true, but look at other wars, The USA kept provoking Japan till Japan struck. Same in Ukraine. The USA kept provoking Russia in Ukraine till Russia struck. I am sure the USA has no concern for the Baltics and might force the Baltics to provoke Russia. remember most wars are started by the USA
I fully agree - it would be stupid to invade Baltics, but... unfortunatelly it's not an argument if we talk about Russia. It was also extremely stupid to invade Ukraine and they did that. Consequences for Russia are extreme, but they endure current situation and even Russian society becomes more convinced by it's own propaganda that it was good move. So we have to assume that Russia will try to rebuild it's capabilities and test NATO reaction. It makes no sense to seize Baltics but Putin might try to do it: to test NATO response and whole world order, to get land corridor to Kaliningrad district, to get better access to Baltic sea (now with Finland and soon Sweden joining NATO it's even more limited). So it is unfortunatelly realistic possibility for which we have to prepare. And be ready to respond to article #5, I hope that our Polish military will be ready by that time to be significant support for our Baltic neighbours.
Even in the evening majority of war experts thought that it would be STUPID For Russia To Invade Ukraine. That appeared to be true but didn't stop mad mind.
As a finn Imaust say it is almost impossible to understand why russians do something but it is very easy to follow their thinking. I am 60 y. old finnish reserve officer who have spend decades training to fight against first posible soviet then russian invasion. And when they lauched their invasion against Ukraine I was not suprised just thinking that Kreml did not know as much as we know about their own forces. So if everything go sideways Russian leadership can launch a suiside attack against either Baltics or Finland even Norway. Why I don't know but they have tendency to make idiotic even suisidal decisions.
Hi from Poland! The same way it would be stupid for Russia and Belarus to invade Poland to gain control over Suwalki corridor. NATO is much stronger these days
They don’t plan to invade Poland for the Suwalki corridor. They plan to invade Lithuania for that. Lithuania has a region called Suvalkija. Lithuania is obliged by the EU to allow Russians move (drive by trains and cars) through Lithuania into Kaliningrad oblast (former part of the Eastern Prussia). Poland was not obliged to do that no matter how awfully Russia would behave.
@@manometras When Ukraine gave up their soviet nukes, Russia made an agreement to protect Ukraine incase of an attack. Look where we at now. Time to close the corridor, if russia is not doing their part then russia should not cry if others abandon deals or treaties.
what? it's on both. Besides to go thru Lithuania it should be done by regional cities, with 100k population. it's impossible to go thru woods and swamps that are in a way from Belarus direction. easiest way to go thru are on Poland side. Just geography. @@thomaskinoshta
Putin has said several times that he wants to restore the borders of the old russian empire, an attack on the baltic would have nothing to do with resources as you claim, you look away from all the reasons he wanted to invade ukraine, and focus on social and economic, when you should focus on historic
Yes, it would be stupid for moskovia to attack NATO face to face, in full force. It would be a suicide. However, rushists wouldn't do it openly, but would rather conduct hybrid warfare by infiltrating russian speaking towns and villages with little green men, like they did in Donbas and Crimea, saying that the local oppressed russian speaking minorities want their towns to belong to moskovia. Some NATO countries furthest away from the Baltics, like Spain, Italy etc. might decide that a nuclear WW3 is not worth the tiny piece of land rushists want to claim for themselves. Remember UK's PM Arthur Neville Chamberlain and his Hitler appeasement policy with the Munich agreement regarding the Sudetenland prior to WW2. If NATO did not actively get involved in such scenario, the military alliance would be de facto dead.
russia wouldn't be able to send "little green men" as they did in crimea because it already hosted russian troops. Our Armies and police would easily destroy such threats
@@Sebastian-fk3gs i think we dont get the right information about the situation in ukraine both russia and western /ukranian media are giving only what they want us to see. And even if urkaine wins it will be bad for us in baltics and poland. Putin needs a military victory to be on power. So win or loose we are still sitting next to a time bomb.
They will help, but blood pool will be local. You can see that investigating some special package of laws made lately in Poland and Romania. In short, the command of the country will be military, led by nato officers and any man that can fight is not allowed to leave legally. Pretty much same shit you see in Ukraine but with more help like jets and direct command from nato. Poor people will be exploited, but when entering the alliance they said the army will be professionals only...
You say Russia doesn’t need more land ! I agree , but they want more!? Hence Ukraine invasion, and declaration that Alaska purchase null and void…. Etc etc
What Putin would gain from occupying the Baltics is additional warm water ports and access to the Baltic Sea.That's why he's keen on keeping Crimea - it would safeguard Novorosiysk, Russia's only major warm water port connected to the Russian mainland - Kaliningrad is separated from Russian mainland, Murmansk is ice free but surrounded by ice for a significant part of the year. Even one single additional warm water port outside of the Black Sea would be a huge strategic gain for Russia.
What exactly is the "strategic value" of the Russian navy? All of Russia's invasions are by land against countries that have common land border with Russia. "Warm water ports" for Russia is "vanity", not "strategic necessity".
@@gintasvilkelis2544 Actually no. Russia may not need warm water ports to launch invasions against its neighbors, but it does need them for efficient high volume commerce in peace times. Without warm water ports, Russia is naturally somewhat isolated, economically. Imagine that Russia somehow manages to alienate its Chinese ally. Many central Asian countries would also suddenly reduce their commerce with Russia, as a consequence, and Russia's western borders are already somewhat sealed by countries that are now part of NATO and had been suffering aggression from Russia for centuries. Without warm water ports outside the Black Sea Russia would be practically blockaded without any formal blockade being organized by anybody, without any effort. That situation being possible is a strategic weakness.
@@a0flj0 Given that Russia mostly sells oil and gas (which is most efficient to transport via pipelines, not ships), this still means that warm water ports are not essential to Russia (other than "feeling like a loser if it has fewer of them"). Besides, the Leningrad region has good access to the sea that doesn't get ice-locked, so again, how many Baltic sea ports does Russia really need, given its low volume of commercial sea traffic? How is it "strategic weakness" if you have less of something that you are not going to use much anyway?
Article 5 only mandate talking about it , the decision to engage in hostilities rest with the members separate governments or parliaments There would be little enthusiasm for many West European nations to declare war on Russia about all possible sanctions have been already taken , nothing to hope on this side the ammunition stocks are severely depleted , the weapons are scarce , it would require some unpopular mobilization and bankrupt Europe already deeply in debt On the other hand , Eastern EU would be more amenable but their forces would be only suitable for the defensive in a first period the Three Baltic states are very hard to defend , Poland is definitely the linchpin . the ace in the sleeve of NATO is air power and intelligence , of course above all , the actions of the United State would be first item , I would think , any competent US government would weight the consequences and not like them very much Wars are expensive , very expensive
While I appreciate you providing a well-informed overview on the matter, I disagree with several points you made. 1 - connecting Kaliningrad with the rest of Russia is most definitely a strategic advantage for Russia. Controlling Latvia/Lithuania MAKES sense for them. 2 - they do not care about the Baltics leaning towards the West culturally. There's nothing a decade or two of oppression and cultural suppression can't fix. They'd just ban Lithuanian / English in the region and be done with it. 3 - thinking they've already got enough resources and land is a Western / rational logic based POV. If they could conquer the entire globe, they would. Also, as you mentioned, Article 5 states that Member States will assist the members that are under attack in a way they DEEM necessary. If they don't feel like going to war with Russia over the Baltic States, they are not going to. The only encouragement I think is the number of NATO troops stationed. The more troops are on the ground, the safer we all are.
@ChrisLovesGaming You can't be serious. Russia can't even handle a far smaller underdeveloped country like Ukraine. And now Russian armed forces have been ground down to their bare bones, lost most of their newer heavy weapons and have only inexperienced conscripts who just want to get back home to Mama. How on earth do you think such an army would fair against Nato, even if only half the Nato members would take part in such a conflict? Don't be absurd.
With that connection, I just don't see a reason for it to have a strategic reason for it to be connected. 'If NATO and Russia went to war, Kaliningrad would be crushed.' Okay...Don't go to war then. Now, it is strategically not nessercery. I can definitely see a benefit, that being access to the sea via the land would make logistics vastly easier to mantain and keep strong, but again, the sea route wouldn't be interrupted outside of if they were already at war. But if they don't go to war, it doesn't matter Lastly, article 5 would be answered, if it wasn't, it would just leave NATO as a joke on the world stage
Being totally blinded by some absurd western propaganda doesnt really make you look smart in this situation. What cant russia handle exactly? Ukraine = NATO has already lost that war in Ukraine, definitevely. The unfortunate reality is that russia handled that situation quite well, in fact exceeded all expectations. Also, If you cant understand that for Putin/russians ANY NUMBER of so called lost lives does not matter at all then you should propably wise up a little bit about the russian president and russians in general. Also, militarily there really is no such thing as a "nato force" - nato is just an illusion... you dont even need to do anything more than just watch this video carefully to understand this fact. No country in nato will do anything if russia invades any or all of the baltic states. There might be some theatrical effort to move around some equipment, but thats it. Its really just sad that people dont want to see and understand these things.@@mikethespike7579
Don't forget how close it really was. Ukraine was one Hostomel airport and a few volunteer civilian squads away from losing Kyiv. Zelensky himself has said that at one point his residence was besieged by the Russian special forces. Secondly, while yes, the Russian army has sustained significant personnel and equipment losses, as a percentage of their total army and population it's not a death blow. Also, they have been ramping their war economy up. You can look at the increase of military expenditure as a % of their GDP etc. Also a lot of the electronic components they need from the West to manufacture drones, guidance systems for missiles, etc. have not been sanctioned so they are still able to manufacture those. So in the longer term because they should be able to replenish their losses, at the cost of their economy. I am not sure you are aware, but the initial NATO defense plan for the Baltic states was to let Russia take them over and then reconquer. Only recently has it been adapted after everyone saw what Russians did in Irpin, Bucha, etc. Having said all of that, no, I don't think Russia has any chance against NATO. Assuming NATO decides to actually fight Russia. I'd like to ask you to image that you are in charge and have to make the call for the US for example. Would you put thousands of troops on the ground to protect Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? Or would you rather take the losses and establish defense lines in Poland?
@@ChrisLovesGaming I would honestly just defend Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. What's the Russian gonna do? Take them? Yeah say to the most advanced navy on the planet and the F-35's, I'm sure they'll be happy to listen while thhey vapourie Russian forces.
I respect your opinion and points you’re bringing to consider, however your assumptions are based on a logical thinking of the average person or government, but Russian regime is based on the terror and blackmail, therefore my conclusion - think again! Russians have the ideology of the empire and don’t care about the territories as a fact, they see this rather as an area of the influence and manipulation to invade further. Yes, NATO is strong in terms of equipment but it’s also very weak as there’s no political leadership and no clear strategy when it comes to Russia.
Plot twist, that one Icelander is a tier one hacker who disables Russia's entire army in an afternoon. "jeeze, Gunnar, you really saved our ass today!"
Probably no NATO countries will use section 5... As it was told already by those countries... You are not correct about what Russia will gain from Baltics.. Land connection to Kaliningrad is strategic!
In modern warfare air power is everything. The Russians have learned the hard way in Ukraine that blitzkrieg tactics only work if you have an air force that is capable of controlling the airspace above the combat zone. In the Baltics they will not be able to do this with their outmoded second rate copies of NATO warplanes, so a large scale attack using tanks and infantry without air force protection will grind to a halt almost immediately.
Improbable but possible. Make no mistake it’s on his wish list. First NATO has to weakened and then divided . Only unity and strength will stop his tyranny. Please study some recent history.
It may be Stupid, but they are Training to do it, and are moving Troops, Equipment and Aircraft into the area to attack the Baltics. Today NATO warned Finland, Sweden and the Baltics that Russian is train and planning to attack them.
There were not really "Given" , there was just not much that could be done at that point. Saying the opposite is foolish. If allies had launched war to free Baltics and Poland we would have another couple million dead
Rest assured, no Scandinavian Country nor Poland will allow the Baltic States to fell on ruzzian hands. And the ruzzian army is just a mob of disgruntled people without cohesion nor great capability. This is obvious for everyone to see.
It was put in a parking lot near Vilnius Cathedral Square but it was removed in last year March. I'm not sure why, though. Maybe it was supposed to be temporarily from the begining, or maybe it has something to do with a bunch of pro-russian people putting carnations and other flowers on it
There's two main reasons why i don't think it will happen: 1) Why would they do it now? They were vastly more powerful in the 1960's. So why would they do it now? 2) Russia has threatened nuclear war, but nothing has happened.
Reassuring video, thanks! :) The reason for Russia to attack Baltics could be to test NATO, Russia has no chance winning against NATO, but if they would be able to persuade NATO decide that it's not worth starting a nuclear war over Baltics it would break the article 5, which would have significant consequences and would be a strategic win for Russia and other authoritarian regimes. Also "priežastis" sounds like a "pine tail" in Latvian. :D
They can test NATO in much better places than Baltics - one example would be northern Finland. I see a lot of countries not wanting to go on war because some snowy nomansland. If that works and NATO is fragmented, Baltics could be next :)
NATO would not respond with nukes to nukes, and Russia knows full well that even the tiniest nuke they use will cause a devastating conventional response from NATO, even if that nuke is used only in the proximity of NATO's border, not even on NATO territory. If Russia uses a nuke, NATO's conventional response would be so swift and so powerful that chances are slim that Russia would be able to launch a second nuke.
@@priedits I bet there are a lot of Finns that can't wait to pay back Russia for the Winter War. Finland's army was badly equipped and badly trained, during the Winter War, and still kicked Russia's but. Finns are formidably well trained and much better equipped now, while Russia is exhausted by the war in Ukraine. Poles would immediately get into action too, should Finland be attacked. Even if no other NATO country would intervene (although I bet other countries would also instantly mobilize, even if some farther away located NATO members might need a while - the Baltics, possibly Romania and Czechia are all close to Russia, and all have a historically motivated strong anti-Russian attitude), it would be likely sufficient for NATO troops to start patrolling Moscow's streets a few weeks later.
Some areas of the Baltic states have a areas with a Russian majority, so I assume that the goal is to try to mobilize Russians living within the EU. The goal is to create a situation that looks "murky".
Just recently announced $60 billion Aid package to Ukraine when translated means they would be in a position to fight Russia with one arm while using the other arm to lend a hand to Lithuania.
Invading Baltic countries makes sense if Russia wants to wage war further in Europe. Logistically it would be very beneficial to have control over Baltic countries is such case.
Your reasoning is that of the sane person . And I would agree, but, since I was born lithuanian, raised and educated in Vilnius, and also lived some time in Russia, reason and sanity isn't the measure you should always use for everything, especially talking about Russia... But thank you anyway Dėkui, ir sėkmės
Russia has an interest to avenge the defeat in the Cold War and reverse the subsequent dissolution of the USSR. Retaking control of the Baltics and proving NATO's Article 5 as empty would be quite instrumental for the Russian interest.
I think that Putin's intelligence apparatus failed badly in providing him information about Ukraine's military capabilities and desire to not be Russified. As Putin is a dictator whose rule is through power he may not have the option of withdrawal as that would be weakness and weakness topples dictators. NATO, the EU, and the US need to supply Ukraine with the weapons and in the volume Ukraine needs to drive the Russians out of Ukraine.
I've read russian news sites and I saw that they wouldn't want the Baltics because the people here are too woke lol and in a way it's true the rural areas may still be more soviet style babushkas u know but the cities Kaunas, Vilnius are very modern and European today and I doubt Russia would want a bunch of protesters in their already falling apart country.
No but generally I personally also don't think they need all the mess of the west I think Ukraine is still pro russian enough especially in the south for them to easily keep control of the country but Lithuania and the rest of the Baltics are just too different and don't speak Russian as much anymore for them to have interest atleast in Lithuania definitely not many people speak Russian anymore but in Latvia and Estonia that could be a problem@@bestopinion9257
Putin already publicly admitted that a war with Nato would be disastrous for Russia. He said that about a month before launching his invasion of Ukraine. So I don't understand all the hysteria about Russia invading the Baltic states other than it's supposed to be click bait.
@@wardensisland1478 No. But he openly admitted to his proud Russian people that Russia was nothing against NATO. That means something to Russians who are given a daily dose of how great Mother Russia is.
@@mikethespike7579 Why would we care what a Russian citizen thinks? What counts is Putin’s addiction to power. He simply must incite a conflict with NATO. Of course it’s going to be disastrous for Russians. But he never said he’s going to start it, and never will. It’s always the other guy… and once the big game is on, he’s going to play brinkmanship all the way until the end is near, and now that it’s a Russia-NATO conflict, the west will gladly make concessions to make him act nice - let him annex entire Ukraine for good.
@@Oliverii It just means that the algorithm is stupid. Fortunately, I don't know anything about commercials on youtube, but I occasionally troll Russian trolls in their language, so youtube recommends their junk to me thinking that I'm interested, it doesn't matter how much I click "don't recommend", it's just the way this business model works
So will russia consider that it is already in war with nato in case if nato countries support ukraine? In case if yes, russia can consider: why not to hit nato in other side?
Russia invading the Baltic states does make sense from their perspective. 1. It increases their coastline on the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea fleet is currently bottled up at Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg. 2. It will allow Russia to link up with its exclave in Kaliningrad. 3. It increase strategic depth and moves NATO always from Russia’s 2nd biggest city, St. Petersburg. 4. It shortens the overall length of the front line if “invaded” from the west.
Only if USA enacted article 5 and started an armed operation to defend Baltics, European NATO allies would follow. Otherwise, despite being far stronger than Russia, European NATO countries would not go to war vs Russia and would instead send aid and condemn Russia's invasion. I'm not pro-Russian so please do not ban me for presenting this unpopular opinion.
Does anybody in Russia seriously attack Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.... This is nonsense, Russia is focus on Ukraine...From ancient history has shown about These countries aren't a part of Russian empire...
It WOULD be stupid for Russia to invade the Baltics, but no one's ever accused Russia of being smart...
true, but look at other wars, The USA kept provoking Japan till Japan struck. Same in Ukraine. The USA kept provoking Russia in Ukraine till Russia struck. I am sure the USA has no concern for the Baltics and might force the Baltics to provoke Russia. remember most wars are started by the USA
F. Dostoyevski once said: "Russia cannot be known by the mind". So don't even try to :D
Except when they went to space
@@felipe-vibor Ah, the power of all those German rocketry scientists they kidnapped and put to work after WW2
@@felipe-vibor They f*cked that up so many times that they had to succeed eventually.
i don't think russia needs any reason, imperialists will be imperialists
*Attacking Ukraine was really bone headed.* The Russia military is not known for their good ideas, "they are known for their losses".
Yea they lost Afghanistan war , Iraq war , Syrian war, Libyan war, Vietnam war , Korean war ... oh wait
Yet some how Russia went from small city state to have borders from Germany to China.. hmm.
So how did Russia became the biggest country in the world? Because they were losing wars? *clown
@@bronicage5666 those days are long gone clown.
Ukraine letting herself being used as a NATO proxy was 100 times more stupid and the real cause of the war.
I fully agree - it would be stupid to invade Baltics, but... unfortunatelly it's not an argument if we talk about Russia. It was also extremely stupid to invade Ukraine and they did that. Consequences for Russia are extreme, but they endure current situation and even Russian society becomes more convinced by it's own propaganda that it was good move. So we have to assume that Russia will try to rebuild it's capabilities and test NATO reaction. It makes no sense to seize Baltics but Putin might try to do it: to test NATO response and whole world order, to get land corridor to Kaliningrad district, to get better access to Baltic sea (now with Finland and soon Sweden joining NATO it's even more limited). So it is unfortunatelly realistic possibility for which we have to prepare. And be ready to respond to article #5, I hope that our Polish military will be ready by that time to be significant support for our Baltic neighbours.
Nothing good ever came from Russia to Baltics.
New Microphone? The Audio seems less clear than in the past :D. Love the content though!
Nahh he just hiding in wardrobe not to wake up baby xD
Even in the evening majority of war experts thought that it would be STUPID For Russia To Invade Ukraine. That appeared to be true but didn't stop mad mind.
the same was said before 2022 about invading ukraine.
As a finn Imaust say it is almost impossible to understand why russians do something but it is very easy to follow their thinking. I am 60 y. old finnish reserve officer who have spend decades training to fight against first posible soviet then russian invasion. And when they lauched their invasion against Ukraine I was not suprised just thinking that Kreml did not know as much as we know about their own forces. So if everything go sideways Russian leadership can launch a suiside attack against either Baltics or Finland even Norway. Why I don't know but they have tendency to make idiotic even suisidal decisions.
Why suicidal? People who make decisions are multi-billioners and it doesn't affect their life in any way.
As a Russian, I confirm :D
no matter how stupid it is, stupid people do stupid things.
Hi from Poland! The same way it would be stupid for Russia and Belarus to invade Poland to gain control over Suwalki corridor. NATO is much stronger these days
They don’t plan to invade Poland for the Suwalki corridor. They plan to invade Lithuania for that. Lithuania has a region called Suvalkija. Lithuania is obliged by the EU to allow Russians move (drive by trains and cars) through Lithuania into Kaliningrad oblast (former part of the Eastern Prussia). Poland was not obliged to do that no matter how awfully Russia would behave.
@@manometras When Ukraine gave up their soviet nukes, Russia made an agreement to protect Ukraine incase of an attack. Look where we at now. Time to close the corridor, if russia is not doing their part then russia should not cry if others abandon deals or treaties.
Around by boat? Flight was also solved. So you can get to Kaliningrad.🤣
only in your dreams. beside the Suwalki gap is in Lithuania not Poland.
what? it's on both. Besides to go thru Lithuania it should be done by regional cities, with 100k population. it's impossible to go thru woods and swamps that are in a way from Belarus direction. easiest way to go thru are on Poland side. Just geography. @@thomaskinoshta
Putin has said several times that he wants to restore the borders of the old russian empire, an attack on the baltic would have nothing to do with resources as you claim, you look away from all the reasons he wanted to invade ukraine, and focus on social and economic, when you should focus on historic
" Run comrades run! Save yourselves, they're sending the Icelander!"
Yes, it would be stupid for moskovia to attack NATO face to face, in full force. It would be a suicide. However, rushists wouldn't do it openly, but would rather conduct hybrid warfare by infiltrating russian speaking towns and villages with little green men, like they did in Donbas and Crimea, saying that the local oppressed russian speaking minorities want their towns to belong to moskovia. Some NATO countries furthest away from the Baltics, like Spain, Italy etc. might decide that a nuclear WW3 is not worth the tiny piece of land rushists want to claim for themselves. Remember UK's PM Arthur Neville Chamberlain and his Hitler appeasement policy with the Munich agreement regarding the Sudetenland prior to WW2. If NATO did not actively get involved in such scenario, the military alliance would be de facto dead.
russia wouldn't be able to send "little green men" as they did in crimea because it already hosted russian troops. Our Armies and police would easily destroy such threats
@@Sebastian-fk3gs i think we dont get the right information about the situation in ukraine both russia and western /ukranian media are giving only what they want us to see. And even if urkaine wins it will be bad for us in baltics and poland. Putin needs a military victory to be on power. So win or loose we are still sitting next to a time bomb.
They will help, but blood pool will be local. You can see that investigating some special package of laws made lately in Poland and Romania. In short, the command of the country will be military, led by nato officers and any man that can fight is not allowed to leave legally. Pretty much same shit you see in Ukraine but with more help like jets and direct command from nato. Poor people will be exploited, but when entering the alliance they said the army will be professionals only...
@@Sebastian-fk3gswhat you gonna so against Russian troops. Even Ukraine can’t do anything.
@@igorge turn them into past tense, obviously. Ukraine is using this tactic to great success, if 500 thousand losses count for something.
It would be stupid for Russia to invade Ukraine, it's not worth it.
-This guy
NATO is a Shield of Europe, Russia is the Sword...
It was stupid but here we are.
Any Shield is perceived as a Insult by Russians to their Sword :P ..and then Russians blame others for self-inflicted insults :D
Russians essentially say "Your head has hit my fist! I must defend myself!"
It's stupid for Russia to invade in modern day era but they did, so possibility is still there
Invasion in Ukraine also was stupid, and it is still
That's why Baltics are in danger, putler is overrated.
@@bestopinion9257Ukraine is done
@@emilkaLT5 Not done until it's done.
You say Russia doesn’t need more land ! I agree , but they want more!? Hence Ukraine invasion, and declaration that Alaska purchase null and void…. Etc etc
What Putin would gain from occupying the Baltics is additional warm water ports and access to the Baltic Sea.That's why he's keen on keeping Crimea - it would safeguard Novorosiysk, Russia's only major warm water port connected to the Russian mainland - Kaliningrad is separated from Russian mainland, Murmansk is ice free but surrounded by ice for a significant part of the year. Even one single additional warm water port outside of the Black Sea would be a huge strategic gain for Russia.
What exactly is the "strategic value" of the Russian navy? All of Russia's invasions are by land against countries that have common land border with Russia. "Warm water ports" for Russia is "vanity", not "strategic necessity".
@@gintasvilkelis2544 Actually no. Russia may not need warm water ports to launch invasions against its neighbors, but it does need them for efficient high volume commerce in peace times. Without warm water ports, Russia is naturally somewhat isolated, economically. Imagine that Russia somehow manages to alienate its Chinese ally. Many central Asian countries would also suddenly reduce their commerce with Russia, as a consequence, and Russia's western borders are already somewhat sealed by countries that are now part of NATO and had been suffering aggression from Russia for centuries. Without warm water ports outside the Black Sea Russia would be practically blockaded without any formal blockade being organized by anybody, without any effort. That situation being possible is a strategic weakness.
@@a0flj0 Given that Russia mostly sells oil and gas (which is most efficient to transport via pipelines, not ships), this still means that warm water ports are not essential to Russia (other than "feeling like a loser if it has fewer of them").
Besides, the Leningrad region has good access to the sea that doesn't get ice-locked, so again, how many Baltic sea ports does Russia really need, given its low volume of commercial sea traffic? How is it "strategic weakness" if you have less of something that you are not going to use much anyway?
In Russia, the TV is saying, 'Would NATO be stupid enough to defend the Baltics'. Work it out, people. come on.
Sure, its a member state and Russia doesnt stand a chance against NATO.
Article 5 does not guarantee NATO defense. The USA is backing away from Ukraine and would not even bother to try to defend the Baltics.
Article 5 only mandate talking about it , the decision to engage in hostilities rest with the members separate governments or parliaments
There would be little enthusiasm for many West European nations to declare war on Russia
about all possible sanctions have been already taken , nothing to hope on this side
the ammunition stocks are severely depleted , the weapons are scarce , it would require some unpopular mobilization and bankrupt Europe already deeply in debt
On the other hand , Eastern EU would be more amenable but their forces would be only suitable for the defensive in a first period
the Three Baltic states are very hard to defend , Poland is definitely the linchpin .
the ace in the sleeve of NATO is air power and intelligence ,
of course above all , the actions of the United State would be first item ,
I would think , any competent US government would weight the consequences and not like them very much
Wars are expensive , very expensive
While I appreciate you providing a well-informed overview on the matter, I disagree with several points you made. 1 - connecting Kaliningrad with the rest of Russia is most definitely a strategic advantage for Russia. Controlling Latvia/Lithuania MAKES sense for them. 2 - they do not care about the Baltics leaning towards the West culturally. There's nothing a decade or two of oppression and cultural suppression can't fix. They'd just ban Lithuanian / English in the region and be done with it. 3 - thinking they've already got enough resources and land is a Western / rational logic based POV. If they could conquer the entire globe, they would.
Also, as you mentioned, Article 5 states that Member States will assist the members that are under attack in a way they DEEM necessary. If they don't feel like going to war with Russia over the Baltic States, they are not going to. The only encouragement I think is the number of NATO troops stationed. The more troops are on the ground, the safer we all are.
@ChrisLovesGaming You can't be serious. Russia can't even handle a far smaller underdeveloped country like Ukraine. And now Russian armed forces have been ground down to their bare bones, lost most of their newer heavy weapons and have only inexperienced conscripts who just want to get back home to Mama. How on earth do you think such an army would fair against Nato, even if only half the Nato members would take part in such a conflict? Don't be absurd.
With that connection, I just don't see a reason for it to have a strategic reason for it to be connected.
'If NATO and Russia went to war, Kaliningrad would be crushed.'
Okay...Don't go to war then. Now, it is strategically not nessercery. I can definitely see a benefit, that being access to the sea via the land would make logistics vastly easier to mantain and keep strong, but again, the sea route wouldn't be interrupted outside of if they were already at war. But if they don't go to war, it doesn't matter
Lastly, article 5 would be answered, if it wasn't, it would just leave NATO as a joke on the world stage
Being totally blinded by some absurd western propaganda doesnt really make you look smart in this situation. What cant russia handle exactly? Ukraine = NATO has already lost that war in Ukraine, definitevely. The unfortunate reality is that russia handled that situation quite well, in fact exceeded all expectations. Also, If you cant understand that for Putin/russians ANY NUMBER of so called lost lives does not matter at all then you should propably wise up a little bit about the russian president and russians in general. Also, militarily there really is no such thing as a "nato force" - nato is just an illusion... you dont even need to do anything more than just watch this video carefully to understand this fact. No country in nato will do anything if russia invades any or all of the baltic states. There might be some theatrical effort to move around some equipment, but thats it. Its really just sad that people dont want to see and understand these things.@@mikethespike7579
Don't forget how close it really was. Ukraine was one Hostomel airport and a few volunteer civilian squads away from losing Kyiv. Zelensky himself has said that at one point his residence was besieged by the Russian special forces. Secondly, while yes, the Russian army has sustained significant personnel and equipment losses, as a percentage of their total army and population it's not a death blow. Also, they have been ramping their war economy up. You can look at the increase of military expenditure as a % of their GDP etc. Also a lot of the electronic components they need from the West to manufacture drones, guidance systems for missiles, etc. have not been sanctioned so they are still able to manufacture those. So in the longer term because they should be able to replenish their losses, at the cost of their economy.
I am not sure you are aware, but the initial NATO defense plan for the Baltic states was to let Russia take them over and then reconquer. Only recently has it been adapted after everyone saw what Russians did in Irpin, Bucha, etc.
Having said all of that, no, I don't think Russia has any chance against NATO. Assuming NATO decides to actually fight Russia. I'd like to ask you to image that you are in charge and have to make the call for the US for example. Would you put thousands of troops on the ground to protect Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? Or would you rather take the losses and establish defense lines in Poland?
@@ChrisLovesGaming
I would honestly just defend Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
What's the Russian gonna do? Take them? Yeah say to the most advanced navy on the planet and the F-35's, I'm sure they'll be happy to listen while thhey vapourie Russian forces.
It would be stupid for nato to not prepare. Bully loves weakness.
I respect your opinion and points you’re bringing to consider, however your assumptions are based on a logical thinking of the average person or government, but Russian regime is based on the terror and blackmail, therefore my conclusion - think again!
Russians have the ideology of the empire and don’t care about the territories as a fact, they see this rather as an area of the influence and manipulation to invade further. Yes, NATO is strong in terms of equipment but it’s also very weak as there’s no political leadership and no clear strategy when it comes to Russia.
Ukraine didn't think russia was so insane to fully invade... but they did...
Now the Finland is also member of NATO...
It was completely stupid to attack Ukraine, but they did it...
The only reason to do it would be to trade the Baltics for a free hand in Ukraine.
It was stupid for russia to invade Ukraine...
Baltics should invade kaliningrad
I remember waching same videos about ukraine before war…
Question to this Channel mod, are you deleting comments none stop?
Plot twist, that one Icelander is a tier one hacker who disables Russia's entire army in an afternoon.
"jeeze, Gunnar, you really saved our ass today!"
😆🫡
it was stupid for russia to invade ukraine as well, and stupid for them to annex crimea lol
russia will never control ukraine
Probably no NATO countries will use section 5... As it was told already by those countries... You are not correct about what Russia will gain from Baltics.. Land connection to Kaliningrad is strategic!
My god. It means the Russian are definitely gonna invade!
This is not about logic this is about Ego and greed
6th and main reason: occupying those totally deindustrialized countries just to subsidize them would be stupid
It was also stupid for him to invade Ukraina but he did none the less. There is a reason Latvija reinstituted conscription.
In modern warfare air power is everything. The Russians have learned the hard way in Ukraine that blitzkrieg tactics only work if you have an air force that is capable of controlling the airspace above the combat zone. In the Baltics they will not be able to do this with their outmoded second rate copies of NATO warplanes, so a large scale attack using tanks and infantry without air force protection will grind to a halt almost immediately.
Maybe.. but the Russian military for better or worse is designed to fight without air superiority.
Improbable but possible. Make no mistake it’s on his wish list. First NATO has to weakened and then divided . Only unity and strength will stop his tyranny. Please study some recent history.
It may be Stupid, but they are Training to do it, and are moving Troops, Equipment and Aircraft into the area to attack the Baltics. Today NATO warned Finland, Sweden and the Baltics that Russian is train and planning to attack them.
Here in Baltics we are worried that history can repeat itself. After WW2 Baltic states were given to USSR in the name of a peace in Europe.
Not only Baltics, pretty much half Europe.
@@bestopinion9257baltics weren't given to ussr siply because they had always been part of ussr
There were not really "Given" , there was just not much that could be done at that point. Saying the opposite is foolish. If allies had launched war to free Baltics and Poland we would have another couple million dead
Rest assured, no Scandinavian Country nor Poland will allow the Baltic States to fell on ruzzian hands. And the ruzzian army is just a mob of disgruntled people without cohesion nor great capability. This is obvious for everyone to see.
@@bestopinion9257 Indeed. For more than fifty years.
0:18 Where is this tank located and is it in lithuania? because i wanna visit to have a look at the tank
It was put in a parking lot near Vilnius Cathedral Square but it was removed in last year March. I'm not sure why, though. Maybe it was supposed to be temporarily from the begining, or maybe it has something to do with a bunch of pro-russian people putting carnations and other flowers on it
You can still find it in the 6th fort in Kaunas
it was temporarily it got to next country @@lunarmothcat
There's two main reasons why i don't think it will happen:
1) Why would they do it now? They were vastly more powerful in the 1960's. So why would they do it now?
2) Russia has threatened nuclear war, but nothing has happened.
i hope you realize that russia literally controlled baltics in 1960
i dont know what kind of vilnius you see but i almost cant hear lithuanian in my home town everyone now speak russian and its really worrying
As long as the US foot’s the majority of the bill.
US is the net earner with it's arms deals.
Its unlikely but there is nothing wrong with preparing like they would
Finnish flag missing from NATO countries
Reassuring video, thanks! :)
The reason for Russia to attack Baltics could be to test NATO, Russia has no chance winning against NATO, but if they would be able to persuade NATO decide that it's not worth starting a nuclear war over Baltics it would break the article 5, which would have significant consequences and would be a strategic win for Russia and other authoritarian regimes.
Also "priežastis" sounds like a "pine tail" in Latvian. :D
Iemēsls sounds like the in-dung in Lithuanian. ;) It kinda makes sense, but not for everyone here.
They can test NATO in much better places than Baltics - one example would be northern Finland. I see a lot of countries not wanting to go on war because some snowy nomansland. If that works and NATO is fragmented, Baltics could be next :)
NATO would not respond with nukes to nukes, and Russia knows full well that even the tiniest nuke they use will cause a devastating conventional response from NATO, even if that nuke is used only in the proximity of NATO's border, not even on NATO territory. If Russia uses a nuke, NATO's conventional response would be so swift and so powerful that chances are slim that Russia would be able to launch a second nuke.
@@priedits I bet there are a lot of Finns that can't wait to pay back Russia for the Winter War. Finland's army was badly equipped and badly trained, during the Winter War, and still kicked Russia's but. Finns are formidably well trained and much better equipped now, while Russia is exhausted by the war in Ukraine. Poles would immediately get into action too, should Finland be attacked. Even if no other NATO country would intervene (although I bet other countries would also instantly mobilize, even if some farther away located NATO members might need a while - the Baltics, possibly Romania and Czechia are all close to Russia, and all have a historically motivated strong anti-Russian attitude), it would be likely sufficient for NATO troops to start patrolling Moscow's streets a few weeks later.
Putin is not logic
Some areas of the Baltic states have a areas with a Russian majority, so I assume that the goal is to try to mobilize Russians living within the EU.
The goal is to create a situation that looks "murky".
Estonia and Latvia have a population that is a quarter Russian, who would the Russian army be fighting there?
@@aryangigachad Who is Russian army bombing in east Ukraine?
now when many Russians from Ukraine escaped to the Baltic countries, those russian speaking areas even more
Just recently announced $60 billion Aid package to Ukraine when translated means they would be in a position to fight Russia with one arm while using the other arm to lend a hand to Lithuania.
Invading Baltic countries makes sense if Russia wants to wage war further in Europe. Logistically it would be very beneficial to have control over Baltic countries is such case.
Your reasoning is that of the sane person . And I would agree, but, since I was born lithuanian, raised and educated in Vilnius, and also lived some time in Russia, reason and sanity isn't the measure you should always use for everything, especially talking about Russia...
But thank you anyway
Dėkui, ir sėkmės
Hungery has became the most "democracy " joke
so what the EU is the new USSR
@@thomaskinoshta whatever troll
We would have said it would be stupid for Russia to invade Ukraine prior to Feb 2022.
Russia has an interest to avenge the defeat in the Cold War and reverse the subsequent dissolution of the USSR. Retaking control of the Baltics and proving NATO's Article 5 as empty would be quite instrumental for the Russian interest.
Any Shield is a Insult to Russian Sword. Russians don't like the self-inflicted insults :P
When you don't have a shield, any shield is an insult to you.
I heard that before
Vladimir Putin's😂😂😂
Well, it _was_ a very stupid idea to invade Ukraine too. Poootin is very far from being an evil genius.
I think that Putin's intelligence apparatus failed badly in providing him information about Ukraine's military capabilities and desire to not be Russified. As Putin is a dictator whose rule is through power he may not have the option of withdrawal as that would be weakness and weakness topples dictators. NATO, the EU, and the US need to supply Ukraine with the weapons and in the volume Ukraine needs to drive the Russians out of Ukraine.
I've read russian news sites and I saw that they wouldn't want the Baltics because the people here are too woke lol and in a way it's true the rural areas may still be more soviet style babushkas u know but the cities Kaunas, Vilnius are very modern and European today and I doubt Russia would want a bunch of protesters in their already falling apart country.
That would be lovely, Russian propaganda explaining why they won't attack.
No but generally I personally also don't think they need all the mess of the west I think Ukraine is still pro russian enough especially in the south for them to easily keep control of the country but Lithuania and the rest of the Baltics are just too different and don't speak Russian as much anymore for them to have interest atleast in Lithuania definitely not many people speak Russian anymore but in Latvia and Estonia that could be a problem@@bestopinion9257
Putin already publicly admitted that a war with Nato would be disastrous for Russia. He said that about a month before launching his invasion of Ukraine. So I don't understand all the hysteria about Russia invading the Baltic states other than it's supposed to be click bait.
At exactly same time Putin also said that Russia is definitely not planning to attack Ukraine:)
Gullible much? Seriously you base any assumptions or put weight on what Putin says?
@@wardensisland1478 No. But he openly admitted to his proud Russian people that Russia was nothing against NATO. That means something to Russians who are given a daily dose of how great Mother Russia is.
@@mikethespike7579 Why would we care what a Russian citizen thinks? What counts is Putin’s addiction to power. He simply must incite a conflict with NATO. Of course it’s going to be disastrous for Russians. But he never said he’s going to start it, and never will. It’s always the other guy… and once the big game is on, he’s going to play brinkmanship all the way until the end is near, and now that it’s a Russia-NATO conflict, the west will gladly make concessions to make him act nice - let him annex entire Ukraine for good.
@@mikethespike7579 the Baltic conflict will be Putin’s exit plan - and Ukraine his prize
Lol😂😂😂😂😂
Miscalculating is a Russian trait......
And you think Russia is not?
I hope not, although when I'm holiday seeing the in laws, I can literally swim over the river to Kaliningrad.
Dream!! Dream!!!
Why is there a Russian-speaking commercial before this video starts? It is with Laima Vaikule promoting her Russian concerts in the USA.
Ads are personalized, lil pup.
so yeah, got something to say, igor? . . .
@@Oliverii It just means that the algorithm is stupid. Fortunately, I don't know anything about commercials on youtube, but I occasionally troll Russian trolls in their language, so youtube recommends their junk to me thinking that I'm interested, it doesn't matter how much I click "don't recommend", it's just the way this business model works
@@Oliverii You're wrong, I don't speak Russian.
@@gintasindreika933 nope. Im 100% correct, u in the otherhand are invalid, hope u get help
@@Oliverii I don't need help from a person who can't write in grammatically correct English. It is "on the other hand".
do you really think they want the baltics ? use your damn brain
All of this assumes, that putler is a rational player. Which he unfortunately is not.
So will russia consider that it is already in war with nato in case if nato countries support ukraine? In case if yes, russia can consider: why not to hit nato in other side?
👍👍👍
And you see the US army landing in houndred thousands in Lithuania?
Russia invading the Baltic states does make sense from their perspective.
1. It increases their coastline on the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea fleet is currently bottled up at Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg.
2. It will allow Russia to link up with its exclave in Kaliningrad.
3. It increase strategic depth and moves NATO always from Russia’s 2nd biggest city, St. Petersburg.
4. It shortens the overall length of the front line if “invaded” from the west.
🇱🇹🇪🇺🫡
Only if USA enacted article 5 and started an armed operation to defend Baltics, European NATO allies would follow. Otherwise, despite being far stronger than Russia, European NATO countries would not go to war vs Russia and would instead send aid and condemn Russia's invasion. I'm not pro-Russian so please do not ban me for presenting this unpopular opinion.
Westerners trying to use logic while analysing russia :D funny
Sorry but I’m Lithuanian but if Russian attack lithuania I see jus two country who is can’t help for lithuania 🇵🇱 and 🇱🇻
If You are asking for it there will come!
Trumpalny.
It so funny how Baltic countries thinks that they r so important 😂😂😂😂😂
Does anybody in Russia seriously attack Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania....
This is nonsense, Russia is focus on Ukraine...From ancient history has shown about These countries aren't a part of Russian empire...
terrible accent, use AI please