The Baltics: should Britain be rushing to their defence?

At the Combat Engineer conference Finish guys were talking very much (may be - too much) about Finish environments and its effect on the troops action.
SAVE_20181022_064155.jpeg


But, surely, it depends from what side of Finland you are. Looking from Russia -Finland is a land with mild climate, rich stores and good roads.
 
Finland moves to boost its naval power in the Baltic Sea hotspot

There is another article out there on the Swedish Visby class taking part in Trident.

Would be interesting to compare the Finnish corvettes with the proposed T31e...
They sound like very different ships. It appears that the T-31 will be a much larger ship and intended to have long range and endurance while the new Finish ships will be much smaller and intended for local use within the confines of the Baltic.
 
And that highly depends from amount of money wasted to them. When EU will make money shortages - EU will be a 'shithole'.
Given that Germany just announced it is paying 15Bn into the EU and the weapons race that Russia is now facing (has anyone mentioned the US carrier off the coast of Russia) Latvian Russians will be looking towards the EU for more time yet.
 
Given that Germany just announced it is paying 15Bn into the EU and the weapons race that Russia is now facing (has anyone mentioned the US carrier off the coast of Russia) Latvian Russians will be looking towards the EU for more time yet.
Sure. Only question is "Who they are in EU - migrants or colonists?"
 
If there's a war between NATO and Russia, what part will the Kaliningrad enclave play.
 
If there's a war between NATO and Russia, what part will the Kaliningrad enclave play.
Suwalki Gap. Holding that, prevents land reinforcement of the Baltic countries. Kaliningrad, heavily militarised particularly with anti ship missiles prevents Baltic country reinforcement by sea.

It’s a heavily militarised area which is able to project into the western Baltic Sea and prevents overland reinforcement if Russian forces manage to take and hold that corridor: Russia appears to be building up its military bases near a weak point in the NATO alliance
 
Suwalki Gap. Holding that, prevents land reinforcement of the Baltic countries. Kaliningrad, heavily militarised particularly with anti ship missiles prevents Baltic country reinforcement by sea.

It’s a heavily militarised area which is able to project into the western Baltic Sea and prevents overland reinforcement if Russian forces manage to take and hold that corridor: Russia appears to be building up its military bases near a weak point in the NATO alliance
First of all, it was NATO who had expanced to the Russian borders. If there was no expancion of NATO - there was no any "weak points", and there was no problems with the "Baltic defence".
 
First of all, it was NATO who had expanced to the Russian borders.
Liar. NATO has always been at Russia’s borders.
If there was no expancion of NATO - there was no any "weak points", and there was no problems with the "Baltic defence".
There wouldn’t be NATO troops (other than those belonging to the Baltic countries) in the Baltics if Russia didn’t steal parts of neighbours and rattle its sabres.
 
Liar. NATO has always been at Russia’s borders.
Alaska and Northen Norway is one thing, but Poland, Romania and Tribalic - is rather different. (Say nothing about Georgia and Ukraine)

There wouldn’t be NATO troops (other than those belonging to the Baltic countries) in the Baltics if Russia didn’t steal parts of neighbours and rattle its sabres.
There wouldn't be need in the "stealing parts of neighbours" if NATO and EU didn't start their "Drang nach Osten" and didn't make agression against Serbia and Iraq.
 
Alaska and Northen Norway is one thing, but Poland, Romania and Tribalic - is rather different. (Say nothing about Georgia and Ukraine)
Your point was "First of all, it was NATO who had expanced to the Russian borders. " which was a lie.

What alliance they decide to join is nothing to do with you.
There wouldn't be need in the "stealing parts of neighbours" if NATO and EU didn't start their "Drang nach Osten" and didn't make agression against Serbia and Iraq.
The time Serbia and Iraq become the 51st state or the new 'Dunny on the Wold' you may have a point.

As before, Russia has always been 'might is right', they're just using some Western interventions as an excuse. See WarPac, Transnystria etc etc.
 
First of all, it was NATO who had expanced to the Russian borders. If there was no expancion of NATO - there was no any "weak points", and there was no problems with the "Baltic defence".
NATO did not invade and/or occupy, ANY of the former Warsaw Pact countries, using armoured vehicles, "diplomatic pressure", or any other "device".

The former Warsaw Pact countries, individually, independently, APPLIED to join NATO.

NATO was drawn towards the borders of the CIS, by the former, INVADED, OCCUPIED, ENSLAVED, SUBJEGATED(?), former WARSAW PACT countries.

It would have been immoral for NATO to not have admitted the former WARSAW PACT countries!!

Is there a word for "immoral" in the Russian language?!
 
NATO did not invade and/or occupy...
How touching... Let me remove tears from my eyes. Of course, Iraq was not invaded and/or occupied. Kosovo was not captured using military force and Bombings of Belgrade were strictly humanitarian ones. The UK has bases of Cyprus with full concent of Cypriot people and Cypriot government. Respective territories naturally belong to Great Britain according to the principle - might is right.
 
How touching... Let me remove tears from my eyes. Of course, Iraq was not invaded and/or occupied. Kosovo was not captured using military force and Bombings of Belgrade were strictly humanitarian ones. The UK has bases of Cyprus with full concent of Cypriot people and Cypriot government. Respective territories naturally belong to Great Britain according to the principle - might is right.
More 'whataboutery'. Let me reciprocate. After the failure of the Soviet Union, Transnystria, S Odessa, Crimea, E Ukraine. The difference is the allied forces haven't turned Kosovo or Iraq into either the 51st State or the new 'Dunny on the Wold'. Crimea is occupied and had a 'referendum' at the end of an AK47.

I could go on (and on) about the numerous UN Resolutions on Serbia ref Kosovo and of course Iraq and the complete lack of them ref Crimea, but you already know that. Chalk and cheese.

Your 'crooks and thieves' lament the fall of the Soviet Union and you vote for the failed idea of that cause.
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
How touching... Let me remove tears from my eyes. Of course, Iraq was not invaded and/or occupied. Kosovo was not captured using military force and Bombings of Belgrade were strictly humanitarian ones. The UK has bases of Cyprus with full concent of Cypriot people and Cypriot government. Respective territories naturally belong to Great Britain according to the principle - might is right.
Selective quoting there. The full sentence was "NATO did not invade and/or occupy, ANY of the former Warsaw Pact countries, using armoured vehicles, "diplomatic pressure", or any other "device"."
This is entirely true. How many has the USSR Russia invaded?

Edited to add - Speaking to Lithanians, i asked what it was like as part of the USSR, they cut me of at that point and said quite forecfully, they were occupied, OCCUPIED (they repeated for emphasis) by the USSR.
 

Top