Michael Peck
Though their landscape is picturesque, the Baltic states are not built for defense. Lakes and swamps provide some benefit, but there are no mountains, jungles, or Rhine-sized rivers to stop an invader. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania can be Holland, but not Switzerland.
Hence, the Baltic states want to build the “Baltic Defense Line” to stave off a Russian attack. Announced in January 2024, the idea is that by working together, three small nations can overcome their numerical and geographical weaknesses versus their giant and aggressive neighbor.
Estonia plans to build 600 bunkers along its 300-km (186-mile) border with Russia. Latvia is emplacing dragon’s teeth. Lithuania announced a plan last month to build a multi-layer border defense system stretching up to 50 km from the border. Directly on the border would be the first layer — 5km in depth — comprising a wide anti-tank ditch, backed up by dragon’s teeth, then minefields, then strongpoints and trenches, followed by a second line of trenches. The second layer would include trenches as well as bridges wired for demolition, with a third layer studded by trees ready to be felled into obstacles, and yet more trenches and wired bridges.
“Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man,” declared the ever-aggressive Gen. George Patton. But in reality, they are a sensible and cost-effective idea, especially for weaker nations. They increase the survivability and lethality of friendly troops, impede enemy mobility and logistics, and allow the defender to economize on manpower and resources. As the early days of the Ukraine war showed, it doesn’t take much to derail and disrupt Russian armored columns. For the Baltic states not to build fixed defenses would be negligent, if not criminal.
However, fortifications can also be an albatross. The most infamous example is the Maginot Line, which has become a meme for how static defenses can become a trap. Yet in theory, the concept was good. Maginot defenses were a force multiplier that allowed the French to garrison the southern part of their line with second-line troops while concentrating higher-quality mechanized forces to stop a German offensive in the open terrain to the north.
The problem was that the Germans attacked in the center and quickly penetrated through the lightly defended Ardennes Forest. While the sclerotic French high command failed to counterattack or shift reserves to block the German thrust, the panzers fanned out north and south to split the Allied line in half and encircle each wing. In other words, the fault lay not with the forts, but with the lack of mobile reserves and agile commanders.
No comments:
Post a Comment