What's new

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

How does Italy even have 320K personnels ? :unsure:
I presume that includes the Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza ?
Well, in 2010, the Italian military had 293,202 personnel on active duty, of which 114,778 are Carabinieri....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Military

Despite not being a branch of the armed forces, the Guardia di Finanza is part of the military and operates a large fleet of ships, aircraft and helicopters, enabling it to patrol Italy's waters and to eventually participate in warfare scenarios.

Active personnel
347,927 (2017)
Reserve personnel 41,867 (2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Armed_Forces
 
It is attempting to scare those states out of allowing in NATO troops, notably US troops. Read the papers.
Only on CNN. Co'mon buddy, dutch people are smart. The imaginary Russian threat has turned EU to Nuclear base of USA.
They can and they have, and the consequence is that the US stations 4000 troops in Poland on a rotational basis.
Who is warmonger USA?
They have no right there. And they have started the arms race in peaceful area of Baltics.
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


It is attempting to scare those states out of allowing in NATO troops, notably US troops. Read the papers.


They can and they have, and the consequence is that the US stations 4000 troops in Poland on a rotational basis.


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
When we are talkking about Aegis radar or the THAAD, 1,100 Km is nothing. The deployed radar has almost 2,000 Km range.
It is mainly programmed to kill the first attack chance of Russia and China.
That's all USA is gaining from it's bases in far east and EU and now eastern EU.
 
Only on CNN. Co'mon buddy, dutch people are smart. The imaginary Russian threat has turned EU to Nuclear base of USA.
Like it of not, the US presence in Europe has been steadily decreasing
At the height of the Cold War, more than 400,000 U.S. forces were stationed across 100 communities on the European continent.
There are currently ~62,000 active U.S. military personnel authorized in Europe. Of these, ~52,000 directly support EUCOM. The U.S. “footprint” in Europe includes 28 communities (Main Operating Bases or Forward Operating Sites)
U.S. forces on the continent have been reduced by more than 85% and basing sites reduced by 75%
http://www.eucom.mil/doc/35220/u-s-forces-in-europe

They have no right there. And they have started the arms race in peaceful area of Baltics.
If they were invited there (and they were, by other NATO memberstates, and with approval of the NATO Council, in which all members are represented), they have every right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Structures

When we are talkking about Aegis radar or the THAAD, 1,100 Km is nothing. The deployed radar has almost 2,000 Km range.
It is mainly programmed to kill the first attack chance of Russia and China.
That's all USA is gaining from it's bases in far east and EU and now eastern EU.
Irrespective of radar and missile ranges, there are just 2 sites, each with 24 cells worth of SM3. Those are easily killed by conventional means at Russia's disposal.

As for nuclear missiles

1) http://www.newsweek.com/us-russia-nuclear-arms-race-over-and-russia-has-won-581704
2) 2x24 SM3 missile versus ....
screen%20shot%202014-09-04%20at%201.10.57%20pm.png


nuclear.jpg


Has the "imaginary" Russian threat turned EU to Nuclear base of USA? Well, no.
350 tactical aircraft delivered free fall bombs at best....

Screen%2BShot%2B2016-04-05%2Bat%2B4.59.54%2BPM.png


Screen%2BShot%2B2016-04-05%2Bat%2B4.58.04%2BPM.png


Of the 825 B61s in existence, roughly 370 were active in 2014 with 645 stored in the continental United States and 180 stored in Europe.

All iterations of the B61 (there are nine versions in total) are considered unguided, that is, they are classified as a gravity bomb which is designed to be carried and dropped from a variety of aircraft. This makes them less accurate that the current generation of guided non-nuclear missiles which can hit targets with an accuracy of metres.

http://viableopposition.blogspot.nl/2016/05/the-b61-12-and-barak-obamas-broken.html
 
Well, in 2010, the Italian military had 293,202 personnel on active duty, of which 114,778 are Carabinieri....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Military

Despite not being a branch of the armed forces, the Guardia di Finanza is part of the military and operates a large fleet of ships, aircraft and helicopters, enabling it to patrol Italy's waters and to eventually participate in warfare scenarios.

Active personnel
347,927 (2017)
Reserve personnel 41,867 (2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Armed_Forces

Are the Carabinieri a paramilitary force ?
 
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')
Kaliningrad is Mother Russia. It has the same status as other Russian regions.
Of course, the deployment of US troops in Finland, is the same provocation against Russia, as deployment of US troops in Poland or Norway.
Neither Finland, nor Norway, nor even Poland - are not helpless and poor third world countries. Europe - not a colony and not some property of transatlantic ruler. I am sure that Europeans can take care on their defence without anyone's "help".
 
Kaliningrad is Mother Russia. It has the same status as other Russian regions.
Of course, the deployment of US troops in Finland, is the same provocation against Russia, as deployment of US troops in Poland or Norway.
Neither Finland, nor Norway, nor even Poland - are not helpless and poor third world countries. Europe - not a colony and not some property of transatlantic ruler. I am sure that Europeans can take care on their defence without anyone's "help".

Can the Russian army defend Kalingrad with conventional weapons against all out NATO attack ?
 
Kaliningrad is Mother Russia. It has the same status as other Russian regions.
Of course, the deployment of US troops in Finland, is the same provocation against Russia, as deployment of US troops in Poland or Norway.
Neither Finland, nor Norway, nor even Poland - are not helpless and poor third world countries. Europe - not a colony and not some property of transatlantic ruler. I am sure that Europeans can take care on their defence without anyone's "help".
Nice try. But no, Kaliningrad remains occupied/conquored territory never returned.

Fact remains, we don't hear barking about US troops in Finland. Perhaps that is because Finland actually has a military. And the US troops there are there on exercise, not stationed there (whether permanent or on rotational basis)

Untill recentely, when the number was upped to 280,000, Finland's official policy states that a wartime military strength of 230,000 personnel constitutes a sufficient deterrent. Active personnel 8,086 staff 25,300 conscripts Reserve personnel 900,000
From 1968 onwards, the Finnish government adopted the doctrine of territorial defence, which requires the use of large land areas to delay and wear out a potential aggressor. The doctrine was complemented by the concept of total defence which calls for the use of all resources of society for national defence in case of a crisis. The term total means that all sectors of the government and economy are involved in the defence planning. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not annihilate the military threat perceived by the government, but the nature of the threat has changed. While the concept of total, territorial defence was not dropped, the military planning has moved towards the capability to prevent and frustrate a strategic attack toward the vital regions of the country.
When the Soviets invaded in November 1939, the Finns defeated the Red Army on numerous occasions, including at the crucial Battle of Suomussalmi. These successes were in large part thanks to the application of motti tactics. While the Finns ultimately lost the war and were forced to agree to the Moscow Peace Treaty, the Soviet objective of conquering Finland failed, in part due to the threat of Allied intervention. During the war the Finns lost 25,904 men, while Soviet losses were 167,976 dead.
http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...raise-wartime-strength-to-280-000-troops.html.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces

We in Europe have this alliance. We use it. That is our good right. That's what it's for. The US isn't shoving troops down our throats. Indeed, US troop levels in Europe are at an all time low since end of WW2.
 
Nice try. But no, Kaliningrad remains occupied/conquored territory never returned.
In fact, Kaliningrad joined Russia after the Second World War. There is not a single claim to Russia from any country about the territory. Kaliningrad has the same status of the subject of the Russian Federation, like any other subject of the Federation.

I think Europe has not yet degrade to Tutsi or Sioux level. Europe is a self-sufficient civilization, which can cope with such a basic principle of existence as its own security. One can understand when the leader of African tribe asks for protection of a powerful ruler. But the European Union? The most powerful economy on the planet? Can not protect itself? This is ridiculous!

Can the Russian army defend Kalingrad with conventional weapons against all out NATO attack ?
Of course not.
 
Of course not.

What is the point of Kalingrad in the nuclear age ?

Nice try. But no, Kaliningrad remains occupied/conquored territory never returned.

Kaliningrad used to be Konisberg. Was it conquered ? Yes. But all the Germans were expelled. It does not make sense to have a disjoint East Prussia. If I was Germany and had to choose what territories to get back I would choose Pomerania and Silesia over East Prussia
 
What is the point of Kalingrad in the nuclear age ?
Exactly - the nuclear age. Only thanks to nuclear weapons Russia has preserved its territorial integrity after 1991.
Kaliningrad region is Russia's most important military port in the Baltic, thanks to the fact that the water rarely freezes in winter.
 
Exactly - the nuclear age. Only thanks to nuclear weapons Russia has preserved its territorial integrity after 1991.
Kaliningrad region is Russia's most important military port in the Baltic, thanks to the fact that the water rarely freezes in winter.
st petersburg freezes ??
 
In fact, Kaliningrad joined Russia after the Second World War. There is not a single claim to Russia from any country about the territory. Kaliningrad has the same status of the subject of the Russian Federation, like any other subject of the Federation.
In fact, yadayadayada!

Königsberg is the historical name for the present-day city of Kaliningrad. Originally a Sambian, or Old Prussian city, it later belonged to the monastic state of the Teutonic Knights, the Duchy of Prussia, the Kingdom of Prussia, the Russian Empire and Germany until 1946. After being largely destroyed in World War II by Soviet forces and annexed by the Soviet Union thereafter, the city was renamed Kaliningrad.

During World War II, Königsberg was heavily damaged by Allied bombing in 1944 and during its siege in 1945. The city was captured and occupied by the Soviet Union. Its German population was expelled, and the city was repopulated with Russians and others from the Soviet Union. Briefly Russified as Kyonigsberg (Кёнигсберг), it was renamed "Kaliningrad" in 1946 in honour of Soviet leader Mikhail Kalinin.

It is now the capital of Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast, an exclave bordered in the north by Lithuania and in the south by Poland.

The territory's current legal status is unclear. The Potsdam Agreement placed it provisionally under Soviet administration, but did not mention an explicit right of annexation. In the Final Settlement (1990) Germany renounced all claim to it, but without specifically transferring its former title to any other party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Königsberg

I think Europe has not yet degrade to Tutsi or Sioux level. Europe is a self-sufficient civilization, which can cope with such a basic principle of existence as its own security. One can understand when the leader of African tribe asks for protection of a powerful ruler. But the European Union? The most powerful economy on the planet? Can not protect itself? This is ridiculous!
It is not the EU that is a member of NATO, but individual countries (irrespective of their membership of EU) and not even only European countries (Canada, Turkey for example)

So, anyway, have Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Georgia degraded to Tutsi or Sioux level (what in insulting, degrading remark, by the way, whosing little respect towards those peoples...)? After all, they signed the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 1992.
The CSTO charter reaffirmed the desire of all participating states to abstain from the use or threat of force. Signatories would not be able to join other military alliances or other groups of states, while aggression against one signatory would be perceived as an aggression against all.
Russia has won the right to veto the establishment of new foreign military bases in the member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). In order to deploy military bases of a third country in the territory of the CSTO member-states, it is necessary to obtain the official consent of all its members.
Five years later, six of the nine—all but Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan—agreed to renew the treaty for five more years, and in 2002 those six agreed to create the Collective Security Treaty Organization as a military alliance. Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO in 2006 but withdrew in 2012.
These countries cannot take care of their own defence, without Russia?

And then I'm not even mentioning bilateral agreements of Russia e.g. with Belarus.

How's that for ridiculous. Or double standard.

Kaliningrad used to be Konisberg. Was it conquered ? Yes. But all the Germans were expelled. It does not make sense to have a disjoint East Prussia. If I was Germany and had to choose what territories to get back I would choose Pomerania and Silesia over East Prussia
I'm not suggesting it be returned to Germany. In fact, Germany has in 1992 renounced all claims to it. I'm not sure though about Poland and/or Lithuania (I doub it though that they have or will have any claim). Still, let's not pretend that Kaliningrad has been part of Russia forever, and I firmly believe even Russians can understand that it is strange situation as is. Also, if - as Vostok claims - no one has a claim to Kaliningrad and it IS to be considered part of Russia, then why is it necessary to load it up with thousends of troops, S-400 and Iskander missiles? Unloess of course, you aim is to annoy and irritate or - who knows - worse.

One can't very well expect/demand other countries to disarm, or to relinquish the right to enter into military or economic alliances, just because they share a border with some part of Russia. It is simply silly.
 
yadayadayada!
Kaliningrad became part of the USSR following the Second World War. The Allies agreed with this. Nobody and no one disputed the entry of Kaliningrad into the USSR / Russian Federation. The Kaliningrad Region enjoys all the rights that provides the status of the subject of the Russian Federation.
In addition, Koenigsberg was part of the Russian Empire in 1758-1762 as governor-general. But it does not matter. What is important is that Kaliningrad Region is a full-fledged subject of the Russian Federation.
History know cases when weak states need protection. But history does not know the situation when the most powerful economy of the planet is, in fact, an object, and not a subject of world politics. That is, it does not have military and political sovereignty and is forced to subordinate to a state located on another continent.
I do not understand how you can compare tiny countries like Belarus and the European Union.
I hope that US occupation will end soon and Russia will be able to negotiate directly with Europe, not with its overseas masters.
 
I hope that US occupation will end soon and Russia will be able to negotiate directly with Europe, not with its overseas masters.

Lol! Your so called wish is actually your greatest fear.

Do you really want the US to support Germany rebuilding a vast military industrial complex so we can leave? Yeah right! You'd rather us be there.

You blabber about US troops. However the US has about as much interest in crossing the Russian border as you guys have in crossing your Syrian forces into Israel. You want more Germans on your border instead?

 
Last edited:

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


Back
Top Bottom