
>when they had their entire arsenal behind them
vs
>an angry baltic
>better prepared and is in the process of getting newer shit
>after losing most of the soviet handmedowns in ukraine in the special needs op
yeah let pidor fricking do it, this will work even better I'm sure
There are famously NATO bases there.
few thousand nato troops there could hold russians indefinitely, but any russian troop build up would be noticed and countered instantly and nato air superiority would destroy any invading force the second they crossed the border
This tbh, vatnig power fantasies always ignore the fact that NATO would know about their build up and that they have no counter for NATO air superiority.
The Russians have always known that which is why they've been focusing on aerial denial instead of aerial supremacy
Aerial denial doesn't work with the busted old shitty systems Russia has. A squadron of F-35s would piss on them with ease judging by the performance of Russian AD in Ukraine.
Would they? Is that why the Ukies had complete aerial superiority in their summer offensive?
The Ukies have managed to create contested skies and local air superiority using nothing but other old vatnik shit and a couple handouts. Russia's vaunted air denial has failed to stop fricking old Sukhois with some basic b***h cruise missiles tacked to them. Seethe harder about it.
The fact a pissant little airforce like Ukraine's is still able to do literally anything at all this far into the conflict is a damning indictment of Russia's air control. If they can't successfully "deny" a few SU-24s what chance do they stand against the largest and most modern air force in the world? Why is the bar so fricking low for Russian shills that anything other than a total Ukrainian victory in every field immediately is enough for them to call it a win? It's pathetic.
im sure the geniuses who came up with "just go around the mines" and "learn to read a map, drones are irrelevant bro" could hold off getting zerg rushed outnumbered 40:1
>just go around the mines
Yes that's what smart people do. Don't fricking rush into a minefield thinking your enemy is going to run away.
>learn to read a map, drones are irrelevant br
Again completely correct. Drones will get roasted by jammers and EW in any war that isn't two third world countries duking it out.
>Yes that's what smart people do. Don't fricking rush into a minefield thinking your enemy is going to run away.
show me on the map where exactly they should've gone around the minefield. where is the gap? donetsk?
>Again completely correct. Drones will get roasted by jammers and EW in any war that isn't two third world countries duking it out.
absolute dinosaur mentaility. should we abandon the tank because there are atgms everywhere? or maybe we should stop sending soldiers into battle because the enemy has so much artillery and they can kill us? its so funny to listen to the reasons why the offensive failed from guys who were actually there and your conclusion is that they dont actually know how to fight correctly. small drones have completely changed warfare, forever, and everyone not currently using them in a giant war is behind in a big way.
>small drones have completely changed warfare, forever, and everyone not currently using them in a giant war is behind in a big way.
the last resort of a zigger, pretending that a toy that can be jammed by a handheld jammer is the new big thing that will totally let the backward shitholes to rise again and challenge the white man.
>lmao drones don't change anything
The last resort of a zogbot slowly waking up to the fact that Catherine next cutting edge military innovation comes from a hardware store and not a resource-intensive research lab m
>zogbot
hey 2006 called, it wants its meme back.
Good counterargument
Nice distended anus, Olga.
>go around the mines
>there's just more mines
ultimately you need a plan for this
(it's air power. the answer is always air power.)
>Drones will get roasted by jammers and EW in any war that isn't two third world countries duking it out.
lol, german bases have drones flying over them every few days. the germans suspect its russian spies flying the drones. the bundeswehr has bought jammers... they dont work. not a single drone or drone operator caught so far.
They're right though, if Ukraine crossed the completely undefended border instead of their utterly moron summer offensive, they'll be at Moscow in a couple days maximum. Of course we'll then find out Russian nukes are still alive at that point, but that's beside the point.
>40:1
LMAO, NATO airpower is gonna outnumber the Russkies 40:1 within the opening day.
Yes. A few thousand NATO troops backed by utter, total, absolute naval an dair dominance could not only hold, but one-sidedly massacre anythinbg and everything the worthless thirdie army of Russia could thorw at them. Seethe more about it.
good thing this is a scenario without NATO support. reading is hard
who cares what NATO does?
there are US tripwire forces in the Baltics. Kill one and the whole American military will take revenge upon you.
the NATO troops there have no purpose but to die so the public at home demands revenge and thus participation in the war
a smear piece and memoryholing campaign could as well easily happen though, just like that time NATO blamed Ukraine for R*ssian missiles killing some Polish citizens
~~*western partners*~~ cucked ukraine from touching russian territory
>zerg rushed outnumbered 40:1
Because that totally works, right?
This is getting my hyped. I really hope these dumb asses try this
>a few thousand troops could hold the flat shallow featureless Baltic coast
moron
yes you are vatnik
>a vatnik is anyone that thinks holding a flat battlespace of 50,000 square miles is feasible
The Russians are going to be more organized than a 6 nation Arab coalition and NATO probably won't launch a preemptive strike. You tell me how a massive troop disparity will end up.
Given the massive information advantage, the moment any Russian troops, vehicle, or armament crosses the border Russia is met with missile strikes in its staging areas, an immediate SEAD/DEAD campaign combined with tactical and strategic bombing, artillery strikes, air interdiction, and naval operations. It's also highly likely NATO will do the same to Kaliningrad to prevent its garrison from doing anything.
This. If any amount if NATO troops are stationed inside your country for the explicit purpose if defending against a Russian invasion, and you are yourself a NATO member, Russia will not successfully invade you. The US called Russia on their troop build up a hilariously kong time before they invaded Ukraine. There is absolutely no reason--especially NOW--that NATO wouldn't immediately deploy forces to match Russia's. As we've seen in Ukraine, our tech and our competency is so profoundly vastly superior to the Russoid's barbarian ways that it would be like blasting Zulu spear chuckers with machine guns. The disparity in quality, particularly after Russia's losses in Ukraine, is simply too profound.
Any shenanigans by Russia in the baltics would be fear mongering and empty bullshit threats. I wish a Black person would, with all my heart, but unfortunately I won't get to see NATO massacre Russian convict soldiers while nuclear fire rains down on their cities in my lifetime.
There is a reason, and it's that the US doesn't have the troops to committ. Biden actived the IRR for the first time to reinforce Atlantic Wall in August 2023, and it won't be the last considering how US military recruiting is going
I'm reminded of how in Desert Storm there were literally Marines having meltdowns because they were too late to all the fights, the planes hogged all the kills, and they didn't get to shoot anyone. These will be the people you fight if you go into the Baltics: an air force that bodied a country in 72 hours and a bunch of people that genuinely want to kill you and are excited for the chance.
As a counterargument, I will point to the US veterans that volunteered in Ukraine and left almost immediately because not having complete air superiority and COMSEC was so alien to them their experience was worthless
How is that a counterargument? In a theoretical Russian invasion of the Baltics they will have their air superiority and their secure comms and their tank wall and their artillery spam.
Will they? Russians might be orcs but they're still more sophisticated than the Taliban. Russian hackers almost overthrew the US government by hacking the election, after all.
The single fifth columnist shitbag who was never under fire and got kicked out of the volunteer forces for being in the bugaloo bois? The one who deleted his reddit account a day after posting his bullshit? whose username was literally "spindoktor"?
And you have the brass fricking balls to reference this as factual, somehow. The absolute gall of these glavset roosters.
>everyone that disagrees with the glorious Peoples Liberation Army is a fifth columnist traitor that kicks puppies and beats women
Da Commissar. Please execute all dissidents so that the war will end faster
Competent enough to buy time for NATO to get here. The issue is Russia has the reverse Midas touch, everything they touch turns to shit. And we certainly can't hold them at the border.
>competent
Doesn't matter. It's grim numbers game. Unless western aviation rape tank columns Russia can just brainlessly send unarmed Mobiks and they'll just outnumber Balts.
They need serious force multipliers I'm afraid they're just thinking to implement. In their situation the entire border should've been fortified and their industry heavily militarized like in South Korea. But the government went full euro - now gunz, hippie anti-mine anti-nuclear, all gas ignoring geographic specifics and now they're caught pant's down.
The Baltics are the LEAST Eurofied. They actually invest well above the NATO mandated 2% GDP into their defense and have contingencies in place for mass conscription and mobilization in the event of invasion. And invest in asymmetric capabilities like SF and militia that can act as guerilla fighters.
At the very least, they hole up in the cities and continue to be a thorn in Russia's side for months on end, if Mariupol is any indication.
I'm not gonna say how long I waited for the tank trap gif to activate.
What tanks?
Noooooo not the IS-3s NOOOOOOOOO
>Russia can just brainlessly send unarmed Mobiks and they'll just outnumber Balts.
That's not how war has worked for the last 200 years, you deusional subhuman garbage.
Russia is not known for winning wars with any country besides itself
>no gunz
Wrong, fricker.
>anti-nuclear
The nuclear power plant referendum was shot down by boomers agitated by Russia
In terms of military, what do you suggest we develop nukes?
We started reducing gas dependance on Russia since 2014 and since the start of the war none of it has been coming from Russia.
Eat shit, shill.
>what do you suggest
>Mandatory military service should've started after 2014. To staff units til 2030 they need 5k a year. Now its 500.
>RailBaltica main line expedited as priority project. No waiting for environmental assessments, secondary connection projects etc.
>Serious advantages and incentive to join national guard ( safeguards to family members, PTO, advantages in government services, like skip Kindergarten queues )
>Long range strike systems capable of destroying staging areas in Russa ( so far there's only dozen howitzers and SPGs )
>Bomb shelters, specific civilian protection plans. At this point majority of Balts would just leave as there are no other options.
>Seriously addressing the 5th column concern. Politicians avoid it, while most local Balts believe it's as likely to get stabbed in back as being attacked from east.
>Physical fortification of border like in Finland - they have every road dialed in for Arty, every bridge mined etc.
I don't really shill for Russia. I'm worried that there are a lot of people trying to shut down important infrastructure and defense projects by understating Russias danger, ignoring their irrational acts and exaggerating NATO willingness to involve ( UE too had international guarantees, we help, but victory isn't certain ) or even speculating on how Russia would react. Feels like ignorant pacifying policy.
Like, we see in Ukraine the beast can bleed, it can be held off. But you have to hold it off. Running away or playing dead wont work.
>how war has worked
It doesn't seem like Russia really follows rational methods. Wouldn't have gone to war then.
That was in regards to you criticising "the government" going anti-nuclear as far as military affairs are concerned. Certainly a tragedy economically, but also not a definite indicator of energetic reliance on the aggressor.
Your points are solid, though
>They need serious force multipliers I'm afraid they're just thinking to implement.
I’m upset people even responded to you after this sentence.
https://www.politico.eu/article/latvia-lithuania-estonia-common-defense-zone-russia-border-security-concerns/
Some fresh news
Keep in mind that each of the Baltic countries are not only smaller than even Finland but also don't have the geographic advantage of Finland. Countries like Estonia have a very large portion of the population who are Russian speaking and thus very likely to contain fifth columnists. The one advantage they do have is that with Sweden and Finland in NATO all you have to do is park anti-ship missile batteries and ships on both sides of the baltic sea and unless if Russia manages to systemetically destroy the defenses on both sides shipping to St. Petersburg is fricked.
Even the garbage Russia we saw invading Ukraine would have run them over.
Keep in mind that it's their inclusion into NATO that made Putin incredibly assmad to this day.
They were prime targets for the operation of forcefully dragging them back under Russia's influence. Now that they're in NATO that's an impossibility as long as the US, the UK and France are in it.
We would have probably seen an invasion of the Baltics before Ukraine (which most likely would have been far more afraid of Russia after such a scenario).
Oh my bad, I've misread that your scenario had them out of NATO entirely.
>Even the garbage Russia we saw invading Ukraine would have run them over.
That force literally does not exist anymore. What you see in Avdiivka is what the Russian army is capable of. The Baltics are also dense forests with a few roads as major chokepoints.
I often thank god for joining NATO in 2004. What a bullet we missed
NATO airpower alone would kick the russians back.
Russia could blitz over and take them but they aren't going to keep them.
>We have latvia now, no counter-invade or we nook
"No"
This isn't Ukraine where a fait accompli would have worked. NATO will just refuse to accept it and then take back the baltics, eject the Russians. Then it might be status quo ante bellum with more sanctions or we'd have the nukes start flying. But NATO/EU is not going to sit on its ass while a member state is dismembered.
So the question is less can Russia take the baltic and more can Russia hold the baltic. And no, they cannot.
>Why die for Riga?
you have to have red line (real one) somewhere - so why not somewhere far away - where other nationalities do most of the blowing up and dying? basically the same as with the Ukraine today
>you have to have a redline somewhere
Yeah and it's the mid-Atlantic. Why the frick should any American care about the security of the European continent? A 'redline' in the Baltics is for German national security, and that's a country doing its level best to committ suicide every day.
>why the frick should any American care about the security of the European continent?
>just give it to Russia, and there will be peace
>Why the frick should any American care about the security of the European continent?
Isolationists are morons that unironically fell for foreign psy-ops. In 2022 alone 1.3 trillion dollars changed hands between EU nations and the United States.
Imagine being so mind-broken by shills that you think the best course of action for your nation is to let all other nations run amok ruining shit for your trade partners and preventing your interests.
>Brah just let the people constantly threatening to nuke you, who burn your flags and wish death upon your population and want nothing but your annihilation exert power because exerting power yourself costs money!
>it's in the US's interest to spend over 800 billion dollars per year to make sure they can spend 1.3 trillion dollars per year on Swiss cheese
Wow there's no way we could possibly get those goods without that investment
Are you unironically arguing that the US should just completely can it's military?
In the year 2024? On the weapons board?
I mean, the budget was 816 billion in 2023 so I'm assuming that's what you're referring to by "over 800 billion dollars per year" but it's so moronic that I feel the need to check.
Doesn't happen often but I'm just plain dumbfounded and split between trolling, shill or moron
Are you unironically suggesting it's a good investment to spend 800 billion dollars to guarantee your import of luxury goods? You're literally breaking your budget to spend more money
>doesn't understand economics
>also doesn't understand the importance of ensuring global trade
What. an. idiot.
>the US needs global trade
Buddy, the majority of US GDP is domestic. The massive US trade deficit is the US financing its own foreign competition
>The massive US trade deficit is the US financing its own foreign competition
It's not really the "US", it's elitists globalist bankers and corporatists on Wall Street selling out the West in a race to the bottom (dollar wages).
Oh no they give us products and we give them pieces of paper that they can only use to buy things denominated in said pieces of paper.
>muh lower wages
You’ll have to explain why I’m paid more than any worker in the 1950s in terms of real income for a job i do working at home (cloud enterprise architecture: $280,000 not including RSUs). But somehow my wages are lower than before trade liberalization? How the frick does that math work out especially given 60% of my companies revenue is from overseas (theres more customers overseas). So magically protectionism is supposed to increase real incomes and not just benefit a handful of inbred morons in Pennsylvania and Michigan?
Working class and Middle class are the two most important parts of the economy so their jobs should be protected against a factory shutting down here and opening up overseas while all of their pensions and 401K stuff gets stolen by the company
Most people's real wages are lower. Free trade has only benefited a small handful of people (like you) while most people's lives get worse.
Wow you’re actually a moron who doesn’t know how trade nor trade deficits work.
Because the only reason for the american military to exists is to "guarantee the import of luxury goods"?
I'm starting to lean more towards an indian shill or native russian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Pushkin_Tu-104_crash)
Please explain what the US gets out of policing the world for free.
an empire
Nice deflection, Rajesh.
I don't support every american intervention ever but I do support a large military. That however isnt what is being discussed so it's irrelevant.
"Well america shouldn't spend THAT much!" wasn't your initial argument and doesnt adress my answer to your question about why Americans should care about the security of the European continent.
It seems you're now just trying to move the goalposts and shift the discussion away to military spending in general.
why do you support a large military but then not wield it?
if you aren't going to use it, you don't need it.
Prosperity, security and wealth, all of which it would have orders and orders of magnitude less of without the global system it built to ensure all of these. Your denial of this fact, borne form moroniation and ignorance, does not change anything about it.
without supporting Israel, oil would be cheaper and there would have been no 9/11
And other moronic fantasies the vatBlack folk tell themselves.
>Yes goy there are no consequences or costs to supporting Israel
>prosperity
The US Rust Belt was created from its free trade policies. Large swathes of middle America are miserable dead towns because of it.
>security
American security is based on controlling Canada, Mexico, and the oceans. Anything else is a vanity project.
>wealth
The US spends more money on imperial maintenance than it generates in revenue.
The US would be wealthier and healthier without the military-industrial complex dictating its policies.
Re-arranging reality in your head is a coping mechanism, not something that actually affects reality in any shape or form. You don't live in your mental vacuum, bubble boy.
Good counterargument. You really addressed the point by refusing to engage with it
That's all you can muster, to every reply. "nice argument" because your brain is too fricked from glavset nonsense to elaborate one.
>for free
moron
It means we can send our boats anywhere we want. It's an Anglosphere thing, you wouldn't understand.
Your money getting its inflation sent to the whole planet before it reaches your borders for starters.
What, you think everybody using the dollar as the base of their own currencies and oil sales is done for free? You really must be an American to think that.
When someone this dumb watches the Sopranos, do they also not understand how things like racketeering? It's just hard to believe people don't know how empires work.
It's like not understanding why a nation would want territory next to the sea. It's just so fricking stupid.
>brah just let the Greens stay in power in Germany
What did he mean by this?
cope and seethe AFD Hans
cause ziggers inherited the mongol gene and will never stop if someone doesn't make them.
>from lisbon to vladivostok
It will never cease to amaze me to what extend vodkaBlack folk can do to invade and rule over people who don't want to live in russia
>take back the Baltics
Lmao NATO isn't going to naval invade Riga to evict the Russians. Mass combat like that isn't in NATO's doctrine; in the 2018 field exercises NATO employed tactical nukes to stop Russian columns because it's casualty- and risk-averse.
A NATO reclamation would be from airbases in Germany, Poland, and Sweden bombing the shit out of the Russian positions and logistics until a troop of boy scouts with sticks could walk in and take the place.
Sure, that's the same end result though - NATO won't tolerate Russian fait accompli on a member. By army, or by air force, or by nook ook ook, they're not going to accept any little nibble. The bigger 'risk' is that Russia would just be willing to endlessly attrition-war so at some point you would have to send in ground troops because all the jdams and air support in the world won't be able to get all the disgusting little verminous lice out of Riga or wherever. And short of an iron curtain of firepower they'll keep shoving in mobiks.
Beyond the wider considerations of security and economics and all I just fricking hate Russians and I like humans like Europeans, man. If savages want to behave like savages then I look forward to them being killed until they crawl back to their holes or behave like civilized peoples, whether that is ISIS or Russia.
>This isn't Ukraine where a fait accompli would have worked
To be fair, that was Russia's plan and always has been - banking on lack of Western resolve.
Thankfully, it appears now we would be able to hold off Russians more than eniugh for that to be impossible, as well as gearing our foreign policy with foreign deployments where that would also require Western powers to abandon their troops
They have just announced they are all gonna combine into one planning center with building bunkers at the Belarus/Russian border so the consolidation is happening.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-orders-hunt-property-russian-091640990.html
Wow he's really gonna try it huh?
This is a delusion. Russia wouldn't dare attack the Baltics. That's essentially WW3.
Its been 3 years and people still don't understand the Ukraine Russian war.
Russia attacked Ukraine, because they're not in the EU and the they're not in NATO. That's it. It's that simple. Russia knew that the second Ukraine joins a defensive pact with any western force, it's over.
That's the same reason why they will never ever attack the baltics, Poland, Sweden or Finland. It's suicide.
Will you shit the frick up? We're trying to stir up xenophobia and paranoia over national security! How will we make the plebs put up with our control and corruption if there's no military justification for it?!?!?!?
This, there is a reason they are 100% cucked and don't dare touch a single NATO supply line pouring weapons into Ukraine despite the fact that it's killing literally tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, because they understand that the alternative (attempting to intervene and dragging NATO in) is even worse for them.
>That's essentially WW3.
NATO folding Russia in half is not WW3. Noone will help them.
It being a moronic idea does not mean Russians won't do it. OP posted an interesting question and it's better safe than sorry anyway
probably but never underestimate autocrats going senile. they can't attack NATO now, but i think that would be the inevitable conclusion if they achieve any success in ukraine. a lot hinges on the US upholding it's security guarantees and that's looking shaky as of late.
We won't die, but you certainly will.
>we
DA JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS
Well, da joos won't be dying neither. Only vatBlack person subhumans will. By the hundreds and hundreds of thousands. And that's a good thing.
Lithuania will put up the most fight, they have the most arty of the baltics and by 2025 they will have HIMARS.
Latvia and I believe Estonia is getting himars aswell.
Yeah, the other two are also getting HIMARS. Also, Estonia still has full conscription, which we will have to fight back for in the parliament. And good luck with that, social democrats are going to sweep the next election
>Amerikanski~~*...dont you Its manly to flee like cowards when your smaller allies are in trouble
Also
>trannies
>germany wanting to confront russia
Esl post
Stop arguing with braindead isolationists who don't understand wealth generation and global trade
>tfw you're arguing with people that live in an economic zone
My friend in the SAS says they're the best soldiers in NATO.
I would be surprised if they were not the best prepared, they have the best motivation by having an active threat right at their border.
unfortunately for latvian and estonia forces they will be relegated to liquidating their internal russians. NATO doesnt want to dirty itself like that, it'll stick to external Russians.
Not sure what Latvia is doing but they seem to have pretty good reserve count for their population so they could man the whole border pretty easy. Also most of their land is thick forest or marshes so russia would have some big logistical problems zerg rushing.
While Russia is fricking around in the Baltic forests, Poland will walk into Kaliningrad
We brought conscription back just last year.
>t. lett
How did Lithuania manage to have such a small percentage of Russians in the country compared to Latvia and Estonia?
The presence of guerrillas or aka "forest brothers" helped scare russian colonists off, they fought for some decades hoping for western aid that never came
All 3 had forest brothers and that is not the reason. Three Baltic countries are pretty similar in size but population was different. Lithuania had the highest population so they didnt need to bring in so much russian labor to work in factories. Also big difference is that Lithuania communist party leader Snieckus didnt want to import in so many russian labor so they didnt. When Russians wanted to move to Baltics they usualy went to Latvia or Estonia because they were more modern and had more contact with the western world. You could smuggle or buy western things in these countries pretty easly.
Local Lithuanian governors actually fought against letting every public works project being done by russians and churkas, unlike us and estonians.
On the flip side, they're now stuck with smaller, but similarly vocal and 5th column Polish minority, one they can't just force to assimilate since people actually care about poles.
The most active anti-Soviet insurgency in the post-war period turned us into "bandit-country" in the eyes of Russians. Furthermore, I heard it argued that our communist leadership was nonetheless quite nationalist
Latvia and Estonia were relatively well industrialized and had developed ports, Lithuania not so much.
Lithuania was much more successful in resisting Soviet pressure partially because of this.
Latvian communists were the most open to Soviet migration as a lot of them were related to Latvian Red Riflemen and had been some of the few survived Stalinist purges. It was accelerated when the National Communist wing of the Latvian Communist Party was crushed through political subterfuge, leaving pro-Kremlin stooges in power until from late 1950s through 1980s
Doesn't help that almost a million Latvians left Latvia during ww2
why do you keep making moronic military purchases?
t. lithium
>implying we dont as well
t. another lithium
Oh it's nice to see that we're not only ones making moronic arab style purchases for our military..
t. a long, slender, rounded piece of wood or metal, typically used with one end placed in the ground as a support for something.
Elaborate?
The things we've been getting in Lithuania are pretty sensible, imo. The only problem is that the Baltics don't have unified procurement
>CVRT
Jesus Christ. What for?
For our mechanized infantry. Their reasoning was the terrain over here and the low ground pressure of the cvrt. To be fair there is some logic there but I don't think they were that cheap either. They were bought from the brits and completely refurbished. Some got spike atgms aswell. Best part is that apparently the ammo for the 30mm cannons isnt manufactured anymore so there are plans to build a ammo factory.
>mechanized infantry
>doesn't carry any infantry
But it does
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_Reconnaissance_(Tracked)
aren't most of the shits you bought Scimitars? Do you guys even have M113s?
I dont know how many were scimitars but there are plenty of non scimitars. As far as I know we dont have any m113s. Looks like we are getting patria wheeled apcs in the near future tho.
ours are quite reasonable compared to Latvia's
Nice APC you just bought lmao
Latvia is probably making the most moronic ones tho. We bought refurbished cvrt's and one of the next big purchases is supposed to be anti ship missiles. CVRT is cute but I really don't see the need for anti ship missiles when russian navy would have a hard time leaving the port in the baltic sea.
And I forgot about the scandal about the contract for feeding the army. The 220 million contract for 5 years was given to a company with no experience or capability to deliver and they had ties to goverment officials I think. Don't know the details tbh, but that was somehow cancelled.
It's literally JUST the CVRT's, other then that most of our purchases make sense. The Austrian M109's are not Pzh2000's, sure, but they're still solid, western guns, and we got a shitton of them for cheap. The whole Patria 6x6 program is a great future investment (to be fair the 4x4 technical tender was a complete shitshow, but that ended up being nothing). HIMARS, IRIS-T's, JSM's, Black Hawks, all solid choices. Maybe that weird light scout aircraft we got (pic rel), or our new MoD talking about armed light helicopters, those are weird. But not stupid.
Where our moronation excels is outside the fun military procurement. National Guard is still running around with AK-4's, years after being promised G36's, training munitions frick the guns over time, and let's not forget the 200mil food scheme lmao.
Local Patria production is deginitely great. Was surprised to hear Latvia has the capability.
Also, I recently got to finger the Ak 4 and it's a pleasure to handle. If at least for a bit. The HK slap is so fun and rails are a tragedy for aesthetics
Will see how this will go because Patria hoped Estonia will make a order as well but they chose to buy turkish vechiles.
IIRC that was part of some bigger deal meant to deepen general Mil-industrial ties with Turkey and covered both 6x6 and 4x5 vehicles.
4x4*
I wouldn't call those Patrias good considering they have fricking windows in 2024
It's a fricking battle taxi, not a BTR-4 (which too has windows), it'll be fine.
you bought an armored truck
Yes, and?
>hasn't seen any combat
Lmao what? Pasi is probably the 6x6 that has seen most combat worldwide. And everyone who has used it have loved it, including Ukraine where one drove over several mines, being finally stopped only by the 3rd and all the crew survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_Pasi
It's supposed to be a cheap and reliable 2nd line vehicle, ferrying troops to and from the battlefield but not intended to stay there and actively fight like the heavier 8x8s. Perfect companion for boxers, amvs, or just tracked ifvs in general so those can fully focus on frontline duties as is their job.
It's basically a bigger and better protected humvee.
>forest or marshes
There's actually a pretty convenient wet belt. OTOH there's plenty of embankments with roads criss-crossing them, but that's still better than flat, open steppe.
This is explains Latgale better than anything else I have seen
>Latgale
What's so difficult about it? It's one highland surrounded by woody marshes that you just turn into fortress. Main task is not letting Russians do this, because it works in all directions. IMHO Konigsberg or Lake Peipus makes for much more interesting scenarios.
It explains why the Polish and Russian influence there is stronger than rest of Latvia sans Riga as there is a big natural barrier separating it while having clearer passage from South, South-East and North-East.
If the Baltic states build up their defensive lines on their border the country that threaten the building up of defenses the most will probably be Germany, castrated cowards that they are. I could see them trying to pressure the Baltics to stop in fear of 'escalation'.
I really don't see Germany disapproving defensive bunkers.
Why has Russia constantly threatened Poles and Balts during this Ukraine war btw? Seems dumb. Now these have a very credible reason to build up a defense line with no one to doubt them.
QRD? Is putlin planning to "de-nazify" the Baltic states now?
he always wanted to but it seems there are more pressing concerns elsewhere
I wish a zigger would
t. forest brother moderate
They just started building a defensive line with 600 bunkers and shit.
>600 bunkers
are they rebuilding the maginot there or what
Yes, Sort of
tbh Maginot line of 1940 would absolutely work against modern day russians
Goddammit anon
irrelevant, the USAF would exterminate the vatnik human hordes the moment they tried the cross the borders
Russian military vehicle attrition isn't a meme. They are still stuck in Ukraine, pulling ~1200 tanks from storage per year and reportedly producing ~200 tanks/year. All of these going straight to Ukraine. To open up a front in the Baltics/Poland, they'd need to wrap up in Ukraine within 1-2 years (not really credible) or increase the demothballing rate of stored tanks and send the increase to the new front. Same goes for IFVs. Either way, whatever vehicle numbers they'd manage to bring to this new front, it wouldn't be anything impressive enough anymore for even Balts+Poles alone on the defence to handle.
Also, while this isn't Finland's maze of forests and lakes, it's still forests and bogs compared to just 1000kms of plains in Eastern Ukraine. Go look at a satellite view of Baltics and then Ukraine.
A mechanized blitzkrieg of Baltics isn't in Russia's capabilities anymore.
NATO has troops inside the region already and the numbers are being increased. Russia would try and bomb their own cities at the start, to make it look like Balts fired first and thus "haha, Balts can't use Article 5 as it is only in case of defence, but they started it". Needless to say, this wouldn't fly. Even ordinary people in Europe don't believe Russia anymore after 2 years of this, let alone NATO military command. A non-USA defence scenario might have some possibility of happening if Trump wins and China attacks Taiwan at the same time. But a scenario where European countries wouldn't join is now just a vatnik fantasy.
>Would Russia manage to invade
Never gonna happen, but I wish it did lmao
Russia had many many chances to do it before, but they didn't.
>there will be minefields deployed - and they worked miracles so far
this, ukraine has shown us that there is no counter to mines. mine plows are a joke and dont work on a basic technical level and those line charge throwers dont throw far enough and no one has them in meaningful numbers.
The counter is to send more men and vehicles unironically, russia is working on it's production and fixing critical issues within their military structure. There's nothing stopping them from trying something after a few years of buildup (assuming success in ukraine ofc).
>working on it's production
Not of people, certainly.
What I want to know is, which Baltic military ISN’T a complete clown show joke?
pis kārties, zēģeri
That would be Estonians, mini finns basically.
Battle of Vasknarva (2027, colorized)
What country was it whose plan was to put a mine on every tree?
Competent? Very especially more than Russia. Large? Even including reserves they are quite small but they could probably hold off the Russians with the other NATO troops already there long enough to survive. Speaking to guys in the Lithuanian and Estonian militaries they have training and equipment about as good as the Americans and better than a lot of NATO militaries. I know especially their recon and scouts units are really good. They have reserves as well but there quality is less. Anecdotally I can say at least the Lithuanian military is fairly professional and one of the better pound for pound armies in NATO. But I'm just a moron on /k/.
don't US isolationists understand that they will come for you eventually if not kept in check? They aren't even particularly hiding it, never were.
>isolationists
>understanding anything
The only thing they understand is that the number on those random paychecks marked "baHK POCCNN" gets bigger the louder they are.
We should be able to defend without US. The US should be there only balance the scale for Russia to not consider attacking at all and help with faster and less bloody victory in case Monke is stupid enough.
If you're a foreigner you should understand that Americans think they're invincible, above all constraints and rules that can bring down or damage a country which means that if say, the whole planet were to burn except the United States, they wouldn't understand how that would harm the United States.