7 ms·

> possibly going so far as to annex a Baltic country or two. Today this would be inconceivable Russian doctrine is that the satellite countries are buffers to

> possibly going so far as to annex a Baltic country or two. Today this would be inconceivable Russian doctrine is that the satellite countries are buffers to be used as needed, like Kleenex. It's 100% certain Russia will annex Baltic countries whenever it pleases. To say otherwise just makes you "a useful idiot", as Lenin is credited with saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

barrkel 7y ago
If Russia annexes any Baltic states it's liable to trigger nuclear war. All the Baltic states are NATO members.
- macintux 7y ago
  That was probably true 4 years ago. It's not at all obviously true today.
- smallstepforman 7y ago
  Russia could have annexed the Baltic states when they secceded in 91, but chose not to. From their perspective, they had enough of empire and grew tired of propping the periphery. There was no need for these states to join Nato, and they could have remained as independant partners benefitting from trade with 2 blocks. The fact they chose to move away from Russia has more to do with corruption than logic.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    Russia's war with Georgia and annexation of Crimea rather vindicates the Baltic states' decision to join NATO. Russia has made it manifestly clear that it wants the right to interfere in any country's politics that hosts a sizable Russian minority, and that it is willing to bring in the tanks should the host country refuse.
    - anticodon 7y ago
      Russia-Georgia conflict started by Georgian invasion. It's a fact acknowledged even by EU. I guess that just "forgot" to publish it in the media and continue to confuse people saying that Russia started it. It was a conflict initiated by Georgia but actually they were asked by US to start it.
- adventured 7y ago
  It won't likely trigger a nuclear war. It would trigger a conventional war that would see NATO forces directly confront the Russian military and attempt to push it back out of the Baltics (and try to inflict severe damage if Russia refuses). Neither side with nukes would be fighting for survival and would not jump to nuclear threats or exchange until or unless their own existing territory was at risk of annexation / loss. Russia would shift to a nuclear warning posture if pushed back to their borders. If NATO pursued and threatened territory taking, Russia would threaten nuclear response at that point, especially if it was in a particularly weakened condition or believed it couldn't hold its ground. On the NATO side, there's practically no threat of the US, France or the UK losing territory to Russia in a Baltic-focused conflict (or in Eastern Europe for that matter). To draw a nuclear threat from NATO would similarly require the nuclear powers to be under threat of losing their own territory (and they'd probably have to believe they can't hold their ground). The UK isn't killing ten plus million of its people in a nuclear exchange with Russia for the sake of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania's territorial integrity as nation-states. I think the only way that gets nuclear is if Russia plays the crazy card and proclaims that it now regards the annexed Baltic territory as its own and puts up the nuclear warning then and there (move in, take territory, immediately raise the crazy nuclear flag, test the resolve & risk aversion of the other side to respond militarily once the nuclear flag is out of the box). Then NATO has to decide if it believes Russia will actually act crazy.
- bloodm 7y ago
  Doubt it. It would trigger a cold war II but not a nuclear war. The baltic states can not be defended militarily. If Ukraine were in the EU, would be a different thing.
  - La1n 7y ago
    Ukraine is not a Baltic state, the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) are all in the EU and NATO members. No way the EU would let that slide.
    - bloodm 7y ago
      I never said Ukraine is a Baltic state. Take out a map. Think about why the Baltic states can hardly be defended militarily. Think about what would be different if Ukraine were in the Nato (and a decent amount of Nato troops on the UA/RU border). "No way the EU would let that slide." They EU has no ability in military things if the UK is out. The Nato would not let it slide but they also would not fight back to win it back. It would be cold war II.
      - hkt 7y ago
        Sorry to be a pedant, but the UK's military capability is at an all time low. We have made awful purchasing decisions across the army, navy and air force, as well as failing to recruit enough people. There isn't a part of the UK military which isn't in crisis. We are not the force your post suggests we are.
        dTal 7y ago
        Awful purchasing decisions from the US, uniformly. The deeper into this rabbit hole one goes, the stronger the smell of rats. One truly wonders who was persuaded to give away the entire fleet of carrier-borne aircraft to the US Marines - and how...
        hkt 7y ago
        I read it as political stupidity rather than malice. Maybe not though. The requirement to have VTOL craft for our new carriers was an unforced error though, that necessitated the much more expensive model of the F35 that even the US doesn't generally use. We could've just opted for a better carrier design, or retrofitted.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  Er no, Ukraine was supposedly protected by the Budapest Declaration. One of the signatories was the invader, the rest found obtuse reasons why they didn't have to defend Ukraine. The next annexation will be the same.
viraptor 7y ago
I wish people wouldn't invoke useful idiot that often. It degrades the message to "everyone with a different point of view is an idiot, who doesn't realise they're being used". That's not a great message on a discussion board and rarely will lead to something constructive. And if you really hold that opinion and can put some irrefutable reasoning behind it... why not do that instead?

barrkel 7y ago

If Russia annexes any Baltic states it's liable to trigger nuclear war. All the Baltic states are NATO members.

macintux 7y ago
That was probably true 4 years ago. It's not at all obviously true today.
smallstepforman 7y ago
Russia could have annexed the Baltic states when they secceded in 91, but chose not to. From their perspective, they had enough of empire and grew tired of propping the periphery. There was no need for these states to join Nato, and they could have remained as independant partners benefitting from trade with 2 blocks. The fact they chose to move away from Russia has more to do with corruption than logic.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  Russia's war with Georgia and annexation of Crimea rather vindicates the Baltic states' decision to join NATO. Russia has made it manifestly clear that it wants the right to interfere in any country's politics that hosts a sizable Russian minority, and that it is willing to bring in the tanks should the host country refuse.
  - anticodon 7y ago
    Russia-Georgia conflict started by Georgian invasion. It's a fact acknowledged even by EU. I guess that just "forgot" to publish it in the media and continue to confuse people saying that Russia started it. It was a conflict initiated by Georgia but actually they were asked by US to start it.
adventured 7y ago
It won't likely trigger a nuclear war. It would trigger a conventional war that would see NATO forces directly confront the Russian military and attempt to push it back out of the Baltics (and try to inflict severe damage if Russia refuses). Neither side with nukes would be fighting for survival and would not jump to nuclear threats or exchange until or unless their own existing territory was at risk of annexation / loss. Russia would shift to a nuclear warning posture if pushed back to their borders. If NATO pursued and threatened territory taking, Russia would threaten nuclear response at that point, especially if it was in a particularly weakened condition or believed it couldn't hold its ground. On the NATO side, there's practically no threat of the US, France or the UK losing territory to Russia in a Baltic-focused conflict (or in Eastern Europe for that matter). To draw a nuclear threat from NATO would similarly require the nuclear powers to be under threat of losing their own territory (and they'd probably have to believe they can't hold their ground). The UK isn't killing ten plus million of its people in a nuclear exchange with Russia for the sake of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania's territorial integrity as nation-states. I think the only way that gets nuclear is if Russia plays the crazy card and proclaims that it now regards the annexed Baltic territory as its own and puts up the nuclear warning then and there (move in, take territory, immediately raise the crazy nuclear flag, test the resolve & risk aversion of the other side to respond militarily once the nuclear flag is out of the box). Then NATO has to decide if it believes Russia will actually act crazy.
bloodm 7y ago
Doubt it. It would trigger a cold war II but not a nuclear war. The baltic states can not be defended militarily. If Ukraine were in the EU, would be a different thing.
- La1n 7y ago
  Ukraine is not a Baltic state, the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) are all in the EU and NATO members. No way the EU would let that slide.
  - bloodm 7y ago
    I never said Ukraine is a Baltic state. Take out a map. Think about why the Baltic states can hardly be defended militarily. Think about what would be different if Ukraine were in the Nato (and a decent amount of Nato troops on the UA/RU border). "No way the EU would let that slide." They EU has no ability in military things if the UK is out. The Nato would not let it slide but they also would not fight back to win it back. It would be cold war II.
    - hkt 7y ago
      Sorry to be a pedant, but the UK's military capability is at an all time low. We have made awful purchasing decisions across the army, navy and air force, as well as failing to recruit enough people. There isn't a part of the UK military which isn't in crisis. We are not the force your post suggests we are.
      - dTal 7y ago
        Awful purchasing decisions from the US, uniformly. The deeper into this rabbit hole one goes, the stronger the smell of rats. One truly wonders who was persuaded to give away the entire fleet of carrier-borne aircraft to the US Marines - and how...
        hkt 7y ago
        I read it as political stupidity rather than malice. Maybe not though. The requirement to have VTOL craft for our new carriers was an unforced error though, that necessitated the much more expensive model of the F35 that even the US doesn't generally use. We could've just opted for a better carrier design, or retrofitted.
pinkfoot 7y ago
Er no, Ukraine was supposedly protected by the Budapest Declaration. One of the signatories was the invader, the rest found obtuse reasons why they didn't have to defend Ukraine. The next annexation will be the same.

viraptor 7y ago

I wish people wouldn't invoke useful idiot that often. It degrades the message to "everyone with a different point of view is an idiot, who doesn't realise they're being used". That's not a great message on a discussion board and rarely will lead to something constructive. And if you really hold that opinion and can put some irrefutable reasoning behind it... why not do that instead?