The Baltics: should Britain be rushing to their defence?

You'll find indignation in the Parliament of Latvia and her Ministries circa 2013/14 that Brussels did indeed censure Latvia for victimizing minorities (Russians).
I am aware, which led to my point...... Unlike the UK, Latvia doesn't have 100 nationalities to integrate. As JRM made allusion to in Grenfell, a myriad of cultures, don't always react the same way to authority, as your average brit born citizen.

What probably irritates me about the deployment is the nature of force.. What I mean, is Russia is only likely to invade, if Latvia behaves in a way that is perceived in Russia to be bad. So the trigger act is in the Latvian parliament, not the british and as such our forces become more like hostages to fate, rather than choosing the time and place.
 
What probably irritates me about the deployment is the nature of force.. What I mean, is Russia is only likely to invade, if Latvia behaves in a way that is perceived in Russia to be bad. So the trigger act is in the Latvian parliament, not the british and as such our forces become more like hostages to fate, rather than choosing the time and place.
Vlad is more likely to invade if he see’s an opportunity. Same as he did with Crimea, E Ukraine, S Ossetia, Transnistria etc. That’s the reason for the eFP, to make him think twice.

What Latvia's or any other states Parliament does should be neither here nor there in accordance with the Helsinki Accords that Russia is still signed up to.

All of NATO voted in favour of the eFP because of Vlad’s actions.
 
I am aware, which led to my point...... Unlike the UK, Latvia doesn't have 100 nationalities to integrate. As JRM made allusion to in Grenfell, a myriad of cultures, don't always react the same way to authority, as your average brit born citizen.

What probably irritates me about the deployment is the nature of force.. What I mean, is Russia is only likely to invade, if Latvia behaves in a way that is perceived in Russia to be bad. So the trigger act is in the Latvian parliament, not the british and as such our forces become more like hostages to fate, rather than choosing the time and place.
Why are you conflating British forces in Estonia with invasion of Latvia?

Vladaboy will rock up when it suits politically - his ace card up his sleeve if you like. It will have nothing to do with dubious Latvian Russian nationals claiming discrimination - they claim their pensions from Russia, why don't they just fxck off and live there? And nothing to do with the SAIMA either (Latvian Parliament)

Furthermore, if we assert that a lot of the construction, railway and port (logistics) business is run by Russian speakers, then replacing them with Latvian Latvian(LL) nationals would kill access to the Euro6Bn Railbaltica project - 85% funded by the EU btw and concomitant with that would be loss to the Latvian Russian(LR) led businesses waiting to take the back-handers from the sub-sub contractor work load and supply of sub-standard materials.

Ports - for so long in the hands of Latvian Russians would now be taken over by the LLs and they would also lose access to the logistics industry.

Latvia is investigating money laundering, however, to my knowledge no one has looked at the flow of currency back to the Motherland.

As to Latvia not being a melting pot of nationalities one of my colleagues speaks fluent Russian, and why shouldn't she? She was born in the USSR, however, she identifies as VERY orthodox Armenian, and has no love of Vladaboy.

Many other acquintances I have met also hail from the 'stans and do not idenitfy as Russian - and have no wish to return to the 'motherland' - they loathe it. However, of interest, is the number of nationals born in St. Petersburg - they also have no wish to be part of the motherland.

Now, where is your pretext for Latvia upsetting Vladaboy and why would the British Army be drawn into conflict based in Estonia? Why are Britmil a hostage to fortune.

And why do you delete your posts ;)


Might I suggest that when Emcon Ecomcon makes a post, the first Arrser to see it, re-posts it - even without comment if needs be - just for the record!

Thanks @Condottiere
 
I would actually add that it is quite possible that the fact that in the Baltic States, Russian speakers are better off, for the most part, than their counterparts in Russia itself is something that should bounce back against the trolls that are trying to foment the nationalist grievance issue.
 
I would actually add that it is quite possible that the fact that in the Baltic States, Russian speakers are better off, for the most part, than their counterparts in Russia itself is something that should bounce back against the trolls that are trying to foment the nationalist grievance issue.
Not unless it is sufficiently well publicised, and “shouted from the roof-tops”, to the extent that it successfully neutralises, negates, and embarrasses the trolls !!
 
Why are you conflating British forces in Estonia with invasion of Latvia?

Vladaboy will rock up when it suits politically - his ace card up his sleeve if you like. It will have nothing to do with dubious Latvian Russian nationals claiming discrimination - they claim their pensions from Russia, why don't they just fxck off and live there? And nothing to do with the SAIMA either (Latvian Parliament)

Furthermore, if we assert that a lot of the construction, railway and port (logistics) business is run by Russian speakers, then replacing them with Latvian Latvian(LL) nationals would kill access to the Euro6Bn Railbaltica project - 85% funded by the EU btw and concomitant with that would be loss to the Latvian Russian(LR) led businesses waiting to take the back-handers from the sub-sub contractor work load and supply of sub-standard materials.

Ports - for so long in the hands of Latvian Russians would now be taken over by the LLs and they would also lose access to the logistics industry.

Latvia is investigating money laundering, however, to my knowledge no one has looked at the flow of currency back to the Motherland.

As to Latvia not being a melting pot of nationalities one of my colleagues speaks fluent Russian, and why shouldn't she? She was born in the USSR, however, she identifies as VERY orthodox Armenian, and has no love of Vladaboy.

Many other acquintances I have met also hail from the 'stans and do not idenitfy as Russian - and have no wish to return to the 'motherland' - they loathe it. However, of interest, is the number of nationals born in St. Petersburg - they also have no wish to be part of the motherland.

Now, where is your pretext for Latvia upsetting Vladaboy and why would the British Army be drawn into conflict based in Estonia? Why are Britmil a hostage to fortune.

And why do you delete your posts ;)


Might I suggest that when Emcon Ecomcon makes a post, the first Arrser to see it, re-posts it - even without comment if needs be - just for the record!

Thanks @Condottiere
Why not conflate them ? Nato does..... I will say no more, as you made it personal.
 
Why not conflate them ? Nato does..... I will say no more, as you made it personal.
What have I made personal? NATO is an alliance that acts in mutual defence. However, any attack on Latvia will be on eFP - Czechs, Slovaks, Albanians (?) not to mention the native Latvians and one or two Canadians and American SF and USAF. UK forces are in Estonia.

On different tack, your posting style is completely different on the Brexit thread, why is that? @Sixty
 
Proxy server?
Or based here?
The “Russian Trade Delegation” has had a nice little coven operating out of a building on Highgate West Hill for ages.
 
NATO defence of the Baltic States

This thread has recently been preoccupied with the vulnerability of the three Baltic States, and of any NATO troops that are based there.

Such troops - positioned with their “backs-to-the-sea” - are vulnerable from attack from the east.

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

My attendance at “Staff College - Junior Division”, did NOT specifically cover this “Big Map” topic.

However, my syndicate did request that our Tutor invite to, us join “his” staff (when he was in a position to do so), as GOC “British Army of the Vistula”.

1575498104694.png



The thought did cross my mind, that - maybe - we have been a little too focused on the “trees”, and that it might help to stand back, and look at the “forest”.

We have spent a lot of time, merely, simply, looking at NATO’s response - to an attack from the east - with (only) the NATO allies' forces that are based in the three Baltic States, and in Poland . . . might it be worth considering a response from (only) a little further away.

Both Finland, and Ukraine, are members of the NATO “Partnership for Peace” initiative. That is, not NATO members, but open to the transfer of knowledge, training of troops, etc..

The map below does seem to suggest, that were any incursion to emanate from the east, a simultaneous “pincer” response from NATO forces based to the north in Finland, and from NATO forces based to the south in Ukraine, ought to be extremely effective in countering such an incursion.

central-eastern-europe-map.jpg
 
Last edited:
NATO defence of the Baltic States

This thread has recently been preoccupied with the vulnerability of the three Baltic States, and of any NATO troops that are based there.

Such troops - positioned with their “backs-to-the-sea” - are vulnerable from attack from the east.

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

My attendance at “Staff College - Junior Division”, did NOT specifically cover this “Big Map” topic.

However, my syndicate did request that our Tutor invite to, us join “his” staff (when he was in a position to do so), as GOC “British Army of the Vistula”.

View attachment 434997


The thought did cross my mind, that - maybe - we have been a little too focused on the “trees”, and that it might help to stand back, and look at the “forest”.

We have spent a lot of time, merely, simply, looking at NATO’s response - to an attack from the east - with (only) the NATO allies' forces that are based in the three Baltic States, and in Poland . . . might it be worth considering a response from (only) a little further away.

Both Finland, and Ukraine, are members of the NATO “Partnership for Peace” initiative. That is, not NATO members, but open to the transfer of knowledge, training of troops, etc..

The map below does seem to suggest, that were any incursion to emanate from the east, a simultaneous “pincer” response from NATO forces based to the north in Finland, and from NATO forces based to the south in Ukraine, ought to be extremely effective in countering such an incursion.

View attachment 434998
To what objective ? two pincers operating separately on hostile territory is simply not something a NATO force is capable of doing. We certainly don't have the LoC Strength to secure the rear of any penetration.

Your northern pincer would be operating, is the most hostile of terrain and almost certainly be a failure.
Your southern pincer would be operating against a now extremly hostile opponent, operating on interior lines and within its own territory and capable of a massive attack at the base of your pincer.

As I said earlier, the only option is to not fight at all. By ensuring the russian minority are not mistreated and the Baltic doesn't become a place where russia feels threatened.
 
What probably irritates me about the deployment is the nature of force.. What I mean, is Russia is only likely to invade, if Latvia behaves in a way that is perceived in Russia to be bad.
Someone else said something very similar in the 1st half of 1941 - would you care to guess how that turned out.
 
NATO defence of the Baltic States

This thread has recently been preoccupied with the vulnerability of the three Baltic States, and of any NATO troops that are based there.

Such troops - positioned with their “backs-to-the-sea” - are vulnerable from attack from the east.

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

My attendance at “Staff College - Junior Division”, did NOT specifically cover this “Big Map” topic.

However, my syndicate did request that our Tutor invite to, us join “his” staff (when he was in a position to do so), as GOC “British Army of the Vistula”.

View attachment 434997


The thought did cross my mind, that - maybe - we have been a little too focused on the “trees”, and that it might help to stand back, and look at the “forest”.

We have spent a lot of time, merely, simply, looking at NATO’s response - to an attack from the east - with (only) the NATO allies' forces that are based in the three Baltic States, and in Poland . . . might it be worth considering a response from (only) a little further away.

Both Finland, and Ukraine, are members of the NATO “Partnership for Peace” initiative. That is, not NATO members, but open to the transfer of knowledge, training of troops, etc..

The map below does seem to suggest, that were any incursion to emanate from the east, a simultaneous “pincer” response from NATO forces based to the north in Finland, and from NATO forces based to the south in Ukraine, ought to be extremely effective in countering such an incursion.

View attachment 434998
Unlike the supporters of Vlad and believing his agitprop, Finland and Sweden can both see the writing on the wall and have joined the JEF. 'Little by little' it can be seen that Vlad wants all of his Soviet Union back, if not more, irrespective of what the occupants of those countries want. Vlad will of course use any excuse to 'realign' the borders. Sadly, it will also be believed by some irrespective of which treaties Russia is still signed up to.

I personally can't see Finland sitting back if/when Estonia is invaded and the support by Sweden of Finland in the winter war is well known. Having exercised with the JEF, I believe they are a credible force.

ETA: As if by magic:
In a joint declaration, the alliance’s 29 leaders said: “Russia’s aggressive actions constitute a threat to Euro-Atlantic security; terrorism in all its forms and manifestations remains a persistent threat to us all.”
 
Last edited:
Someone else said something very similar in the 1st half of 1941 - would you care to guess how that turned out.
Logically:-
In 62 we deployed UK paras/marines to kuwait, which forestalled an iraqi invasion.
In 90, no similar deployments from either the GCC, US, or UK and the invasion happened.
History in theory teaches us, that we should have deployed troops. Alternatively, you could argue, the fact that Iraq did invade kuwait, would suggest deterrence itself solves nothing and only makes any sense, if its an open ended commitment for ever.

The crux of my argument is the nature of the alliance.. People in the cold war could see the danger and colloborate. In the case of modern russia, the threat is far less ideological and far more about money, power and ego and alliance decisions made to apply deterrence theory without the support of the host populations is liable to take us into another embarrassing volte farce.
 

Zhopa

War Hero
Meanwhile, back specifically on the thread title: those inconvenient Swedes have pointed out how little has actually been done despite all the cris de coeur over military mobility since 2014, meaning that even if we (or the Americans) actually want to rush to the defence of the Baltics, we can't actually do it.

 
Meanwhile, back specifically on the thread title: those inconvenient Swedes have pointed out how little has actually been done despite all the cris de coeur over military mobility since 2014, meaning that even if we (or the Americans) actually want to rush to the defence of the Baltics, we can't actually do it.

Hmm, pictures of trains...
 

Latest Threads

Top