Will Russia try to get Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? ("The Financial Times", UK)

Will Russia try to get Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? ("The Financial Times", UK)After Russia annexed the Crimea and destabilized the situation in the east of Ukraine, military confrontation between Moscow and the West over the Baltic countries became quite possible. Under what circumstances can it begin? How could such a conflict develop, and what could happen after the end of such a war?


Such a large-scale war in Europe - even without a nuclear component - would have shook the whole world, threatening to turn the whole world order that had taken shape after the Cold War. If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) could not defend the Baltic countries or lose to Russia, this would destabilize Asia and the Middle East, as doubts about the reliability of the United States as an ally would increase. And this would lead to even greater destabilization of the geopolitical climate, as it was in the 1930-s.

It is highly doubtful that Russia is seeking a conflict with the West, therefore any action against the Baltic countries would be the result of a miscalculation on its part. The conflict in Ukraine has shown that Russia increasingly perceives the poor position (true or imaginary) of ethnic Russians abroad as a possible reason for the invasion of neighboring states. Ethnic Russians make up a quarter of the Baltic population. Many thousands of ethnic Russians were denied citizenship. Therefore, in the Baltic countries there are serious concerns about possible military intervention by Russia.

How can a conflict start?

Fierce clashes between local nationalists and ethnic Russians, the adoption of laws that lower the status of ethnic Russians, a skirmish between border guards, or a confrontation between Russian and NATO, could be possible reasons that could provoke Russian intervention. aviation in midair over the Baltic Sea.

It is not known whether the possible actions of Russia against the Baltic countries will be taken against all three states or only one or two. In general, Russian intervention in the Baltic countries can be carried out in two main ways:

1) Hidden attempts to destabilize: The Kremlin is accused of provoking unrest between pro-Russian separatists and non-Russian people in eastern Ukraine, sending professional soldiers and special services to command pro-Russian forces, supplying separatists weapons and organizing their training. There are suggestions that several thousand servicemen were sent to the conflict zone to accomplish these goals.

It is quite admissible that Russia could try to repeat such actions in the Baltic countries and after several months of military clashes to demand settlement of the conflict with the help of a settlement agreement, which would give ethnic Russians more authority in resolving issues of domestic and foreign policy of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Or she could place a small "peacekeeping" contingent to restore order.

However, I believe that any attempt by the Kremlin to intensify ethnic Russians in the Baltic countries would be more difficult than in eastern Ukraine, since the standard of living, the responsibility of the authorities and the organization of governance in the Baltic countries are much higher. The seizure of Crimea by Russia did not become a pretext for the mobilization of the Russian-speaking population of the Baltic countries towards rapprochement with Russia.

2) Rapid occupation: As an option, Russia could seize the Baltic states in a rapid operation, possible given the small number of armed forces in these countries. However, a “sudden” seizure is unlikely, since Russia would have to by all means look for an excuse for its actions. A less rigid variant of this scenario would be the transfer of Russian troops on the territory of Estonia and Latvia, located closer to the Russian border, where a large part of ethnic Russians live. Or capture the most important infrastructure - ports, airports and railways.

How would the West react?

Russia's actions against the Baltic countries would be the most serious foreign policy crisis in the last few decades for the United States and Europe, since they are obliged to protect NATO countries.

Here is what the Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 says: “Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack on one or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered as an attack on them as a whole and, therefore, agree that if such an armed attack takes place, each of them, in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense, recognized by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, will be assisted by the Treaty vayuscheysya Party affected or the Contracting Parties, have been subjected to similar attacks by the immediate implementation of such individual or joint action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. "

True, it is likely that not everyone will immediately perceive the hidden actions of Russia in destabilizing the situation as an “armed attack”. In addition, the concept of “action that deems necessary” does not guarantee a response with the use of armed forces. Thus, it is possible that the strategic leadership of NATO would start by resorting to sanctions and diplomatic steps. And, nevertheless, given that the majority of NATO members understand Article 5 as a full-fledged security guarantee, any failure of the alliance from its obligations and the actions expected from them would significantly undermine its credibility.

From the standpoint of NATO, it would be more expedient to deploy troops in the Baltic countries at the very first signs of inter-ethnic destabilization and prevent Russia from escalating any unrest or sending its own troops.

Although Russia's offensive on the Baltic countries would be a clear act of aggression, I could assume that military actions in many Western countries would cause considerable resistance because of the danger of the use of nuclear weapons by the parties or, at least, because of the occurrence of a full-scale non-nuclear war. Thus, NATO might have had to convene a “Goodwill Coalition” (international coalition troops - approx. Transl.), In which the United States should have been present, despite the exhaustion of their troops in the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

How would this war go?

I think that the leading members of NATO would eventually enter the war in order to halt Russia's military actions in the Baltic countries. However, the main question is whether Russia and NATO would be able to limit themselves to actions on the territory of the Baltic countries. Perhaps Russia would have attacked Poland or captured the island of Gotland belonging to Sweden in the Baltic Sea, while NATO might have attacked targets in Russia.

The most dangerous would be the use of nuclear weapons. Of course, it is unknown what would be the reason for this, but in any case, operations would be carried out with the use of tactical nuclear weapons (that is, battlefield weapons) rather than strategic ones (which are intended to defeat cities). And even if “only” tactical nuclear weapons were used, this would cause a general panic in the northern hemisphere amid growing concern over a possible escalation and the threat of an exchange of strategic nuclear strikes.

An armed conflict between Russia and the West would be a shock to the world economy as a result of the disruption of the order that developed after the Cold War. The mutual imposition of sanctions, as well as the cessation of air and sea transport in Northern Europe, would have caused tremendous damage to international trade. There would be a sharp jump in oil prices given the fears that the supply of hydrocarbons from Russia would be canceled or disrupted.

The European economy would have suffered significant damage due to the disruption of gas supplies from Russia, especially if it happened in the winter. And Moscow’s actions to reduce energy supplies to Europe would lead to a significant reduction in the volume of revenues to the Russian budget.

What would happen after the war?

In case of victory Russia

Russia's victory over the most powerful military alliance in the world would have prompted some Eastern European countries that are part of the European Union to try to reach an agreement with Moscow. At the same time, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would most likely agree on the hegemony of Russia in Eurasia. The winning Kremlin could then put pressure on the US and the EU to formally divide Europe into two competing spheres of influence.

Europe would have to tune in to a long-lasting cold war, although it would not be global in scale, since the value of the European economy has declined significantly since the 1980s. In addition, the new confrontation would not have an ideological component.

In Russia, the president would have been filled with success after the restoration of control over the Baltic republics, the country would have been swept by a new wave of patriotism, but the economy would have been destroyed as a result of large-scale sanctions. Against the background of growing economic problems, the president could take a course on official authoritarianism.

In other parts of the world, the unreliability of collective security treaties would have pushed Japan and South Korea to build up military power to confront China and North Korea, most likely by building their own nuclear arsenals. Similar trends would be developed in the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia and a number of its neighbors fear Iran’s nuclear program.

If NATO wins

The Alliance would demonstrate its unshakable superiority in Europe, despite the reduction in defense spending over the years. The United States would decisively make it clear that they would support their allies, even if it would have to come into conflict with the world nuclear power.

The defeat of Russia would greatly discredit the country's leadership, which would be accused of irresponsibility and incompetence. In all likelihood, the president would have shared the fate of the Argentine military dictator Leopoldo Galtieri (Leopoldo Galtieri), who was removed from his post in 1982 year - a few days after the country was defeated in the Falklands war with Britain.

After that, in 1983, the military regime fell, and as a result of new elections, democracy was restored in the country. The loser Russia would still remain too powerful a power to submit to the West, but its new leaders could try to choose a less confrontational path in the hope that a possible normalization of relations with the United States and the European Union would be a guarantee of Russia's economic revival.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avvg 27 March 2015 14: 40 New
    • 16
    • 0
    +16
    The Englishman had not yet taken into account such an option that they themselves, the Baltic republics, would be asking for a part of Russia.
    1. bort4145 27 March 2015 14: 42 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Will Russia try to get Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

      And what, the States decided to sell them already? laughing

      No, we’d better get confused in the USA and take Alaska back.
      1. Cheshire 27 March 2015 14: 58 New
        • 16
        • 0
        +16
        Not to sell, but to pay for getting back. Such good is not in special demand. wink
        1. DVxa 27 March 2015 16: 20 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          In Russia, the president would revel in success after regaining control of the Baltic republics.


          He just sits and thinks how we can live without the Baltic republics ...
          Drop it, don't be greedy .. wassat
          1. avg
            avg 27 March 2015 18: 16 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            How diligently the Anglo-Saxons circumvent the possibility of a nuclear strike on their islands and mattresses. The guttural fools from the Baltic states, but the Poles gathered to fight. No shit guys, this time, raking in full. It will not be possible to sit behind the oceans. yes
            1. Throw 27 March 2015 20: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In case of victory of Russia ..
              ..
              Europe would have to tune in to a long new cold war

              Yes, on the ruins there will be tweezers how cold. Is there anyone left to tune in there? laughing
            2. kingnothing 27 March 2015 20: 41 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              With both hands for a nuclear fungus in the territory of the Buckingham Palace. Arrogant Saxons must pay for their mischief around the world, and the queen is first and foremost!
        2. yushch 27 March 2015 17: 16 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          In any scenario, chocolate only has mattresses. I think that Europe has finally realized this and rests its hands and feet on following the instructions of Smoked Brother.
          P.S. Funny, the tablet corrector instead of the word "smoked" stubbornly offers the word "finished". =))
      2. Virek 27 March 2015 15: 11 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Well, PPC ... well, what kind of cowards are they ... seriously talking about this ... adult men ... s ...
        1. jktu66 27 March 2015 15: 55 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Well, PPC ... well, what kind of cowards are they ... seriously talking about this ... adult men ... s ...
          Apparently, if you watch "star wars" every day from birth to 40 years old, this will come to mind before the madhouse laughing
        2. alecsis69 31 March 2015 11: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          They do not believe that Russia can defeat NATO in a direct clash, therefore they dream of a small victorious war in the Baltic states, after which Russia can be written off. The option with the victory of Russia was considered in order to give the appearance of an objective analysis, and the rest of the article is aimed at preparing public opinion for the “correct” perception of the conflict in the Baltic States that they plan to provoke.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Alexey Boukin 27 March 2015 15: 20 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        The Anglo-Saxons have all been "torn apart", but they have not taken into account one opinion of Russia on this issue. I will answer with a quote from the famous cartoon: "We don’t need this good and for nothing."
        1. Very smart 27 March 2015 16: 12 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: alexey bukin
          The Anglo-Saxons have all "torn out"

          You are right, colleague. "It was smooth on paper ..." In general, the FT newspaper is a corrupt yellowish pipifax. And the publication of articles from this newspaper, and not the first time, shows oddities in the perception of the site administration. If there is still some reason for economic issues and stock quotes, then political comments do not shine with originality, nor with the breadth of the problem, nor with the level of experts and journalists involved.
          In fact: the introduction of Russian troops into the Baltic states will cause diarrhea throughout Europe. Moreover, both verbal and real. And if the United States in this case, perhaps, will want to fight to the last European, then Europe is unlikely. According to the Russian proverb "P ... to speak - do not toss bags" everything will happen. And, in my opinion, no other scenarios are visible. Otherwise, Armata (see article above) at a speed of 75 km / h will reach Lisbon in a maximum of a week. And the Pskov Airborne Division will land in London much earlier. And the Americans from Germany will have a couple of days in order to shed. And this is not hatred. NO ONE WILL BE WAR! All Western doctrine is built on a preemptive nuclear or conventional, but massive, strike with the probability of destroying the enemy to the point of impossibility of a retaliatory strike. And only so! If it were possible to hit the Russian Federation in this way, the war would have begun long ago. But since the answer is tormenting, you can talk about it (see the proverb above)!
          1. Shadowcat 27 March 2015 16: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: very smart
            shows oddities in the perception of the site administration.


            Heading "Opinions": Here are laid out completely different opinions, articles of visitors to the site, as well as articles from other sites for discussion. The site administration regarding this news may have an opinion that is different from the opinion of the authors of the materials.


            By the way, that is why we differ from any other country - we have freedom of speech)
            1. Very smart 27 March 2015 21: 47 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: ShadowCat
              we have freedom of speech)

              Colleague, you did not carefully read my comment. I am not against freedom of speech, I am against the low level of cited materials. FT is not the light of global political analytics. And in the article it would be interesting to read someone else's opinion. In this case, completion would appear in the material.
          2. deadstar 27 March 2015 23: 52 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The most interesting question, and then what? Build camps in Siberia for the export of natives? Get countries that hate you? What, Ukraine is not enough? What for???
        2. ziqzaq 27 March 2015 17: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: alexey bukin
          The Anglo-Saxons have all been "torn apart", but they have not taken into account one opinion of Russia on this issue. I will answer with a quote from the famous cartoon: "We don’t need this good and for nothing."

          Or from another cartoon:
          "We heard about wow sister ...."
          "What have you heard?"
          "What is needed, they heard ....."
          PS
          The article is provocative ...
      5. _Alexei_ 27 March 2015 15: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        the author probably did not think that if Russia wins, there will be some agreement
      6. Kostyar 27 March 2015 17: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Bullshit of a sick drug addict !!!
    2. SS68SS 27 March 2015 14: 49 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: avvg
      The Englishman had not yet taken into account such an option that they themselves, the Baltic republics, would be asking for a part of Russia.


      Here they sit and in sweet dreams see the war .... Ghouls.
      And they say that they do not want war ... Liars and hypocrites.
      Do not want to "lyuley", yourself pacify your dogs in Ukraine and the Baltic states, so as not to oppress the Russian ... Cowards and licking.
    3. Sasha 19871987 27 March 2015 14: 55 New
      • 16
      • 0
      +16
      why do we need 3 more subsidized regions ??? I don’t see any reason to take a crowd of spinogryzs under our wing ... let them crow even further ... their work is such, be small, but shitty laughing
    4. Private IITR 27 March 2015 15: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      They definitely smoke something heavy there, probably mercury.
    5. Vend 27 March 2015 15: 27 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: avvg
      The Englishman had not yet taken into account such an option that they themselves, the Baltic republics, would be asking for a part of Russia.

      They will ask. And why Russia these rogues. The EU has ruined the entire Baltic industry; they live only on the basis of alms from the IMF. So that they again restore the entire industry, and they like that again Russophobia began. Do better russophobia and beggar better, maybe more brains.
    6. Imperialkolorad 27 March 2015 15: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: avvg
      The Englishman had not yet taken into account such an option that they themselves, the Baltic republics, would be asking for a part of Russia.

      This option also does not roll. Feed them again so that later you will again hear the screech of occupation and then on the list.
    7. Finches 27 March 2015 15: 38 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      I would have these Baltic stinks even if Obama would have begged on his knees and offered to take money into Russia, I would not have taken it!
      From them, historically, except for nasty things, there was nothing for Russia, let them graze in their Europe!
      And the Anglo-Saxons are still being encouraged, what is this dirty nation ???
      1. Tigr 27 March 2015 15: 57 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        The Englishwoman is always crap.
      2. wasjasibirjac 27 March 2015 17: 27 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Finches
        I would have these Baltic stinks even if Obama would have begged on his knees and offered to take money into Russia, I would not have taken it!
        From them, historically, except for nasty things, there was nothing for Russia, let them graze in their Europe!
        And the Anglo-Saxons are still being encouraged, what is this dirty nation ???

        take land and evict the population in the EU? and by the way - what kind of people are in the photo for the article? I suppose this is a surviving "forest brother" who went out to people and discovered that there was no Soviet Union. there he has such a happy face and how gently he holds a machine gun - prairically MG war
    8. Performance 27 March 2015 16: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Against the background of dreamy cries of the Baltic states - "Akhtung! Rape" !!! This English analysis is reminiscent of a Soviet joke - "... then attract me also for rape, because there is an apparatus!"
    9. SAXA.SHURA 27 March 2015 16: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, you balts are damn, well, we need you in Russia, and boil in your own juice and don’t stop us from enjoying life. You will find yourself, like a 90 year old woman at the crossroads, “Rape, rape,” remember
      1. Luga 27 March 2015 18: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: SAXA.SHURA
        Well, you balts are damn, well, for hell we need you in Russia


        I agree.

        I hope that they read me now, in these under-states, and so, guys, read and remember - we do not need you at all. No need now, no need again, never.

        But remember also that in this very Baltic, besides you, the "Baltic", there are still a lot of Russian graves that have remained there since the 13th century, not to mention later times, there are roads, cities, factories built by the Russians and destroyed by you, but still they are ours.

        So pray to everything that is sacred to you - at least for the dollar, at least for the State Department, at least for Obama himself, but just do it quietly so that we don’t remember that ours remained in the Baltic states and didn’t come for this. Because we really do not need you. Nobody needs you at all, but we don't need you especially. And if our patience runs out, there will be no place for you in the Russian Baltic, and your languages ​​will be spoken only in ethnic reservations, especially for tourists who will point fingers at you and take pictures against the background of your dilapidated farmsteads.

        In the meantime, you can sleep peacefully. For some time we will tolerate.
    10. shtanko.49 27 March 2015 16: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Bullshit".
    11. Reserve officer 27 March 2015 17: 24 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      "The European economy would suffer significant damage in connection with the disruption of gas supplies from Russia, especially if this would happen in the winter"

      The level of thinking and analysis is below the plinth. Predicts war and tries to reduce all the damage for Europe to disrupt gas supplies? But did the author ask another question - what in this case will remain from Europe, where should I supply gas?
    12. Gans1234 27 March 2015 20: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Ahh, the first - Russia won - everything is bad in Russia, everything is bad in the world.
      Russia lost - everything is fine in Russia, everything is fine in the world, NATO is the Best

      And the second - the “collapse of the world order that took shape after the end of the Cold War” - can be seen throughout the article, moreover, it is most often mentioned directly or between the lines.

      Yes, there is no world order - there are no rules, there is no world order, since the end of the Cold War there is only the dictatorship of one awesome country, no more, and the end of this era of chaos, and in fact - anarchy - is just around the corner, this process can not be stopped, and Russia's actions can only speed up the process .... in any case, it is irreversible
    13. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 28 March 2015 03: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In the event of a victory for Russia. I’m ready to ass. Everything will be ours anyway. We don’t need the Baltic states. Is this nonsense to feed? Dismiss. And Eurasia is ours, don’t dream.
  2. klavyr 27 March 2015 14: 41 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    neher to do here! although, if they repent, maybe then we just start to think ...
  3. ruslan207 27 March 2015 14: 41 New
    • 19
    • 0
    +19
    Is this hemorrhoids needed?
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. vyinemeynen 27 March 2015 14: 46 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    why the hell to us!
  6. Boos
    Boos 27 March 2015 14: 47 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Who is the author of the article? Pissing Ale? Then crazy fantasies are clear!
    1. Altona 27 March 2015 15: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Boos
      Who is the author of the article? Pissing Ale? Then crazy fantasies are clear!

      ---------------------------
      Some kind of nonsense ... Always some kind of sucked version of a finger ...
  7. sso-xnumx 27 March 2015 14: 47 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    And for what "wasabi", the spratdealers surrendered to us? Let them get out of their hole themselves. Maybe in the distant future, they themselves will crawl, and then think properly, "Do we need it?"
  8. Sasha 19871987 27 March 2015 14: 47 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    these screaming patriots did not rest in vain for nothing, and so they give themselves a huge head start in the form that they can last 48 hours in case of war ... everything will end in a matter of hours, I think, enough fingers
  9. Ek.Sektor 27 March 2015 14: 47 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Do they really think that we are sleeping and see how to capture Sprotland? And it makes sense to capture what will become a deserted desert in a couple of decades, as far as I know, all young people have long been in England and Ireland, so they successfully mow themselves without the Russians.
  10. Corsair0304 27 March 2015 14: 48 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    Someone will be able to objectively and reasonably explain why Russia has a territory with an underdeveloped economy (canned fish, Dzintars perfume and amber) and an openly hostile population, from whom, at best, you can expect protests, and at worst - sabotage?

    On horseradish goat bayan?
  11. Decathlon 27 March 2015 14: 49 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    "... a sharp jump in oil prices, given the fears that the supply of hydrocarbons from Russia will be canceled"
    The naivety of the author is surprising. Does he seriously believe that in the event of a nuclear confrontation both sellers and buyers of oil will remain ?! I beg of you...! fool
  12. Isum 27 March 2015 14: 49 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    What the hell.......
  13. prabiz 27 March 2015 14: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We are not going to touch them, but the nature of the labus is such that they themselves will drive the Americans out!
    1. sso-xnumx 27 March 2015 15: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      That's it!!! As soon as they get tired of the NATO soldier-sailor, the feces and urine from the lawns and flower beds should be removed, they’ll immediately howl ....
  14. Arktidianets 27 March 2015 14: 50 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    But who needs these wretched?
  15. inkass_98 27 March 2015 14: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It seems that the United States has already merged all of Sprotland and Przekostan, and now they are trying to justify this drain by Russian aggression.
  16. arane 27 March 2015 14: 50 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Another raving agonizing science fiction! If yes, if only ........

    What to think about Rossi’s possible attack on the Baltic countries (at the same time not a single so-called expert or political scientist asks the simplest question that should first arise in your head! DOES THIS RUSSIA NEED AT ALL?) Respected European parliamentarians would better notice that part of the countries of their most free and humane, democratic union is engaged in the cultivation of terry fascism, Nazism! Dividing indigenous people into citizens and non-citizens, etc.
  17. Flinky 27 March 2015 14: 51 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The article is shit. We do not need these imperfections.
  18. sever.56 27 March 2015 14: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Do we need it ??? Limitrophic states, with a murdered industry, and, living, until recently, due to exports to Russia, agriculture? Most of the budget of these non-states is made up of the transit of Russian oil, gas, and other products. It is worth redirecting these streams to their ports, and - cuckoo. And then to catch fellow fools who consider themselves “freedom fighters ...” No, Europe wanted to see them in its composition, even if it pulls this ballast that no one needs!
  19. Enoch 27 March 2015 14: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    My country is wide, my dear, nakoy we still have land with people angry at all. Let them ask, and we think echo.
  20. eternalmotor 27 March 2015 14: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Hey pro-American foes Russia is not a party to the conflict in the Donbass! What’s on your forehead, on your forehead — like peas on a wall.
  21. g1v2 27 March 2015 14: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If anyone can put an eye on the Baltic states - Belarus. In the case of the BD, the Belarusian troops will quickly connect with our troops in Kaliningrad. And the Baltic states will be cut off and it is unlikely that our units will have to enter there - the Belarusians will cope on their own. It will be more relevant to use our troops to defend Kaliningrad and help the Belarusian army on the border with Poland. But if the dill is still dragged into NATO, then Belarus will be at risk of possible encirclement and will be sandwiched between the Baltic states and dill. The situation is like with Gorlovka and the Debaltsevsky cauldron - initially dill planned to surround Gorlovka, and as a result they themselves were surrounded.
  22. Palach 27 March 2015 14: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The most real scenario is not taken into account.
    The first wave needs to cover not only military targets, but also oil and gas storage.
    Airplanes will not fly without oil products, tanks will not fly, ships will not sail. And in the barracks it will be very cold without gas heating.
    Hitler called oil the blood of war; nothing has changed since then. Tanks and aircraft in nuclear reactors have not yet been invented.
    So the Europeans will sooner realize that it was not worth it all to start.
    1. U-47 27 March 2015 15: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: PALACH
      The first wave needs to cover not only military targets, but also oil and gas storage.
  23. rotmistr60 27 March 2015 15: 00 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    From the perspective of NATO, it would be more appropriate to deploy troops in the Baltic states


    This is the main reason for the escalation of the situation in the Baltic states. The desire to deploy large US military bases in these countries.
  24. Ivan Tucha 27 March 2015 15: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, you have to try, only in court! - after all, Peter I bought all this, along with their ancestors!, the papers are probably in the archives. This is our land, and they are ours. And let them complain about the Swedes who sold them.
    Here I am so bloodthirsty.
  25. plotnikov561956 27 March 2015 15: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is worth a lot to think about ... do we need these wretched ... nothing more than reservations .. but it’s not the Russian style ..
  26. alex-cn 27 March 2015 15: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Lord, fight ... with whom? Stop transit and terminate all economic contracts as they expire. A year later, the West will understand that feeding them is very expensive. after that no intervention will be needed, they will crawl themselves ... and talk to them on our terms.
  27. GUKTU 27 March 2015 15: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I don’t know what to call these British, whether dreamers or dreamers. It seems that the West lives in a fantasy world. why the Baltic has surrendered? Or is it their verbal diarrhea, again from fear or for a bunch of words
  28. X Y Z 27 March 2015 15: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What nonsense! In order for America to begin any actions in the Baltic states, it is necessary that they consider them to be people and love them as their compatriots. And this is nonsense! In 1939, in Poland, England and France clearly showed how they imagine the fulfillment of allied duty. At the same time, we don’t need to provoke us and offer such “gifts”. The Balts destroyed industry, there is no work, there is no money, and there are less and less willing people to support it. Guys feed yourself if you are "Europeans" so smart and proud ...
  29. KBR109 27 March 2015 15: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    That's when you drink whiskey at least 0.75, and a good beer polish ok. 2.5 liters, and on top you still breathe a dumb jamb - that's when such moronic articles are born. MERDE. drinks
  30. andrei332809 27 March 2015 15: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    what kind of nonsense is it better to listen to pidalyk or egg-laying, since Jenka is on maternity leave
  31. lexx2038 27 March 2015 15: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why didn’t he write that Britain can be drowned with a pair of warheads? This is not the middle of the 20th century, when the Germans were prevented by the strait, the current “Fau”, this is not Frau!
  32. Major Yurik 27 March 2015 15: 07 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    To a hike a fisherwoman, the Obama puts a Baltic maggot on a hook so that Russia pecks. No, the vodka will not go, I understand the maggots are not sorry, you just bred them, you keep them together with their rusty jar, which they call the state! am
  33. bannik 27 March 2015 15: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And what did the Balts not please them? Ukraine is understandable - chernozem, shales, etc. What is here? Sprat "deposits" do not give them rest?
  34. mikh-korsakov 27 March 2015 15: 15 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The reasoning of the author is similar to the reasoning of pique vests in the novel by Ilf and Petrov. In addition, his forecast about the results in the event of the defeat of Russia is somehow unconvincing, mild and even optimistic for the Russian people. They say that the Russian people overthrows Putin, and in return there will come a normalization and economic revival. That is, it all resembles a conversation of a drunken bully. Like, well, hit, hit. Apparently, the author was already desperate to rock the boat in Russia in peacetime.
  35. chunga-changa 27 March 2015 15: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, in general, we only need Revel and the corridor to Kaliningrad, and then let the whole population do what they want and with each other, too, I am the arbiters of the fate of the world. If they all end up dumped in England, no one will notice, neither we nor the British.
  36. atamankko 27 March 2015 15: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    You do not need Russia, balances, calm down.
  37. lecturer 27 March 2015 15: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Major Yurik
    the frame hooks the Baltic maggot,

    And I think, lately, that it makes me so sick of the Balts ... but it turns out that they stink.
  38. GEV67 27 March 2015 15: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Delusions of inflamed mind ...
  39. Nissa-on 27 March 2015 15: 26 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Balts of Russia are not needed, fact. But the territory would not hurt: a direct route to Europe (a big fig - “great” Poland) and the Baltic. So in the West they feel that there should be a raucher. But they still do not know what method will be performed.
  40. Stirbjorn 27 March 2015 15: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author is ridiculous of course, he himself denied the attack of Russia on the Baltic states in the first half of the article, and in the second he sucked the consequences of this very aggression wassat
  41. Vadim12 27 March 2015 15: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    They say they are talking about some kind of war, instead of forcing the Baltic non-citizens to equalize the rights of the Russian-speaking population. They themselves run up.
  42. VladimS 27 March 2015 15: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Posted by Yoel Sano ..
    Well, okay. They would, amers, probably really wanted this.
    It was they who introduced the stabilization in ALL UKRAINE overthrowing the legitimate president.
    As usual, they shift responsibility to others ...
    With regards to the Baltic states, as in my opinion, they, together with their territory and a ravaged industry, today, they just haven’t rested anywhere ..., absolutely !!!
    Thanks, in any case, will not be. No. Passed already.
  43. mamont5 27 March 2015 15: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    English did not calculate another option. A quick strike and in three days the Baltic states became part of Russia. And there is no one to defend, but to "no" and "there is no protection." And NATO, breathing a sigh of relief, says: "If they had lasted even a week, then we would have shown these Russians. And now there’s no one to defend. But let them just try."
    1. NordUral 27 March 2015 17: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Moms don’t need them again, there’s not much sense, there’s a lot of stink.
  44. Aleksandr1959 27 March 2015 15: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Something often the Western media and their other evil spirits began to consider such forecasts of the military conflict of Russia in relation to different countries. Especially about the Baltic Extinctions.
    1. U-47 27 March 2015 17: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Aleksandr1959
      Something often the Western media and their other evil spirits began to consider such forecasts of the Russian military conflict

      well, after the Tsar bomb, the Caribbean and Berlin crises, they have not played a point for a long time. And then ... What kind of reaction was expected?
  45. screw cutter 27 March 2015 15: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To accept as part of Russia? What would they betray a little more for tobacco? No, thank you, only if as a colony, and even then it’s unlikely that there should be at least some kind of colony in the colony, for example, natural resources. mr and sand.
  46. ochakow703 27 March 2015 15: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Do we need it? Well, and more seriously, we don’t need England either, only for the refuge of runaway oligarchs, and so, it’s a solid f.o.s. that the Baltic states, that small Britain.
  47. Executer 27 March 2015 15: 54 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Zadolbali dreamers fucking: What would happen if ....
    If my grandmother had horseradish, she would be a grandfather!
  48. Mareman Vasilich 27 March 2015 16: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The author is either stupid like a log, or a complete provocateur, the Baltic states are ours, even starting with Peter I, who bought it from the Swedish king with all his giblets.
  49. Deadmen 27 March 2015 16: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Our geopolitical task (they won’t talk about it on TV, read geopolitical textbooks) is the ports of the Baltic states. Our ships should be there, just like when Peter the Great. The prospects thereafter are opened very quickly. The Baltic states were taken to NATO to be a "laying" for them not us to the sea.
    1. U-47 27 March 2015 16: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Deadmen
      Our ships should stand there as under Peter the Great.

      And why not under Joseph Vissarionych or Leonid Ilyich? Imperial itch?
      Quote: Deadmen
      Prospects after that open the shortest.

      well, so outlineоrochAishest "prospects. Curious.
      Quote: Deadmen
      (this will not be said on TV

      Yes, perhaps. For all the disrespect for the media, they have not yet observed such dementia.
  50. Vishnevsky 27 March 2015 16: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Why did the West suddenly decide that Russia needed this lousy Baltic? Raised to heaven their significance!
    1. U-47 27 March 2015 16: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Vishnevsky
      Why did the West suddenly decide that Russia needed this lousy Baltic?

      xs. Maybe in order to conduct the Baltic Gaster business under this business. Dudes with Lampedusa need jobs ..