From a perspective of a small baltic nation against main potential rival in the region(Russia) i'm not sure why government is spending money on armed forces. I don't even understand how the land based field army would even be able to function given the huge advantage the missile and air superiority tech presents. I.e. Didn't the west just blew away all Libyan military armor into pieces with air force without even putting boots on the ground ?
The defense department spends money on buying few apc's, portable anti tank missile systems and other shit here and there. Just read they gonna spend 300 mils buying helicopters... Why ? So Special forces could fly away to poland in case of an open war?
I remember from the war in Ukraine how Russia invaded with gazillion of troops, surrounded the military bases in Crimea and it was mentioned those poor souls literally were even afraid to go anywhere near their their armor to not get shot.
Ukraine is more of a special example since the country was in such revolt. the capital was riot porn general and at the borders of Russia most of the local populace saw themselves as Russian rather then Ukrainian. maybe if there was confirmation and a solid chain of command giving orders they might have been able to put up a fight but they were left in the dark in basically enemy territory with no real objectives or orders.
If anything the Ukrainian affair is a good example of why nations like the Baltics need some armed forces. Ukraine was a complete fucking mess, and their armed forces likewise. As a result the moment they told Putin's puppet to fuck off Russia could waltz in, take Crimea and set up the "separatists" to ensure Ukraine will be stuck in an expensive war and not proper for as long as they dare oppose Russia. It was a very limited scale operation, meaning a very small risk for Putin, and it gave him a very quick and easy win for the home front. Money on the table basically, up for grabs. If you have a bit of a military on the other hand, in somewhat better shape than Ukraine's then the amount of force that has to be invested in such an attack rises considerably, along with the difficulty of making it a surprise and the risk of losses. This means the cost/benefit calculation for the attacker shift a great deal, and there must be a lot more potential benefit to make the whole thing worth it. And suddenly you may actually be allowed to be independent for realsies, and not just on paper. For these nations NATO membership is also a very important piece of the puzzle, and for that you kinda need to have some sort of military of your own, even if it's scaled to the size of your country and economy. It'd be somewhat rude not to.
Xavier Sanders
In it's whole history Soviet Union and mafia Russia never attacked the country looking like it could put up a fight. Finland being an exception. Musocvites are cowards in general, and while baltic forces pale in comparison to Moscow army, getting rid of these 19k active personnel would only encourage vatniks to stir up some shit. Look at Ukraine: in the last years in Moscow grasp, they spent literally no money on modernization, upkeep or training. That's the sole reason of losing Donetsk and Luhansk.
Andrew Harris
We do not. All the resources that could have been used for defence are spent in infrastructure, education and decent healthcare. That's why we are the least shithole Central American country.
Asher Murphy
The opposite of diminishing returns. It doesn't take much to start benefiting from a military, like being able to fight back at least some but it gets really expensive to have the best and biggest one around.
Parker Nguyen
>ukraine No such thing.
Noah Murphy
You don't need to win. You just need to be able to fight back hard enough to become an undesirable target.
Nathaniel Wilson
that's just regular diminishing returns
Leo Campbell
>a potential conflict in the area would be one small country vs russia and not ten small countries + nato vs a lonely russia mind telling me how it feels to be retarded OP? i've always wondered
Because even small forces can create enough annoyance that it is just too much hassle to bother.
Jace Richardson
Most is to fight internal uprising like or to hold ground until an other country could help
Liam Mitchell
Not sure if this is the same for other countries but Nepal had a civil war and since then they have a armed police force they are a sort of a mix between the way and police its to stop any kind of rebellion and civil war. Do other countries have the same shit. BOPE is sort of like cops on steroids they have APCs and lmgs. In Mexico they use the marines to fight drug cartels
Jacob Cox
>Implying NATO has the balls to honour that agreement and actually properly step in >Implying the actual conflict lasts long enough to intervene
Costa Rica. No military to speak of and a paradise compared to the likes of Honduras and Nicaragua
Chase Johnson
From someone who has actually served in a city state military, all the armchair generals like here partially right, although the truth has much less bravado. War is an extension of geopolitics. Any potential enemy does a cost benefit analysis of a war, and the cost of a war goes up with a militiary as opposed to none. On top of international criticism, maybe sanctions and so on, a militiary raises the manpower (and deaths) / resources necessary. Note that I said war instead of invasion, because armed conflicts don't necessarily mean you're invaded. It could be salami slicing, like seizing a disputed area. Or I could be a blockade under spurious reasons like illegal goods. We know we're very likely to lose in a total conventional war and it is not a perfect deterrent, but combined with a suitable foreign policy it decreases the likelihood of an armed conflict under a number of circumstances.
Jack Morris
If you're a police, and you know for a fact, with 100% certainty that the perps you're after which are bunkered in a hideout are completely unarmed you won't hesitate to bust down their door.
However if you're NOT certain, if there IS a chance some of them might pack some heat then all of a sudden you've got all sorts of hoops you need to jump through and preparations to make.
Daniel Edwards
Norway here. We and our military is tiny compared to Russian, but it serves a very clear purpose - it's the trigger wire to NATO interception, and that isn't exactly a secret. Meanwhile in peacetime we need to be shown we are patrolling our borders and land and at sea. Particularly in the air the Russkis are tiptoeing the line on a daily basis - it's a miracle there has never been a shooting incident. It is the reason we go with the F35.
Nicholas Gutierrez
It's literally been the strategy of many smaller nations. Keep a small military just big enough to slow down an invasion for a week or two until one of your bigger allies can get involved. It doesn't always work out but it's a pretty cost effective strategy, it's often enough to dissuade anyone from fucking with you.
Kayden Gomez
Costa Rica has dinosaurs. They dont need a military force when they have raptors and tall grass...
It is useful to have a small military to deal with small conflicts like terrorism etc. Also large conflicts between nations can be avoided if you have a force that's able to inflict losses to the enemy. If you have 40k soldiers fighting in querilla warfare, it can take weeks or months to eliminate them even with a large military. Places will be littered with mines and sniperholes. Even a puny military ensures that the enemy can't just walk to your country and capture it without any resistance. For small nations, the purpose of military is that you never have to use it.
That's implying that the only threat is Russia, they still need to have a military whether it be for terrorism or internal security. But I'd argue that you're mostly right, that it's futile against Russia. They should do what Switzerland does And have everyone armed because guerilla warfare will be their best bet against Russia. They should also invest heavily in air defense and anti tank weapons. They'll be great for guerillas.
Joshua Green
Are you a idiot? Do you live under a rock? Are you a Russian shill pretending? Because if you don't essentially a large militarized gang can take over your country. Because if you don't you will have your neighbor take you over in a few years, thru provocations. Because you if have even a small military the big guy actually has to go to WAR to take you over. Look at Ukraine and how Russia acts. If you look like no effort to take your country then they will. And even small militarized force can in defense can tie up 10-15 time their force size. Then it become a issue of Realpolitik and the rest of the world gets involved
Luke Reyes
Because, unlike Ukraine, they are members of NATO, so they need to have a fighting chance to invoke Artical V to get the Western Europeans and North Americans into the fight, before the Russians can install a new, pro-Kremlin government. Also (unless you are Iceland, which was effectively an Anglo-American protectorate at the time it joined anyway) NATO membership requires a military.
Dominic Rogers
> They should do what Switzerland Have a totally different geography that isn't flat as a board and twice as easy to roll a tank over?
Asher Richardson
Iceland the unsinkable Aircraft carrier
Jason Lee
>Lithuania Literally their only job is to buy time/be a stay behind force while NATO gets spun up to respond to a Russian invasion.
Owen Butler
I mean, yeah? That’s literally the entire point of NATO.
Cameron Wilson
Cause people are always more willing to help you if it at least looks like you're giving an effort.
