What's new

U.S. deploys advanced anti-aircraft missiles in Baltics for first time

NATO's build up was due to the annexion of Crimea and the alleged active Russian role in the war in eastern Ukraine,and at the sole demand of the Baltic and eastern European countries,who saw Russia's resurgence and subversive tactics as a direct threat. Not to add the threat of nuking countries or conducting large scale exercices on NATO's borders.

Before Ukraine's events,the US were removing troops from Europe,and pretty much all European countries were cutting their defence budgets and forces.

NATO forces are there on a strictly defensive role to reassure worried members,so no chances for NATO to unleash its troops and tanks on Russia's plains.
In fact, NATO began to expand long before the West launched a 2014 coup d'état in Ukraine. And long before 2014, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty and began building a missile defense in Europe. So it's silly to blame Russia, which reacts very, very restrainedly to the multiple increase of NATO troops at its own borders.
Why NATO exists at all after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved and there are no more communism? Why NATO is expanding to Russia borders and the agressive side - is Russia? Just look at the maps of 1989 and 2017.
 
it is the failure of the Russian foreign policy that it has been unable to do anything of the sort. It should have befriended more countries so there would not be a united front that is NATO.
The Bush era was a time where Russia should have wooed more countries and developed stronger links outside the old states of the Soviet Union and its traditional allies. Philippines is one country where inroads by Russia would really change the balance in the region and cause serious worries for the USA.
Deterrence itself can not be enough, as the world order reshapes itself, Russia needs to as well to challenge the current power structure of the world.
With Trump in power, Russia has a chance to make inroads into parts of Europe by reopening dialogue and signing non aggression pacts where possible to reduce the "Russia is going to take over" monologue which is spouted out by multiple nations allied with the USA.
Russian intervention in Georgia and Ukraine set off alarms across Europe and several European states are preparing for an eventuality in response, specially in the Baltic.

Recall the recent visit of Donald Trump to Poland? The reception he received there says it all.

Philippines is unlikely to have a strategic relationship with Russia due to its geography and US will definitely react to this move. Philippines seems to be warming up to China under the leadership of Duterte but is it willing to concede its claims in SCS to China because China will not negotiate on this part?

http://www.bworldonline.com/content...ew-of-philippine-american-relations&id=148061
http://www.philstar.com/business/2017/07/17/1720154/philippines-eyes-free-trade-agreement-us
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...an-mustnt-become-theatre-geopolitical-rivalry

I doubt Russia can score anything significant with Philippines in the long-term.

Remember that Trump administration will not last forever and US foreign policy can shift.
 
I think, some defence agreements between Russia and Cuba still function. If I understood your words correctly - deployment of troops of potentially hostile power near US borders under Treaty of that potentially hostile power with a third party will not cause the US negative reaction? Because of those Treaty - it will be less dangerous to US?

USA has kept its part of the bargain from 1962 - not to arm groups that want to overthrow the Cuban government
 
And imagine if Russia or China had deployed air defense in Mexico, on the very border with Texas or California? I wonder how the US would react to this?
We all know how the US will react. Remember the Cuban missile crisis.
 
USA has kept its part of the bargain from 1962 - not to arm groups that want to overthrow the Cuban government
And Russia did not locate misslies on Cuba. Everybody wins. So - why USA locate missles in Baltics which is right on Russian borders - much, much closer then Cuba to US?
Unipolar world is sick place where interests of only 1 country matter. I think, everybody with even one eye can see it.
 
Why NATO exists at all after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved and there are no more communism? Why NATO is expanding to Russia borders and the agressive side - is Russia? Just look at the maps of 1989 and 2017.
Because we actually wanted such an alliance, whereas Warsaw Pact was forced upon nations.

And imagine if Russia or China had deployed air defense in Mexico, on the very border with Texas or California? I wonder how the US would react to this?
You mean, after the US put Iskander equivalent ballistic missile on their border?


57f93204c46188d6478b4687.jpg


You forget that Kaliningrad Oblast is right dead center inside NATGO territory. Which is not exactly comparable to a border situation US/Mexico.

Russia-a2-ad.png

ZGDmZla.png
 
Because we actually wanted such an alliance, whereas Warsaw Pact was forced upon nations.


You mean, after the US put Iskander equivalent ballistic missile on their border?


57f93204c46188d6478b4687.jpg


You forget that Kaliningrad Oblast is right dead center inside NATGO territory. Which is not exactly comparable to a border situation US/Mexico.

Russia-a2-ad.png

ZGDmZla.png
NATO_expansion[1].png

The deployment of Iskanders in the Kaliningrad region was announced after the US announced plans to build a missile defense system in Europe. I think, you know very well, that NATO came in this region in 1999-2004 and Kaliningrad oblast is there since 1945.
And I think there is no US territory near Kalinigrad.
 
View attachment 412338
The deployment of Iskanders in the Kaliningrad region was announced after the US announced plans to build a missile defense system in Europe. I think, you know very well, that NATO came in this region in 1999-2004 and Kaliningrad oblast is there since 1945.
And I think there is no US territory near Kalinigrad.
NATO was ASKED by the newly independent states, which sought to become members of NATO. When will Russia start accepting that they no longer own the small Baltic states and Eastern European countries?

The two AEGIS Ashore site have 24 VLS cells each, for SM3. These fixed sites are in no position stop/counter a determined (i.e. massed) direct attack with ballistic and cruise missiles. They are perfectly capable of stopping a few 'rogue missiles' fired from, say, somewhere near the Persian Gulf. They post no threat to Russias capabilities and, hence, Russia's security whatsoever.

16-Aegis-Ashore-Site-site-chart.jpg


CqQI1QCVUAANHJc.jpg


With just the cruisemissiles Russia posesses (demonstrated in Syria), it can hit Bucharest from Moskow (and therefor also Warsaw). Let alone by its tactical ballistice missiles and air force.
 
Last edited:
NATO was ASKED by the newly independent states, which sought to become members of NATO. When will Russia start accepting that they no longer own the small Baltic states and Eastern European countries?
When will USA start accepting that they are not in Europe at all and they should not locate troops just on Russian borders? Last time i checked the map USA was thousands km away.
post-2-065994900%201307462693[1].jpg

When the 4th stage of US missile defense in Europe is implemented, they will be able to threaten Russia's missile potential.
In any case, you should understand - if you concentrate troops near potentially hostile power right at its borders, this will cause a reaction. And the only loser will be Europe, US do not care - because they live on far away island.
 
When will USA start accepting that they are not in Europe at all and they should not locate troops just on Russian borders? Last time i checked the map USA was thousands km away.
View attachment 412344
When the 4th stage of US missile defense in Europe is implemented, they will be able to threaten Russia's missile potential.
In any case, you should understand - if you concentrate troops near potentially hostile power right at its borders, this will cause a reaction. And the only loser will be Europe, US do not care - because they live on far away island.
The amount of non-local troops in the Baltic states - which barely have armies to begin with - is minute and pales in comparison to what the Russians have available.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#Europe

Following the 2014 Wales summit, NATO announced its intent to create a Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), “a new Allied joint force that will be able to deploy within a few days to respond to challenges that arise, particularly at the periphery of NATO’s territory.” However, mustering the 5,000-strong force has proven to be difficult. In addition, NATO reportedly believes the VJFT would be too vulnerable during its deployment phase to be utilized in Poland or the Baltics. At the Warsaw summit in July 2016, NATO agreed to an enhanced forward presence of one rotational battalion in each of the Baltic States and Poland, beginning in 2017. Canada, Germany, the U.S., and the UK have promised to serve as framework nations for the battalions.
http://index.heritage.org/military/2017/assessments/operating-environment/europe/

nato-map.jpg

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-map-where-are-they-positioned-a7562391.html

Any US (or Canadian, German, or UK) troops are there at the express wishes of a variety of treaty nations. This is their good right to ask. It is not an occupation force, like the Soviet periods of Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile:

For some years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Kaliningrad Oblast was one of the most militarized areas of the Russian Federation and the density of military installations was the highest in Europe, as much of the Soviet equipment pulled out of Eastern Europe was left there. As of 2009, there were 11,600 Russian ground troops based in the oblast, plus additional naval and air force personnel.Thus military troops amount to less than 2% of the oblast's population. Kaliningrad is the headquarters of the Russian Baltic Fleet together with Chernyakhovsk (air base), Donskoye (air base) and Kaliningrad Chkalovsk (naval air base).

The Washington Times wrote on January 3, 2001, citing anonymous intelligence reports, that Russia had transferred tactical nuclear weapons into a military base in Kaliningrad for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Russian top-level military leaders denied those claims. A Pentagon spokesperson said that such deployment would violate the Russian pledge to remove nuclear weapons from the Baltics. Russia and the United States announced in 1991 and 1992 a non-binding agreement to reduce arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons.

On November 5, 2008, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev said that Russia would deploy Iskander missiles in the oblast as a response to U.S. plans for basing missile defense missiles in Poland. Equipment to electronically hamper the operation of future U.S. missile facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic would also be deployed, he said.

However, on January 28, 2009, a Russian defense official stated that the deployment of short-range missiles in Kaliningrad Oblast would cease, due to perceived changes in the attitude of the United States government towards the Russian Federation, following the election of United States President Barack Obama. In September 2009, Russia fully scrapped plans to send short-range missiles into the Kaliningrad Oblast in response to Obama's decision to cancel the missile defense system.

In November 2011, Dmitry Medvedev issued another stern warning that Russia would deploy new missiles aimed at U.S. missile defense sites in Europe if Washington went ahead with the planned shield. Then in 2012, Russia chose Kaliningrad as the second region (after Moscow) to deploy the S-400 (SAM) missile system. Subsequently, Russian newspaper Izvestia reported in Dec 2013 that the short range Iskander-M 9K720 operational-tactical missile systems had been commissioned by the Western Military District's missile and artillery forces at about the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast#Military

Now, this is not the RUssian homeland we're talking about..... rather, as an exclave of Russia proper, it is surrounded by Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea.

On August 29, 1944, Soviet troops reached the border of East Prussia. By January 1945, they had overrun all East Prussia except for the area around Königsberg. Many inhabitants fled west at this time. During the last days of the war, over two million people fled before the Red Army and were evacuated by sea. The remaining population of 300,000 people were condemned to forced labour. Per the terms of the Potsdam Agreement, the city became part of the Soviet Union pending the final determination of territorial questions at a peace settlement. This final determination never took place. The city of Königsberg was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946 in memory of Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Mikhail Kalinin. The remaining German population was forcibly expelled between 1947 and 1948. The conquered territory was populated with citizens of the Soviet Union, mostly ethnic Russians but to a lesser extent by Ukrainians and Belarusians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast#Conquest_by_the_Soviet_Union


graphic-putin-and-forces.jpg

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20737...30000-troops-eu-border-experts-reveal-threat/

0cce82b442243711c082f40c50e1de18--nato-storms.jpg


627x0.png




The United States deployed a battery of Patriot long-range anti-aircraft missiles in Lithuania to be used in NATO wargames from Tuesday - the first time the advanced defense system has been brought to the Baltics where Russia has air superiority.

The Patriot battery was brought to the Siauliai military airbase on Monday, ahead of the Tobruk Legacy exercise, and will be withdrawn when the exercise ends on July 22, a Lithuanian defense ministry spokeswoman told Reuters.

The NATO wargames take place ahead of the large-scale Zapad 2017 exercise by Russia and Belarus which NATO officials believe could bring more than 100,000 troops to the borders of Poland and the three Baltic NATO allies - the biggest such Russian maneuvers since 2013.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia possess only short-range anti-aircraft missiles, leaving the skies largely unprotected in the event of hostilities and have expressed concern about their air defense weakness following Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

As a deterrent to Russia in the flashpoint region, the United States has deployed detachments of troops since the Crimea annexation, which have been augmented by four NATO battle groups of more than 1,000 soldiers.

Referring to the NATO exercise starting on Tuesday, Lithuania's Defence Minister Raimondas Karoblis said: "The deployment of Patriots is important because it demonstrates that such moves are no longer a taboo in the region."

"It proves that the missiles can be brought to wherever they are needed, which is very important," he told Reuters.

"Air defense, including ground-based defenses, is one of the holes in our defenses, and we will not solve it without help from our allies," he said.

The Patriot batteries were used in 200 combat engagements against manned and unmanned aircraft, cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles, according to its maker U.S. firm Raytheon.

NATO ally Poland said last week that the United States had agreed to sell it Patriot missile defense systems. In March it said it expected to sign a deal worth up to $7.6 billion with Raytheon to buy eight Patriot systems by the end of the year.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-baltics-patriot-idUSKBN19V28A

You'all understand that the patriots were brought in for an exercise and will ship out again when that is over?
It is not permanent stationing....!

In fact, NATO began to expand long before the West launched a 2014 coup d'état in Ukraine.
:omghaha:

... sure, ignore and deny the Ukrainian people.
 
The amount of non-local troops in the Baltic states - which barely have armies to begin with - is minute and pales in comparison to what the Russians have available.
You do realize that you are talking about Russian troops on Russian soil and American troops on Russian border? I will repeat it - American troops on Russian border. Not Russian troops on American border - American troops on Russian border. Not in some third countries as in Cold War era.
I can not even imagine how it could be seen as some normal thing.
Europe - is not a couple of banana republics. We can solve our problems and disagreements by negotiations as civilized people do. You, Western Europeans are not some bunch of primitive tribes who need far-away protector to decide what you need and who is your enemy.
 
You do realize that you are talking about Russian troops on Russian soil and American troops on Russian border? I will repeat it - American troops on Russian border. Not Russian troops on American border - American troops on Russian border. Not in some third countries as in Cold War era.
I can not even imagine how it could be seen as some normal thing.
Europe - is not a couple of banana republics. We can solve our problems and disagreements by negotiations as civilized people do. You, Western Europeans are not some bunch of primitive tribes who need far-away protector to decide what you need and who is your enemy.
WHy booohooo.
nato-map.jpg

You did note US troops here were in POLAND? The rest being other NATO countries.

Meanwhile, there are plenty Russian troops on the Polish border and the Lithuanian border (in Kaliningrad oblast), well inside NATO space and well away from the Russian mothercountry. Estonia and Lativa directly border Russia

Funny how we only get this where concerns the Baltis states bordering Russia. But we don't get anything when American troops exercise with NOrwegian and Finnish troops IN FINLAND, which - last I checked - also borders Russia.
https://www.army.mil/article/187508/finnish_norwegian_and_us_troops_train_together_at_arrow_17

Why do you think Finland is growing is military again?
http://www.dw.com/en/finland-to-ramp-up-troop-levels-amid-heightened-russian-tensions/a-37592578

Alternatives to US troops?
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/4-alternatives-us-troops-the-baltics-15464

Here'one: Israel has Russian troops on its border, in Syria. Would you mind if the Baltics states ask the Israeli's to provide a batallion to Estonia and Latvia? Would that be ok then with you, since Russian troops are on their border too?
 
WHy booohooo.
nato-map.jpg

You did note US troops here were in POLAND? The rest being other NATO countries.

Meanwhile, there are plenty Russian troops on the Polish border and the Lithuanian border (in Kaliningrad oblast), well inside NATO space and well away from the Russian mothercountry. Estonia and Lativa directly border Russia

Funny how we only get this where concerns the Baltis states bordering Russia. But we don't get anything when American troops exercise with NOrwegian and Finnish troops IN FINLAND, which - last I checked - also borders Russia.
https://www.army.mil/article/187508/finnish_norwegian_and_us_troops_train_together_at_arrow_17

Israel has Russian troops on its border. Would you mind if the Balticsstates ask the Israeli's to sent a batallion to Estonia and Latvia? Would that be ok then with you, since Russian troops are on their border too?
Of course, the increase of the American garrison in Norway is same nonsense as the increase of American troops in any other country in Europe. Russian troops are on Russian soil. Nobody is against Polish troops in Poland or Norwegian troops in Norway.
I do not think that European countries are bunch of defenseless and weak-willed banana republics that need a "defender". You have professional military, excellent technology, nuclear weapons. You do not need a transatlantic "suzerain" with manners of the world hegemon and passion to organize revolutions and wars wherever he wants.
 
NATO was ASKED by the newly independent states, which sought to become members of NATO. When will Russia start accepting that they no longer own the small Baltic states and Eastern European countries?
And when did Russia say something like that?
May you back your claims with proof?
Because we actually wanted such an alliance, whereas Warsaw Pact was forced upon nations.


You mean, after the US put Iskander equivalent ballistic missile on their border?


57f93204c46188d6478b4687.jpg


You forget that Kaliningrad Oblast is right dead center inside NATGO territory. Which is not exactly comparable to a border situation US/Mexico.

Russia-a2-ad.png

ZGDmZla.png
What a BS @Penguin ! They cannot deploy defensive/offensive equipment on their own lands but USA can do it in EU without considering it's consequences. What a lame logic!
The two AEGIS Ashore site have 24 VLS cells each, for SM3. These fixed sites are in no position stop/counter a determined (i.e. massed) direct attack with ballistic and cruise missiles. They are perfectly capable of stopping a few 'rogue missiles' fired from, say, somewhere near the Persian Gulf. They post no threat to Russias capabilities and, hence, Russia's security whatsoever.

16-Aegis-Ashore-Site-site-chart.jpg


CqQI1QCVUAANHJc.jpg


With just the cruisemissiles Russia posesses (demonstrated in Syria), it can hit Bucharest from Moskow (and therefor also Warsaw). Let alone by its tactical ballistice missiles and air force.
Obviously EU is a military base of USA. All over EU you can see NUKE and Hydrogenic bombs deployed by Americans. Now those bases in EU are turning to the first target for Russian defense retaliatory forces. They have all rights to defend themselves.

@vostok This is a worthless debate my friend. As far as Russia is on the defensive mode, they will keep advancing towards east. Balance of power was nailed when they managed the illegal coup in Ukraine, tried to intervene in Georgia and destroy the only Russian ally in ME , Syria.

The only solution is in Cuba. Enough said buddy, these guys are proud of being USA's regional lackeys.
 
Of course, the increase of the American garrison in Norway is same nonsense as the increase of American troops in any other country in Europe. Russian troops are on Russian soil. Nobody is against Polish troops in Poland or Norwegian troops in Norway.
I do not think that European countries are bunch of defenseless and weak-willed banana republics that need a "defender". You have professional military, excellent technology, nuclear weapons. You do not need a transatlantic "suzerain" with manners of the world hegemon and passion to organize revolutions and wars wherever he wants.
No, I said US troops in FINLAND


Meanwhile, just to make that point again, the 4000 US troop are stationed in POLAND (which only borders Kaliningrad, not 'mother Russia')

"On Saturday, the 3d Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Carson, Colorado, participated in the welcoming ceremony for Operation Atlantic Resolve in Zagan, Poland. Now part of something called the European Reassurance Initiative, the brigade is scheduled to train and engage with armies from Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland during its nine-month deployment."
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/14/opinions/more-us-troops-in-europe-timely-move-hertling/index.html

And when did Russia say something like that?
May you back your claims with proof?
It is attempting to scare those states out of allowing in NATO troops, notably US troops. Read the papers.

What a BS @Penguin ! They cannot deploy defensive/offensive equipment on their own lands but USA can do it in EU without considering it's consequences. What a lame logic!
They can and they have, and the consequence is that the US stations 4000 troops in Poland on a rotational basis.

Obviously EU is a military base of USA. All over EU you can see NUKE and Hydrogenic bombs deployed by Americans. Now those bases in EU are turning to the first target for Russian defense retaliatory forces. They have all rights to defend themselves.
Obviously, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

In 2012, the U.S. had approximately 80,000 military personnel in 28 main operating bases in Europe, primarily in Germany (35000), Italy (12000), the United Kingdom (8500), and Spain (3500). Thats 59000 personnel in these 4 countries alone.
http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/keeping-america-safe-why-us-bases-europe-remain-vital
https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/military balance/issues/2017-wall-chart-79ba

Situation in May 2017:

USINEUROPE-WV-1.jpg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ussia-or-saudi-arabia/?utm_term=.7ea2a0901614

So actually, from 2012 to 2017 US forces in Europe have been reduced by 18,000....

US Troops are stationed in Zagan, Poland, which is very close to the borders with Germany and Austria. So, not even "on" the border with Kaliningrad but 400-500km away from it. And about 1100km from Pskov in mother Russia (on the border with Estonia).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ployment-in-europe-since-cold-war-under-trump
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom