undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjopsen3y ago0 comments

Wouldn't any Russian force driving around in the Baltic states be easy targets for NATO cruise missiles and air power?

None of which NATO countries has offered to use in Ukraine.

I think logistics by railway would be problematic if NATO allies launched a few thousand cruise missiles.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

jltsiren3y ago· 2 in thread

That's the benefit of Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

Air power is of little use if your forces don't have access to the relevant area. The Baltic states are surrounded by Russian bases and air defenses, while NATO bases are far away. Right now, Kaliningrad is effectively a fortress that separates the Baltic states from the rest of NATO. Sweden and Finland give NATO air forces the option to bypass Kaliningrad and operate from bases that are closer to the Baltic states.

jopsenOP3y ago

There was already Norway, Denmark and Poland fairly close by (close in terms of air travel).

But yes, Sweden and Finland in NATO is nice. Also for the fact that NATO not intervening in aggression against Sweden or Finland is hard to imagine, so getting papers on the marriage is nice for all parties involved.

jltsiren3y ago

The idea is that if Sweden and Finland are not members of NATO, their airspace would be closed to NATO air forces in a NATO–Russia conflict. Then the only way to reach Baltic airspace would be flying past Kaliningrad.

Also, as far as I understand, the combat radius fighter jets is quite short. It's something like 500 to 1200 km, depending on aircraft type and weapons load. Having bases 100 or 200 km closer is already a significant advantage.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse