I feel that despite the overwhelming numerical superiority and large ethnic minorities in some of these countries, the Russian forces would face a tough defense. All of these countries know what life is like under Russian rule (under the Soviets) and want nothing to do with it. I feel nuclear weapons (at least at the beginning of the war) would be out of the question because this could risk pushing the Western powers to war because of fallout and then Russia would be in serious trouble. Unless the Russian/Belarussian forces can destroy the opposing armies quickly, they would come under strong international pressure to stop and would probably face strong guerilla resistance in any significant area of land they captured. The resisting Central/Eastern European (CEE) countries would also probably try to foment insurgent activity in Chechnya and quite possibly try to persuade Georgia to start some trouble in Abkahzia/South Ossetia (although I'm not sure how eager they would want to be after last year's bloodshed) which would open up several fronts.

 

1. In terms of naval engagement the CEE countries do not have much of a chance and would probably have to resort to minelaying the Baltic before their ships are destroyed.

 

2. Air combat will favor the Russians in most areas due to large numerical superiority, however Polish F-16's and Mig-29's may have the edge in some pockets due to better pilot training/equipment and may be able to establish local air superiority (at least until the numbers start working against them or Su-35 comes online). Ukraine has some Mig-29's but more importantly has air defense force elements which could take a toll on older Russian bombers and attack planes, as seen in the Georgian conflict.

 

3. Ground combat will be slightly less lopsided due to significant deterioration of Russian and Belarussian equipment and training since the collapse of the Soviet Union. CEE infantry would be outnumbered by about 2.5-3 to 1, at least until soldiers are drafted and trained which will probably lower the ratio to under 2 to 1. Counting against the current troop numbers for Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are conscription, while Poland,Lithuania and most of the other CEE countries have moved to professional armies with any remaining conscripts in reserve.

 

Russian forces also have a large advantage in tank numbers although a significant amount are outdated or not functional (pre T-90 and T-80). The Polish PT-91 is probably equal to and Polish Leopard 2 may have an edge over the T-90 while the Ukrainian T-84 Oplot is probably about equal to the T-90 and better than the T-80 which it is an upgrade from).

 

 I feel if the CEE forces can hold out for longer than a year, then they stand a good chance of developing enough nuclear weapons to enforce a ceasefire. I don't think the Russian supply lines will be able to handle the amount of military needed to overwhelm the defensive positions (and research areas developing nukes) especially when old equipment begins falling apart.

 

P.S: The link for the RIA article was:
link

Yeah, smitty, i think if the Russians were to make a collective decision to wipe Poland off the map, no one could stop them. It's sort of a Pakistan vs India scenario. if India really wanted to eliminate Pakistan, ther's nothing anyone could do to stop them, due to sheer numbers and industrial output.

 

The much maligned Russians are actually the cultural leaders of the Slavic world. Though the Slavs number around 300 to 400 million, the Slavs have never really made their presence felt in Europe because they are divided into various countries, squabbling amongst themselves, much like the Arabs. Poland and Russia are the only two to have reached empire status (Russia twice actualy). The Russian eastward expansion has made it akin to Jupiter among the planets. Poland's shortlived empire in 1648 pales in comparison. And then there's also Kievan Rus.... also principally a Russian/Ukrainian empire.

 

Because of the success of the Russians, their advanced culture, high quality of human resources and numbers, no Slavic union can ever take place, as it would be so thoroughly dominated by the Russians. As a result, the Slavs will remain "Balkanized" and forging various alliances amongst themselves to maintain their existence, a bit like a hypertrophic game of RISK.

 

I think a better bet is the Baltic states uniting.... i don't know too much about them.... But i think there would be a better chance of the Balts making a menaingful alliance than the various Slavic countries against the Russkis.

 

Goofgamblers- You make several good points about using Ukraine as a buffer state. In a similar way, Germany is using Poland as a buffer state and this decreases any urgency they feel with respect to letting Ukraine in, even at the expense of promoting development and security for the other countries in the region. I think you are off on Poland viewing Lithuania simply as a buffer state. It seems there is a current fad for some historians to suggest that Lithuania was suggested to domination by the Poles (to some extent this may have some truth) which is in response to previous historians assertions that the Poles and Liths had more of a union. Debates on many historical issues usually swing back and forth, but I think most Poles think of the Lithuanians as their brothers and would probably step up to their defense. I don't know much about Estonia and Latvia but I know they have larger Russian minorities and would probably have civil war on some scale in an attack.

 

Smitty237- You make a good point about casualties (which may even be bigger if the countries are able to support terrorist attacks in Chechnya). However, how controlled is the Russian media under Putin/Medvedev? Do they have enough leeway to report on large amounts of casualties?

 

Hugo- I think you are spot on about the lack of a  "uniform Slavic culture". Peoples such as the Polish, Czechs, Slovenians are more accurately described as Central rather than Eastern Europeans, despite Russian efforts.

 

I still have a few questions questions about any possible defense:

1. Would it be worth it to try and take Kalingrad or try any offensive into Belarus?

2. Where would defensive lines be (is this too primitive of a concept for modern warfare?) and how long could they hold before either Western aid arrives, Russian public opinion turns or nukes are developed?

3. What are the cyberwarfare and intelligence capacities of these countries in comparison to Russia and Belarus?

4. Is the balance of power in the region changing in the next 10-20 years?

when that kind of rubbish coming from countries is getting offered as a "truth" then all should be concerned.  its no wonder that the other baltics and central europeans want nothing to do with them and seek to be in an alternative community.

the sooner the russians get over their inferiority complex and start looking at their neighbours with respect, then the sooner that everyone else will relax.

GoG, I don't think there is such a thing as the "Slavic world" and thus there cannot be a cultural leader, Russian or otherwise.  The Slavic peoples do not share a lot in common culturally.  The Western Slavs, largely Catholic, have very little culturally, or historically, in common with the Russians.   Poles, Czechs, Slovenes etc have been heavily influenced by the West, the enlightenment and German-Austrian culture, Russia has been influenced by the East.  The Southern Slavs are yet another story.  Russia is a leader in the Orthodox world perhaps but Slavic unity has always been a fantasy.

Yes, it is too late for any unity, i agree. Let me draw upon your knowledge Hugo and ask you, why is it that the German nations in Europe all speak the same language ---despite Obama's efforts to the contrary hehe--- while the Slavs have dispersed and all speak different languages, with different scripts too. We know that at one time the Slavs spoke one language. I have very little knowledge of early history: are the Slavs an older people and thus their languages evolved more? Or is it geographical, the Germans being for the most part hemmed in  in Central Europe (with the exception of the Prussians of course) while the Slavs fanned out to the south and east, the cultural isolation leading to dialects forming and finally distinct languages?

thx

 

Nevertheless, I don't see how the "cooperation" will last long. Ukraine will be on Russian side after January election.  That's probably better for both me and them. I had enough of Russian leadership calling for "Western aggression." Poles and Lithuanian leadership need to understand that tail don't wag the head, and they aren't going to get any safer by dragging Ukraine to their side.

After all, they've lost Belarus and Ukraine to Russia in 17, 18 and 20th centuries.

wow, this is a tall order. I'm afraid these sorts of questions are well beyond my ken.

 

what i can say about battle lines would be that the Poles would be best to construct defenses along their eastern waterways. Many point to the fact that Poland has no natural defenses, but it has numerous waterways. If you consider the geography of Poland, you will note the large number of rivers running parallel to the Eastern border. I can envisage a defense whereby the Poles form units which are independent, having limited or no supply lines, sort of like the Russian "hedgehog" defence in WW2. They could be provisioned by air or thru stores that are kept in hidden depots in their area of operation. Each hedgehog would straddle a major waterway, engaging/disengaging independently. This sort of dual/duel warfare where there is no attack or retreat, simply independent hedgehogs engaging and disengaging independently is possible, i believe, due to the possibility of being in contact with realtime info with all other units. The enemy thus could never 'outflank" or "breakthrough" the Polish positions, as there would be no position. The Russians would be allowed to advance as they wished, but the hedgehogs would remain intact and continue to engage/disengage at will.

 

This would mean giving up on defending borders and population centers. I realize this is a major sacrifice. But it is a necessity if the army wishes to survive and fight on and let's face it, holding the border or protecting a given city would be a pipe dream. Defending borders and cities was in fact the major error of the 1939 Battle of Poland. It allowed the Germans to break through Polish lines and encircle them.

 

Another advantage of this kind of defense is that the Poles would be fighting across waterways. This would give them the impetus to perfect fighting in these sorts of conditions, fjording rivers, engaging and disengaging across waters, operating using SEAL like tactics. Once they adapted to fighting in this environment, it would give them a major advantage since the Russians would not have the same ability. 

 

The Poles would center their defense on the Narew, Wieprz and Wisla rivers. This style of fighting converges, in fact, with smitty's comments that this sort of warfare in that it would allow Poland to continue to fight while Polish civilians would die in large numbers and russian soldiers would also die in large numbers. The attrition of such a battle may convince the Russians that it is fruitless to go on as a result of their casualties and the fact that they had inflicted so many civilian casualties and moved into Poland would perhaps convince them that they had "taught the Poles a lesson" and would have both a reason (losses) and a justification (damage to Poland) to pull out.

 

Hope this helps.

the fact that the russians have started to rewrite WW2 history again should be concern for everyone.  You'd be aware that they recently started saying that it was the Poles who triggered the conflict with Russia in WW2 - aka the Russians were aggrieved innocents.

as for the russians, perhaps they need to look at Rapollo before they start preaching to others.  they're being cute by half when they do things like this.

Nasty German Idiot- In my comments I was commenting on how Germany is using Poland as a buffer state so that if Germany did ever go to war with Russia the fighting would not be on its soil and most of the casualties would be Polish. This is similar to what Godofgamblers was talking about with Poland using Ukraine as the front lines. This is the cost that Poland would bear in return for joining European political and military structures such as EU and NATO. Of course the benefits (investments in infrastructure and economic growth, increases in freedoms and quality of life and some measure of security) far outweighed those benefits and costs of going it alone or remaining on the former Soviet side in my opinion. In its own interest Poland should want Ukraine tied to these organizations as well. Ukraine on the other hand would have to bear the cost of being on the front but would be able to develop much more rapidly because of the resources NATO and EU countries would invest in it and because of the structural changes it would have to undergo to join these organizations. For Germany the benefit of Ukraine joining would be smaller than it was for Poland joining and the costs (Germany provides more funds than it receives in the EU) would be greater because of Ukraine's level of development. For France, the benefits would be even smaller, so I can see why those two countries would be against Ukrainian integration at least at the time.

 

gf0012-aust-I agree that Russia (or most specifically its political elite) have some sort of superiority/inferiority complex. They feel they are above joining Europe because they feel they are not "just another" European country, but at the same time they do not feel as powerful as the US or the other growing major players (India and China). This leads to them making such claims on WWII because they feel they are a sort of superpower but cannot enforce their claims on others without a great deal of subtlety and propaganda. If Ukraine were to join and prosper, perhaps it would be more of an incentive for Russia to join Europe and make more of a positive impact on global and regional issues. This would truly be an amazing development as a truly democratic and capitalistic Russia would improve the lives of tens of millions. However, I don't see that happening unless Russian power continues to weaken substantially in relation to the US, EU,China and India.

 

YelliChink- I think you may be right about the pro-Russian side winning in January especially because of the severe recession in Ukraine. However, if slow growth continues until the next elections, then the benefits of the pro-European side will seem very attractive again.