Endovelico wrote:European military reaction? With which forces? Fragmented mercenary forces, lacking popular support, against a well equipped and motivated citizens army? Defeat would be assured in a matter of weeks, and there would be no political will in Europe for conscription and a prolonged war with uncountable casualties... After Afghanistan one may be justified in doubting NATO's capacity to win wars...
There is this rule that Russian strength is either underestimated, or overestimated, rarely assessed correctly. This rule was good to recall in 1999, as NATO forced Serbia out of her Kosovo province, with Russia reduced to unhappy spectator: No, Russia was not that powerless.
Now the balance has gone the other way, and it's necessary to recall: No, Russia is not that powerful.
Few facts:
- Modern military forces are not good at breaking long term insurgencies, which is true for US, European, Russian forces. However, high intensity wars is another matter: that's what they were designed for in the first place
- The Soviet Army, which was a citizen army, is no more. Russian Army is much smaller and in large part professional
- Equipment of Russian Army is theoretically large, because old types are maintained in the list of materiel, although they are not serviced and many of them are no longer functional. What equipment has been built since 1992, plus the part of old equipment that has been modernized and maintained, is what counts
- A large part of old (pre-1992) Russian equipment, even when maintained and modernized, is inferior to Western equivalents
- Case in point: Main Battle Tanks. Russia sports 1,500 T-72 plus 700+ newer T-90. T-72s are good enough to serve as targets to newest Leclerc, Leopard II A6 and Challenger II types, but not much more. T-90s are better, however still not equivalent to Western tanks. As for numbers... Poland alone has 400 tanks as modern as T-90s. Germany, France, Britain between them have 700+ which are more modern than T-90s. Plus those they have in reserve, which are modern types, contrary to Russian situation
- Case in point: Fighter Aircraft. From 1992 to 2008, Russia procured a total of 2 (that's: TWO) fighters. For comparison, even after strong military reduction, France alone procures 11 per year. Yes, from 2009 onwards, Russia has been procuring more and more recent fighters. However, such a long period of no new fighter buy cannot be compensated in a mere 5 or 6 years. Plus, many of Europe's fighter aircraft are superior to the most recent Russian types, French Rafale and European Typhoon
As for the political, we are speaking of a situation when Russian leadership would be deluded and out of their mind enough to invade a country which all European members of NATO (plus the US but we neglect them for the benefit of debate) have sworn and are treaty-bound to protect.
I think you might be underestimating the scale of such a event, the risk European countries would run if they let a treaty they are bound in and which guarantees their security come to naught, and the resolve that this risk would create.
As far as casualties are concerned, they would be extensive obviously, in the tens of thousands on each side. However, they would be even more numerous on the Russian side, whose military personnel is much less numerous than the combined European NATO personnel. How long would Russian population support a war where they know that they are the aggressors? Knowing more than a bit Russians, I can say that they are not interested in getting control of Baltic countries, which they -rightly- see as foreign.
If you want to assess probable support of Russians for a costly endeavour of military conquest of countries that are to them foreign, ask yourself what you would think of a Portuguese leader ordering a costly war to grab the Canarias from Spain... I think you would like this guy sent to mental asylum. Well, Russians are no different.