Revealed: Russian Invasion Could Overrun NATO in 60 Hours

nationalinterest.org...

In a series of wargames conducted between summer2014 and spring 2015, the RAND Corporation examined
the shape and probable outcome of a near-term Russian invasion of the Baltic states. The games’ findings
are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannotsuccessfully defend the territory of its most exposed members.
Across multiple games using a wide range of expertparticipants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the
longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirtsof the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and
Riga, respectively, is 60 hours.

www.rand.org...


Rand Corporation is no slouch. They are the top think Tank in these kinds of projections.

Moreover, the RAND wargamers playing the “Blue” NATO side found that they had no good options:
“Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, all bad: a bloody counteroffensive, fraught with escalatory risk, to liberate the Baltics; to escalate itself, as it threatened to do to avert defeat during the Cold War; or to concede at least temporary defeat, with uncertain but predictably disastrous consequences for the Alliance and, not incidentally, the people of the Baltics.”

So the American people should know that their government and Army is not what its all cracked up to be...

The US has lost in Iraq, Libya, their barely holding on in Afghanistan…and has with the kelp of Turkey ruined Syria….There war acts acts of no insight…no foresight in foreign policy is mind boggling.

This should show us the military moves of the US have been stupid and self-defeating.

This demonstrates the utter bankruptcy of the neocon policies under Bush and Obama have failed miserably and that the attempt to bring back the cold war will result in a catastrophe.

a reply to: Willtell

No.... Russia can not defeat NATO.. period.

If they use nukes , then that's another story.

But Estonia and Latvia aren't a part of the US. And I did giggle when you said the US military isn't all that it's cracked up to be, you need a doctor.

Yeah . But the entire defensive strategy of Nato is to delay . The Russians will run out of ammo , fuel and supplies in less time than that . Been that way since the beginning.

Oh , wait , you had 60 hours..NO FREAKIN WAY

a reply to: Willtell

You're correct....we don't want a repeat of the Cold War. This time around it would be Russia and China and I don't think the US is equipped to handle them both.

I think we've screwed up enough for too long to try and keep on being the police force for the world, why don't we take our troops back home and keep our chill? It's been said so many times, but if we were to successfully disassemble the MIC and funnel those funds into space tech, we'd be much better off as a nation and as a species. Heck, I'll even appear to pull a 180 and say if we truly did want to maintain military superiority, space is the way to go anyways. Leave the scraps on Terra to people with no vision, let them worry over what has no stable future any which way. We can develop technologies, and mine resources that will give us more power than the rest of the countries combined, now and securing the centuries to come, if only we divest those funds soon and start making serious leaps towards things like colonization, terraforming, and asteroid mining.

Meh, I don't much expect it to happen tomorrow, but a lot of these old bastards need to die out already and take their MIC monstrosity with them.

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: Willtell

No.... Russia can not defeat NATO.. period.
If they use nukes , then that's another story.
[/quote


Beware what you wish for: Russia is ready for war

It’s referring to NATO’s weak links that Russia could easily beat


NATO’s got a bad record.

edit on 23-5-2016 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2016 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

"Old men start wars for young men to die in"

Glad i left the army for they could send me off to some bs war and get my limbs blown off.

All soldiers are getting played. Too bad they can't see it

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: Willtell

No.... Russia can not defeat NATO.. period.

If they use nukes , then that's another story.

I guarantee they will if we attack them first. Obama and Putin hate each other, thats why Putin makes snide remarks about gays. We need a president that Putin respects and likes. One that will work out the current problems and come to an agreement with him. We need someone who will get us back out of this cold war and back to being friends with Russia. We need to stay off their border and quit threatening them. I sure wouldnt like it if they were on ours

Where does this article say anything about the capabilities of the US military? It says that with current deployments NATO would be unable to stop an invasion of the Baltics. That's true. NATO doesn't have enough troops in those countries to stop Russia if they decided to go on a full scale offensive. That's why NATO has established their rapid response force. It allows them to slow down an aggressive Russia. Giving member nations time to deploy a more substantial force to the area.

The article is about logistics. Not the actual capabilities of NATO's troops. NATO has better equipment and their troops have drastically more training. In a straight up fight (assuming nukes aren't used) NATO cost crush Russia.

a reply to: Annunak1

Some are in it to change the world in a positive way though.

a reply to: visitedbythem

The current issues with Russia stem from the fact that Putin is running a corrupt, sinking, ship. He needs a scapegoat so his people won't turn on him. Isn't it funny that Russia's relations with the West were fine until Putin got land grabby and their economy tanked?

bernie could do it in 59

a reply to: rigel4

Rand Corporation is no slouch. They are the top think Tank in these kinds of projections.

Actually the Rand corp is part of the USAF and it's in their benefit to try and stir up crap between Russia and NATO

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Annunak1

Some are in it to change the world in a positive way though.

Like the soldiers turning a blind eye while their allies rape young boys.
Or the peacekeepers in Africa who stand with their penises in their hands while tribes slaughter each others villages.

Soldiers ain't changing crap. They are living a dream and when they wake up it's too late

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Willtell

You're correct....we don't want a repeat of the Cold War. This time around it would be Russia and China and I don't think the US is equipped to handle them both.

and i very much doubt the US would be left to handle them alone,its never going to get to that stage cause russia and china know they,ll never win the war,if they did then no one wins cause no one will be left to declare victory.

Yup it's the United states fault that the european countries piggyback on america's military.
Thanks europeans for being lazy. Imagine cutting the budget in half and getting 300 billion to flow into cities, healthcare, and the taxpayers pockets.

Also occupying is expensive and purging is politically unfeasible. What is russia going to do with hostile occupied land? where are russia's revenues going to come from?

NATO has likely went over the plan and considered the baltics to costly to adequately defend. I would guess the counter offensive staging area to be in poland.

There is no war between russia and the US or any china. The next war is the declining west vs Islam. Can the west remember who it is or will the west willingly give up all the progress their ancestors made.

No. No, they could not.

NATO's strategy would be to let them come, then deep raids against their supply lines by aircraft and special forces. Within days they'd have no bullets, no beans, and no way to get them.

Then they'd be rolled back.

Or...

They, they being NATO, would see the build-up long before the jump off date, and there would be a little red phone ringing in the Kremlin...and the voice on the other end would say something to the effect of "Bad idea, Vlad. We see you. Back off."

If that's ignored? Engineering units/Pioneering units would be targeted for preemptive strikes by stealth aircraft, and/or drones. You can't cross rivers without bridges, nor can you build 'em when your engineers are dead.

Sorry, this ain't happening.

Article says Russian could overrun the Baltic states in 60 hours. Not all of Nato.

And that seems fair enough, it would probably take much less than 60 hours to overrun Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They have no major natural features to act as blocking points, they're pretty small countries, and Nato wouldn't try and stop a Russian invasion that close to the front.

The stopping point would be where it has always been modeled to be, somewhere in central Germany where superior NATO airpower has taken control of the skies and can wreak havoc on Russian supply lines.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: visitedbythem

The current issues with Russia stem from the fact that Putin is running a corrupt, sinking, ship. He needs a scapegoat so his people won't turn on him. Isn't it funny that Russia's relations with the West were fine until Putin got land grabby and their economy tanked?

Have you ever thought about why his ship is sinking? Its about money. There is another war going on. The sauds are bringing it to him. Its about oil. As for the port.... They need that.
As for corruyption....... LMAO do you really want to discuss that? Maybe we should get the log out of our own eye before trying to get the sliver out of Russias eye