I wish people wouldn't invoke useful idiot that often. It degrades the message to "everyone with a different point of view is an idiot, who doesn't realise they're being used". That's not a great message on a discussion board and rarely will lead to something constructive. And if you really hold that opinion and can put some irrefutable reasoning behind it... why not do that instead?

If Russia annexes any Baltic states it's liable to trigger nuclear war. All the Baltic states are NATO members.

It won't likely trigger a nuclear war. It would trigger a conventional war that would see NATO forces directly confront the Russian military and attempt to push it back out of the Baltics (and try to inflict severe damage if Russia refuses).

Neither side with nukes would be fighting for survival and would not jump to nuclear threats or exchange until or unless their own existing territory was at risk of annexation / loss.

Russia would shift to a nuclear warning posture if pushed back to their borders. If NATO pursued and threatened territory taking, Russia would threaten nuclear response at that point, especially if it was in a particularly weakened condition or believed it couldn't hold its ground.

On the NATO side, there's practically no threat of the US, France or the UK losing territory to Russia in a Baltic-focused conflict (or in Eastern Europe for that matter). To draw a nuclear threat from NATO would similarly require the nuclear powers to be under threat of losing their own territory (and they'd probably have to believe they can't hold their ground). The UK isn't killing ten plus million of its people in a nuclear exchange with Russia for the sake of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania's territorial integrity as nation-states.

I think the only way that gets nuclear is if Russia plays the crazy card and proclaims that it now regards the annexed Baltic territory as its own and puts up the nuclear warning then and there (move in, take territory, immediately raise the crazy nuclear flag, test the resolve & risk aversion of the other side to respond militarily once the nuclear flag is out of the box). Then NATO has to decide if it believes Russia will actually act crazy.

Doubt it. It would trigger a cold war II but not a nuclear war.

The baltic states can not be defended militarily. If Ukraine were in the EU, would be a different thing.

Ukraine is not a Baltic state, the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) are all in the EU and NATO members. No way the EU would let that slide.

I never said Ukraine is a Baltic state. Take out a map. Think about why the Baltic states can hardly be defended militarily. Think about what would be different if Ukraine were in the Nato (and a decent amount of Nato troops on the UA/RU border).

"No way the EU would let that slide." They EU has no ability in military things if the UK is out. The Nato would not let it slide but they also would not fight back to win it back. It would be cold war II.

Sorry to be a pedant, but the UK's military capability is at an all time low. We have made awful purchasing decisions across the army, navy and air force, as well as failing to recruit enough people. There isn't a part of the UK military which isn't in crisis. We are not the force your post suggests we are.

Awful purchasing decisions from the US, uniformly. The deeper into this rabbit hole one goes, the stronger the smell of rats. One truly wonders who was persuaded to give away the entire fleet of carrier-borne aircraft to the US Marines - and how...

I read it as political stupidity rather than malice. Maybe not though. The requirement to have VTOL craft for our new carriers was an unforced error though, that necessitated the much more expensive model of the F35 that even the US doesn't generally use. We could've just opted for a better carrier design, or retrofitted.

Or just... kept the perfectly serviceable (indeed, newly refitted) fleet of Harrier VTOL carrier aircraft? Instead of practically giving them to the US? Who were mysteriously happy to have them, despite the ostensible F35 replacement being an American product?

The entire thing reminds of this[1] Futurama bit. "You won't be needing Harriers anymore, will you? I take Harriers now, F35 come next decade".

[1]https://youtu.be/kNyETSyc4qo?t=98

No disagreement here. I somewhat assumed there was a reason for the F35 at all..

France has a more capable and experienced force than Russia. Also, while small individually, the combined forces of the EU far exceed that of Russia. And the US has troops stationed in Estonia, they would most certainly not let that slide. Russia can't defend its population centres either, the whole discussion is quite absurd.

That was probably true 4 years ago. It's not at all obviously true today.

Er no, Ukraine was supposedly protected by the Budapest Declaration.

One of the signatories was the invader, the rest found obtuse reasons why they didn't have to defend Ukraine.

The next annexation will be the same.

Russia could have annexed the Baltic states when they secceded in 91, but chose not to. From their perspective, they had enough of empire and grew tired of propping the periphery. There was no need for these states to join Nato, and they could have remained as independant partners benefitting from trade with 2 blocks. The fact they chose to move away from Russia has more to do with corruption than logic.

Russia's war with Georgia and annexation of Crimea rather vindicates the Baltic states' decision to join NATO. Russia has made it manifestly clear that it wants the right to interfere in any country's politics that hosts a sizable Russian minority, and that it is willing to bring in the tanks should the host country refuse.

Russia-Georgia conflict started by Georgian invasion. It's a fact acknowledged even by EU. I guess that just "forgot" to publish it in the media and continue to confuse people saying that Russia started it.

It was a conflict initiated by Georgia but actually they were asked by US to start it.