yes. What Russia does currently is probing and testing - what it takes to disrupt all the necessary cables simultaneously to create communication breakdown and a lot of chaos, what resources and time it takes to repair (and thus planning the options on blocking those repair resources, etc.) It takes tanks half-a-day to cross the Baltic states to reach the sea. That is the time Russia wants to buy. Once Russian forces are already in Riga, Tallinn, Vilnus, the NATO will have a decision to make on whether to bomb the Russian forces already placed by that time among the Baltic states population.

replies(9): >>42180481 #>>42180683 #>>42180860 #>>42181022 #>>42181892 #>>42182824 #>>42184114 #>>42185835 #>>42188330 #

nkrisc ◴[19 Nov 24 10:23 UTC] No.42181892[source]▶

>>42180465 #

This would be more concerning if Russia had any tanks left.

Are you suggesting Russia has a full invasion force they’re not using in Ukraine? Or to liberate their own occupied territory?

replies(3): >>42182181 #>>42182294 #>>42182489 #

1. trhway ◴[19 Nov 24 11:28 UTC] No.42182294[source]▶

>>42181892 #

Baltic states have 30K military total combined - Russia loses 20-30K/month in Ukraine. So, with all the respect to the Baltic states military - with them being responsible for the defense of about 700km long strip of land, it isn't about full invasion force, it is about having NATO not responding long enough.

replies(3): >>42182628 #>>42185274 #>>42185649 #

2. nkrisc ◴[19 Nov 24 12:18 UTC] No.42182628[source]▶

>>42182294 (TP) #

And Russia can’t expel a Ukrainian force smaller than that from less area of their own territory.

replies(1): >>42182871 #

3. trhway ◴[19 Nov 24 12:51 UTC] No.42182871[source]▶

>>42182628 #

You're comparing frontal assault on battle hardened troops vs. potentially highly maneuvering invasion. It is somewhat like comparing Harkiv operation in the Fall 2022 vs. counteroffensive in the South in the Summer 2023.

In Kursk Russian forces can't maneuver much, they have to directly push on Ukrainians. The density of Russian and Ukrainian forces in this war - like ~500K each on the 1000km of the battle lines - is order of magnitude higher than that of the Baltic states militaries. Potential invasion in the low density situation of the Baltic states would make sense by cutting through un/low-defended areas with encircling/etc. of the more fortified areas without direct assault of them, at least initially.

4. cmrdporcupine ◴[19 Nov 24 16:30 UTC] No.42185274[source]▶

>>42182294 (TP) #

I can't imagine a scenario where the Baltics are invaded without Poland getting involved. And maybe even Germany, Sweden, Finland.

And that is not a fight I think Russia can win and they know that.

replies(1): >>42185682 #

5. dh2022 ◴[19 Nov 24 17:05 UTC] No.42185649[source]▶

>>42182294 (TP) #

If fighting starts in the Baltics (or Poland) Russia will face the greatest air force in the world fairly quickly. The conventional conflict will be over in a few months. Hopefully it will not escalate into nuclear conflict.

6. dh2022 ◴[19 Nov 24 17:07 UTC] No.42185682[source]▶

>>42185274 #

I would imagine at least US Air Force getting involved. And that would mean Russia will be pushed out of Baltics fairly quickly (assuming the conflict remains a conventional conflict and does not escalate into nuclear conflict).

replies(1): >>42185736 #

7. cmrdporcupine ◴[19 Nov 24 17:11 UTC] No.42185736{3}[source]▶

>>42185682 #

I think you're imagining a world without Trump in the presidency.

replies(1): >>42186375 #

8. dh2022 ◴[19 Nov 24 18:02 UTC] No.42186375{4}[source]▶

>>42185736 #

Trump was the one arming Ukraine, not Obama. Obama sent helmets, MREs, and blankets. Trump sent Javelins.

Trump also got out of the Intermediate Missile treaty - which was beneficial for Russia (and Western Europe) and a non-issue for Americans.

Trump is not the Putin-puppet Hillary made him to be.

replies(1): >>42187002 #

9. cmrdporcupine ◴[19 Nov 24 19:11 UTC] No.42187002{5}[source]▶

>>42186375 #

Nice try. Almost like the "perfect phone call" never happened. Except it did.

Apparently you haven't seen the map going around with Trump's proposed solution. Ukraine gives up all of what Russia is occupying right now, and doesn't keep Kursk. Ukraine can't join NATO for "20 years" (aka never). "European" troops are supposed to sit on a "DMZ" (which they will never agreed to).

Aka Ukraine surrenders, and Russia will just organize a hybrid-warfare coup to get a Lukashenko-style puppet gov't back in in Ukraine. Or come back in with troops in a few years.

Basically it's crappy bargaining, from a weak president. If you were Putin, and you saw that map... why stop now? You'd be laughing. No consequences.

Trump is a puppet not so much of Putin, but of the oil and gas sector. And Russia is an energy superpower. They both speak on behalf of the same global financial interests. They are very tired of this conflict and care little about Ukraine.

I cannot see Trump playing along with an Article 5 reaction to Russian aggression. And Putin is not stupid enough to use direct conventional warfare against a NATO state anyways. It's just more and more hybrid provocations, to wear down western solidarity, to topple gov'ts or undermine response, and all excused by useful idiots in the west.

replies(2): >>42187105 #>>42187231 #

10. dh2022 ◴[19 Nov 24 19:24 UTC] No.42187105{6}[source]▶

>>42187002 #

You are kind of all over the place...

The Trump - Zelensky call was about discrediting Biden not about appeasing Putin. OK, moving on...

Trump is not longer Putin's puppet but the puppet "of the oil and gas sector". OK, moving on...

This thread is about about Russian military invasion in the Baltics and you reply with "And Putin is not stupid enough to use conventional warfare against NATO".OK, moving on....

"topple govt's" - Putin cannot even topple Ukraine...

11. aguaviva ◴[19 Nov 24 19:35 UTC] No.42187231{6}[source]▶

>>42187002 #

Apparently you haven't seen the map going around with Trump's proposed solution.

Because apparently there isn't one. It seems some Republican "strategist" put out a map, but it has since been disavowed by the incoming administration.

  "Bryan Lanza was a contractor for the campaign," said the spokesperson, who declined to be named. "He does not work for President Trump and does not speak for him."

replies(1): >>42187657 #

12. cmrdporcupine ◴[19 Nov 24 20:19 UTC] No.42187657{7}[source]▶

>>42187231 #

I hope to hell you're right and this wasn't just a selective leak.

↑