[Goose]

Similar to Article V, the idea that an attack on Russian territory will provoke a nuclear response is a threat, not a rule, and it is only as real as it is credible.  I hope we never find out, of course, but a Russia that attacks a NATO country should not expect military targets such as air defenses, that support the attack to be “off limits”, and were it to happen there will be much discussion about whether the tactical benefits are worth the risks of nuclear annihilation (bearing in mind that it would be impossible to eliminate risk, but that even a small risk may not be worth it).

That discussion will have to take place in advance, because if Russia acts in the Baltics, hours will matter and days are just not available to decide what NATO can and will do. If this discussion happens and NATO makes a joint statement to Russia saying we will do what it takes if they attack the Baltics, that will help. If NATO remains mute on that subject, the risk goes way up IMHO. Hopefully, Putin will be gone and it won't matter near as much.

My guess is that NATO’s chance to save the Baltics will rely on establishing air superiority (if not supremacy) and command of the seas to negate Russia’s advantage on land, and that thus some attacks on Russian soil will be an inevitable consequence.

BC

Totally agree about air superiority and about requiring attacks on Russian soil. FWIW, nobody will get command of the sea in the Eastern Baltic. There are too many anti-ship missiles on both sides to allow a surface ship any chance of making it through that area. If Finland and Sweden are in NATO, it just becomes harder for Russia. Russia already has major missile capabilities in that area. NATO has significant submarine assets available in the area. Strangely, Russia does not any more. Russia certainly and NATO probably has the ability to mine just about anyplace in the Baltic. There are also many high speed missile boats on both sides that would be used to strike any ships the land based missiles missed, although those missile boats are quite vulnerable from the air. NATO has not figured out what to do with the Baltic Sea. During the cold war, Denmark had the responsibility to close the the Skagerrak with mines and artillery. That was it. It was assumed that nobody would really be using the Baltic much after a war started. They no longer have that responsibility. NATO now thinks it could keep the Western Baltic open, but that is a maybe. The Eastern Baltic nobody wants to talk about.

[Goose]

Similar to Article V, the idea that an attack on Russian territory will provoke a nuclear response is a threat, not a rule, and it is only as real as it is credible.  I hope we never find out, of course, but a Russia that attacks a NATO country should not expect military targets such as air defenses, that support the attack to be “off limits”, and were it to happen there will be much discussion about whether the tactical benefits are worth the risks of nuclear annihilation (bearing in mind that it would be impossible to eliminate risk, but that even a small risk may not be worth it).

That discussion will have to take place in advance, because if Russia acts in the Baltics, hours will matter and days are just not available to decide what NATO can and will do. If this discussion happens and NATO makes a joint statement to Russia saying we will do what it takes if they attack the Baltics, that will help. If NATO remains mute on that subject, the risk goes way up IMHO. Hopefully, Putin will be gone and it won't matter near as much.

My guess is that NATO’s chance to save the Baltics will rely on establishing air superiority (if not supremacy) and command of the seas to negate Russia’s advantage on land, and that thus some attacks on Russian soil will be an inevitable consequence.

BC

Totally agree about air superiority and about requiring attacks on Russian soil. FWIW, nobody will get command of the sea in the Eastern Baltic. There are too many anti-ship missiles on both sides to allow a surface ship any chance of making it through that area. If Finland and Sweden are in NATO, it just becomes harder for Russia. Russia already has major missile capabilities in that area. NATO has significant submarine assets available in the area. Strangely, Russia does not any more. Russia certainly and NATO probably has the ability to mine just about anyplace in the Baltic. There are also many high speed missile boats on both sides that would be used to strike any ships the land based missiles missed, although those missile boats are quite vulnerable from the air. NATO has not figured out what to do with the Baltic Sea. During the cold war, Denmark had the responsibility to close the the Skagerrak with mines and artillery. That was it. It was assumed that nobody would really be using the Baltic much after a war started. They no longer have that responsibility. NATO now thinks it could keep the Western Baltic open, but that is a maybe. The Eastern Baltic nobody wants to talk about.