The Baltics: should Britain be rushing to their defence?

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*

Haven't seen this posted - it is a series, posting one episode of the blokes in Estonia and other issues.
It's funny, and our British friends surely will tell us, that there is nothing special in the British soldier, shouting the Nazi slogan at 22-07. So, when British cities will be burning, don't ask - "why?". "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
MBDA and Milrem Robotics unveil world's first anti-tank UGV

Would this be a good system for the Baltics? Any tankies? @Caecilius ?
I'm always skeptical about the utility of UGVs. Tracked vehicles are notoriously unreliable, especially when they come into contact with things like mud, so you need a crew to keep them running for any length of time. You also run the risk of them getting stuck or falling over when they cross difficult terrain.

That said, if the task is a semi-mobile defence of the Baltics' eastern border then sending out a few of these could be a great plan. If they don't move around too much then reliability issues won't be a problem and the low profile will make them difficult for the Russians to pick up.
 
Last edited:

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Congratulations to Estonia. In some battalions stupid Neo-Nazi Sprats think that they can make their 'order' with Russian soldiers, and when they had got answer - they start to wibble that Russian warriors are uncontrollable, undusciplined and dont respect Estonian "commanders"....
https://ekspress.delfi.ee/teateid_elust/helmet-huvitab-kas-venelased-terroriseerivad-eesti-kaitsevaes-eestlasi

In my humble opinion fidelity must be mutual. If Estonian 'state' don't respect Russian 'uncitizens', Russians don't respect that 'state'.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
The window of opportunity might be closing for Russian adventures; imagine the Brits will be relieved as well, given Finland said an attack on Estonia would be treated as an attack on Finland.

US approves release of Boeing EA-18G Growler to Finland
He-he-he! Finland, England, Denmark... There is only one state, that have enough of nukes to make their opinion about international politic interesting for Russia. And agent Rusty does not look like a man, who ready to start a war, to protect a herd of little Nazi pigs.

BTW, there was a talk with few Lithuanians about possible Russian-British war. No one of them choosed option 'to help the almost demolished UK'.
 
He-he-he! Finland, England, Denmark... There is only one state, that have enough of nukes to make their opinion about international politic interesting for Russia. And agent Rusty does not look like a man, who ready to start a war, to protect a herd of little Nazi pigs.

BTW, there was a talk with few Lithuanians about possible Russian-British war. No one of them choosed option 'to help the almost demolished UK'.
^
Absolute knicker wetter this one.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
The window of opportunity might be closing for Russian adventures; imagine the Brits will be relieved as well, given Finland said an attack on Estonia would be treated as an attack on Finland.

US approves release of Boeing EA-18G Growler to Finland
Finns can only get better?


I spoke to some Finnish defence planners a few years ago and asked about how they viewed the rise of Russian nationalism and militarism. Their response was along the lines of 'oh no, not again'.

Given Finland's strategic position, we in NATO ought to be looking seriously at throwing money at their defence. Whilst Finland aren't in NATO, they might as well be for the defence cooperation we share with them. Actually joining NATO would be a two-edged sword, however. Whilst it would bring them under the mutual defence umbrella, it would also give Vlad a further excuse to send holidaying troops there. Given that any serious Russian move into Finland would likely effectively destroy it before the rest of NATO could get their shit together, I would hate to be a Finnish defence planner having to advise whether to join NATO or not.
 
Finns can only get better?


I spoke to some Finnish defence planners a few years ago and asked about how they viewed the rise of Russian nationalism and militarism. Their response was along the lines of 'oh no, not again'.

Given Finland's strategic position, we in NATO ought to be looking seriously at throwing money at their defence. Whilst Finland aren't in NATO, they might as well be for the defence cooperation we share with them. Actually joining NATO would be a two-edged sword, however. Whilst it would bring them under the mutual defence umbrella, it would also give Vlad a further excuse to send holidaying troops there. Given that any serious Russian move into Finland would likely effectively destroy it before the rest of NATO could get their shit together, I would hate to be a Finnish defence planner having to advise whether to join NATO or not.
Not sure if you're aware or not, but the JEF has been gaining traction for a while now. There's also a few on here who have been on Ex with both the Finns and the Swedes:
Sweden and Finland join UK-led response force

Joint Expeditionary Force Memorandum of Understanding signed
“The JEF, made up of nine northern European allies Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, is more than a grouping of military capabilities. It represents the unbreakable partnership between UK and our like-minded northern European allies, born from shared operational experiences and an understanding of the threats and challenges we face today.”
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
That's why I mentioned that Finland might as well be in NATO for the amount of defence cooperation we share with them.

However, actually joining NATO would be a big step. At present we have no Article 5 equivalent with the JEF. An MoU is a nice thing, especially politically, but I'm not convinced that it would be as binding as Article 5 purports to be if things became hot. My area of study looks at how many ostensibly defence-based projects are actually far more political than military in nature, created to wave the 'look how nicely we play together' flag rather than to actually further practical defence capabilities (I'm not dismissing JEF as a toothless gesture, by the way). By joining NATO, Finland would come under the defence umbrella but also lose something of its defence independence and effectively poke a stick at Putin.

I'm know that better paid men than myself have looked at the practicalities of bringing the JEF under NATO; the fact that it has so far not moved suggests that at least a few in the JEF feel that joining NATO is a step too far.
 
That's why I mentioned that Finland might as well be in NATO for the amount of defence cooperation we share with them.

However, actually joining NATO would be a big step. At present we have no Article 5 equivalent with the JEF. An MoU is a nice thing, especially politically, but I'm not convinced that it would be as binding as Article 5 purports to be if things became hot. My area of study looks at how many ostensibly defence-based projects are actually far more political than military in nature, created to wave the 'look how nicely we play together' flag rather than to actually further practical defence capabilities (I'm not dismissing JEF as a toothless gesture, by the way). By joining NATO, Finland would come under the defence umbrella but also lose something of its defence independence and effectively poke a stick at Putin.

I'm know that better paid men than myself have looked at the practicalities of bringing the JEF under NATO; the fact that it has so far not moved suggests that at least a few in the JEF feel that joining NATO is a step too far.
It was discussed a year or so back on this thread. Sweden and Finland do exercise with NATO members. After all, they are training against a ‘common enemy’ but joining NATO is currently felt a step too far at the moment with the usual sabre rattling of adding their cities to target sets for nukes. Both being members of the EU are covered by Article 42(7) which was invoked by France:
EUR-Lex - 12008M042 - EN - EUR-Lex
7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
The UK, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

Were I a Finn, I'd still feel happier with Poland, Germany and the USA in there as part of the coalition.
 
The UK, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

Were I a Finn, I'd still feel happier with Poland, Germany and the USA in there as part of the coalition.
It must be slightly reassuring that Denmark, Norway and Sweden can add some depth.

Of course, Norway would certainly get the good news early on, Sweden would be given a good kicking; would this stop Russian occupation of Latvia in under an hour, probably not.
 
The EU consists of 28 (currently) countries. Might as well join NATO if you want the US, Germany and Poland alongside. Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

Putin has toughened up his rhetoric, views expert
Obviously, the Russians wouldn't be happy:
“It's related to the fundamental argument that Finland is eager to preserve peace at its borders and that joining Nato would signal a change in its approach towards Russia. Russia would naturally benefit in the event of a conflict if Finland wasn't part [of the defence alliance] because, in terms of conventional armed forces, Finland is a lot larger than Sweden, Norway or any of the Baltics,” explains Kivinen.

“That's why it's in the interests of Russia to make sure Finland isn't involved in crisis situations.”
HS-gallup: Suomalaiset tyrmäävät Nato-jäsenyyden – mutta onko Suomi jo tiiviimmin Naton kyljessä kuin kansa tajuaakaan?
The Finns do a lot of work with NATO and now the JEF. However, joining remains not a very high priority
Currently, the Finnish population doesn't want to join:
A clear majority of Finns are opposed to the NATO membership of the Defense League, according to the recent HS-Gallup. 59% of Finns oppose applying for NATO and 22% of Finns are in favor of applying. 19% of Finns have no opinion.
 
It must be slightly reassuring that Denmark, Norway and Sweden can add some depth.

Of course, Norway would certainly get the good news early on, Sweden would be given a good kicking; would this stop Russian occupation of Latvia in under an hour, probably not.
Like you say about Finland joining in if Estonia is attacked, from my experience with the Swedes, they'll join in with whatever Finland is doing. Much of their arctic training talks about the troops they had fighting against the Soviets in Finland. Over 8,000 of the 10,000 volunteers were accepted, as well as 135,000 rifles plus machine guns, artillery and even planes.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Ok, guys. Lets play game. You are a president of Finland. Today is August of 2019. After Hard Brexit the UK is going into full scale-trading war with EU (Finland is tge member of it, you know). In the attempt to sell her Russophobia, Theresa May start the third season of pseudo-reality TV-show "The Russian poisoners" with more victims, more hysteria and baseless accusations, but even less evidence than in the second one.
So, the UK, without demonstration of any evidence, blame Russia in the usage of a biological weapon, and outbreak of Kemerovo's fever in London.
Then, without any conversation with allies or cooperative investigation, the UK declare war to Russia. In the next hour, in the first exchange of nuclear strikes, Russia destroyed eight British military targets, including HMNB "Clyde" and sunk remaining Vanguard-class sous-marine. . Before being sunked, she launced few missiles and three warheads had hit St. Peterburg.
Then, Russians became really angry and more than four hundreds of warheads start to crush the UK in the first day of war. In the same time, their military forced, emergency department, police, medicine works hardly in the saving people in St. Petersburg. Two hundred thousands are already dead, at least three hundreds of thousands are wounded. Russia ask all countries, especially neighbours to accept and heal as much of her wounded and burnt persons as you can. Russia continue to bomb the UK mostly with the cheap gravity nuclear bombs, and, as your intelligence report then plan to decrease British population to less than one million, and then occupy Britain. Russians officially ask everybody dont even try to make problems to their bombers.

You, as president of Finland, have realky not much of choice:
1) To declare neutrality, accept Russian wounded and heal them (humanity choosed);
2) To declare war to Russia and try to attack Kalingrad, and distract Russians of futher nucking of Britain, but sacrifice your nation (fidelity choosed).

What will you choose?
 
Keep digging...........
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top