There is strong evidence that Russia is stationing 9K720 Iskander (NATO: SS-26) mobile short range ballistic missile systems at their Kaliningrad enclave in the Baltic Sea.
Russia has been threatening to station the missiles in the area for several years.
The Iskander missile is the modern ancestor of the Scud missiles. It is state of the art. It is capable of carrying either conventional or nuclear weapons. The system has been in the Russian inventory for approximately 10 years and was utilized in combat in Georgia where an Iskander strike destroyed 28 Georgian tanks. The weapon system has very good accuracy and is reported to be far more reliable than the old Scud missile system. The missiles have a range of approximately 500-600 km (310-372 miles). What makes this missile system particularly troubling for Western Europe is that the missiles are designed to evade anti-ballistic missile systems such as the Patriot. The missiles are capable attaining hypersonic speeds (Mach 6-7) and of performing evasive maneuvers (rated up to 20 to 30g's) at all stages of its flight to avoid ABMs. The missile is guided throughout its entire flight. In short, this thing can wreak havoc within its operational range.
The Kaliningrad Oblast is a finger-shaped Russian enclave located on the Baltic Sea and bordered by Lithuania to the northeast and Poland to the south. It is separated from the rest Russia and is only directly accessible by sea or air. There is a roadway which runs though Belarus and Lithuania to the enclave and the Russians have agreements with those nations to use the highway.
Kaliningrad is shown in dark green on the map.
Kaliningrad is Russia's main trophy from World War II. The original name of the city and area was Königsberg. In the Middle Ages Königsberg was home to the Teutonic Knights, who raided into Russia. In later years, the area would be the heart of Prussia and would become synonymous with Prussian militarism. As part of Germany, it was the center of ferocious fighting during both World Wars. The Red Army seized the area at the end of World War II and it was ceded to the USSR at the Potsdam Conference. Native Germans in the area were forcibly expelled and the area was re-populated by Russias, Belorussians, and Ukrainians. The Soviets heavily militarized and industrialized the area. Additionally, they have also used the area as a dumping ground for waste. It is one of the most polluted areas in the world, a process which the Russian Federation has continued. Billions of tons of waste is dumped into the Baltic Sea annually from Kalinigrad, much to the chagrin of neighboring Baltic nations. That is how the Russians play.
Kaliningrad is the only Baltic Sea port in Russia which does not ice-over during winter. Hence, it has become home to the Russian Baltic Fleet.
The stationing of the Iskander missiles in the Oblast is a sensitive issue and is in direct response to NATO increasing ties with new member states in the Baltic Region: Poland, Lithunania, Estonia, and Latvia. NATO has set up a Patriot base in Poland at their request. From their bases in the Oblast, Iskander missiles have the range to strike all of these nations in addition to Gottland Island and Southern Sweden. Following Russia's recent history in Georgia and Ukraine, the Baltic nations see this threat as a prelude to offensive actions and as an existential crisis. What makes this situation different, however, is that these countries are now NATO states. The organization is pledged to defend them.
But where's the evidence this actually means something? Seems a lot like the global warming debate - let's go back and change what was said to make us look more prescient.
(12-11-2016, 05:22 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I assume this a criticism of Trump.
But where's the evidence this actually means something? Seems a lot like the global warming debate - let's go back and change what was said to make us look more prescient.
No. Not a criticism of Trump.
Outside of posting memes and jokes, I'm laying off of Trump... at least until next spring (i.e. giving him a chance to show what he is actually about). As for any link between Trump and the Russians, I'm waiting to see what happens with that as well. I don't think Trump will be unseated by that.
This is about Russians threatening other countries. NATO countries. If NATO does not stand up for member nations, then there is no purpose to the organization and it should disband (Article V of the NATO charter).
I'm also interested in seeing how this plays in the EU where they also have an enabling mutual security doctrine (Item 42.7 in the Treaty of Lisbon).
If the U.S. is a country that honors its commitments to other nations, then it does indeed mean something.
(12-11-2016, 05:22 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I assume this a criticism of Trump.
Look what happens when you assume
(12-11-2016, 01:00 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: No. Not a criticism of Trump.
Outside of posting memes and jokes, I'm laying off of Trump... at least until next spring (i.e. giving him a chance to show what he is actually about). As for any link between Trump and the Russians, I'm waiting to see what happens with that as well. I don't think Trump will be unseated by that.
This is about Russians threatening other countries. NATO countries. If NATO does not stand up for member nations, then there is no purpose to the organization and it should disband (Article V of the NATO charter).
I'm also interested in seeing how this plays in the EU where they also have an enabling mutual security doctrine (Item 42.7 in the Treaty of Lisbon).
If the U.S. is a country that honors its commitments to other nations, then it does indeed mean something.
(12-11-2016, 01:00 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: No. Not a criticism of Trump.
Outside of posting memes and jokes, I'm laying off of Trump... at least until next spring (i.e. giving him a chance to show what he is actually about). As for any link between Trump and the Russians, I'm waiting to see what happens with that as well. I don't think Trump will be unseated by that.
This is about Russians threatening other countries. NATO countries. If NATO does not stand up for member nations, then there is no purpose to the organization and it should disband (Article V of the NATO charter).
I'm also interested in seeing how this plays in the EU where they also have an enabling mutual security doctrine (Item 42.7 in the Treaty of Lisbon).
If the U.S. is a country that honors its commitments to other nations, then it does indeed mean something.
Your thinking is so pre-Trump, B-Zona. Since tipping the election in Trump's favor, Putin has become our ally. Our commitment is to Russia now, not some 70-year-old piece of paper.
Let's get your thinking turned around to the new order. This is about those central European countries threatening our ally, Russia--a great and (literally) HUGE country with at least three cities with sites for large, international Trump hotels.
Missiles in Kalingrad merely announce the coming shift in alliances.
(12-11-2016, 03:07 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Kaliningrad is Russia's main trophy from World War II. The original name of the city and area was Königsberg. In the Middle Ages Königsberg was home to the Teutonic Knights, who raided into Russia. In later years, the area would be the heart of Prussia and would become synonymous with Prussian militarism. As part of Germany, it was the center of ferocious fighting during both World Wars. The Red Army seized the area at the end of World War II and it was ceded to the USSR at the Potsdam Conference. Native Germans in the area were forcibly expelled and the area was re-populated by Russias, Belorussians, and Ukrainians.
Outside intel circles, Koernigsberg is synonymous Immanuel Kant.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Russia has been slowly picking up where it left off in the 70s. Their economy is stronger, their infrastructure is stronger, there's a sense of national self again. We've been fortunate the last few decades in that there really hasn't been a super power moving in an alternate direction as us. The EU looks a little stronger after some recent elections, so there's that and growing South American relations — where economies are getting stronger — thanks to Obama and more democratic minded folks.
OK link doesn't seem to be working. Looks like we have a new missile to shoot down the Chinese anti-ship missiles designed to knock out aircraft carriers.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
OK link doesn't seem to be working. Looks like we have a new missile to shoot down the Chinese anti-ship missiles designed to knock out aircraft carriers.
Hopefully.
But consider this. During the late 1970's, the British Navy was highly concerned about their ships' vulnerability to the increasing number of anti-ship missiles. They developed two ship-board weapon systems to counter these: the Sea Dart missile defense system and the Abbey Hill electronic warfare system. They conducted trials of these systems and eventually incorporated them into their most modern destroyer class, the HMS Sheffield class. The Royal Navy boasted that no missile could penetrate the combined systems.
In 1982, the HMS Sheffield itself was sent along with the fleet to fight in the Falklands. On May 4, 1982, Sheffield was struck by a single Exocet missile carried by an Argentine Super Etendard aircraft. Six days later it foundered and sank due to the damage.
And then there was the story of the M247 Sgt. York air defense weapon system in the 1980's. Testing reports of the system were grossly exaggerated and faults in the system were covered up by contractors and Army procurement officials. Fortunately, this was discovered just before the weapon was actually fielded with the troops.
There was a lot of debate about whether the "Star Wars" anti-ballistic missile system would work back in the 80's (as well as debate about the legality of developing since it violated the terms of our START reaty with the Soviets). This was proposed as a multi-layered missile defense system. Parts of it (Aegis and Sprint ABM defense missiles) worked to a reasonable degree (reasonable being somewhat less than 100%). Orbiting satellite laser defense systems did not (and still do not) work. They were, however, useful as hype to intimidate the Soviets.
The Patriot system has been the land-based workhorse of the Army for the past 25 years (and is planned to stay until 2040 with upgrades). But it didn't start out well. The House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded:
Quote:"The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the United States Congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war."
We stuck with the Patriot system, however, choosing to upgrade it (with the help of the Israelis). In Operation Iraqi Freedom, we used them to intercept some Iraqi made tactical ballistic missiles. We also used them to shoot down a Royal Air Force Tornado and a US Navy F-18.
Apparently, it works better now. At least it has for the Israelis, who have used them to shoot down two Hamas made UAVs and a Syrian Su-24.
My point in posting all of this is that we probably should take the hype about anti-missile weapons systems with a grain of salt.
But consider this. During the late 1970's, the British Navy was highly concerned about their ships' vulnerability to the increasing number of anti-ship missiles. They developed two ship-board weapon systems to counter these: the Sea Dart missile defense system and the Abbey Hill electronic warfare system. They conducted trials of these systems and eventually incorporated them into their most modern destroyer class, the HMS Sheffield class. The Royal Navy boasted that no missile could penetrate the combined systems.
In 1982, the HMS Sheffield itself was sent along with the fleet to fight in the Falklands. On May 4, 1982, Sheffield was struck by a single Exocet missile carried by an Argentine Super Etendard aircraft. Six days later it foundered and sank due to the damage.
And then there was the story of the M247 Sgt. York air defense weapon system in the 1980's. Testing reports of the system were grossly exaggerated and faults in the system were covered up by contractors and Army procurement officials. Fortunately, this was discovered just before the weapon was actually fielded with the troops.
There was a lot of debate about whether the "Star Wars" anti-ballistic missile system would work back in the 80's (as well as debate about the legality of developing since it violated the terms of our START reaty with the Soviets). This was proposed as a multi-layered missile defense system. Parts of it (Aegis and Sprint ABM defense missiles) worked to a reasonable degree (reasonable being somewhat less than 100%). Orbiting satellite laser defense systems did not (and still do not) work. They were, however, useful as hype to intimidate the Soviets.
The Patriot system has been the land-based workhorse of the Army for the past 25 years (and is planned to stay until 2040 with upgrades). But it didn't start out well. The House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded:
We stuck with the Patriot system, however, choosing to upgrade it (with the help of the Israelis). In Operation Iraqi Freedom, we used them to intercept some Iraqi made tactical ballistic missiles. We also used them to shoot down a Royal Air Force Tornado and a US Navy F-18.
Apparently, it works better now. At least it has for the Israelis, who have used them to shoot down two Hamas made UAVs and a Syrian Su-24.
My point in posting all of this is that we probably should take the hype about anti-missile weapons systems with a grain of salt.
(12-15-2016, 08:22 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We stuck with the Patriot system, however, choosing to upgrade it (with the help of the Israelis). In Operation Iraqi Freedom, we used them to intercept some Iraqi made tactical ballistic missiles. We also used them to shoot down a Royal Air Force Tornado and a US Navy F-18.
Apparently, it works better now. At least it has for the Israelis, who have used them to shoot down two Hamas made UAVs and a Syrian Su-24.
My point in posting all of this is that we probably should take the hype about anti-missile weapons systems with a grain of salt.
(12-11-2016, 01:00 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: This is about Russians threatening other countries. NATO countries. If NATO does not stand up for member nations, then there is no purpose to the organization and it should disband (Article V of the NATO charter).
I'm also interested in seeing how this plays in the EU where they also have an enabling mutual security doctrine (Item 42.7 in the Treaty of Lisbon).
B-zona, what do you think about the timing? Not much Obama can do about this in a month.
Trump is behaving more like a Kremlin asset than leader of the "Free World."
(12-15-2016, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: B-zona, what do you think about the timing? Not much Obama can do about this in a month.
Trump is behaving more like a Kremlin asset than leader of the "Free World."
Looks like a coup for Putin.
Putin is sitting pretty. He has stuck it to the U.S. harder than Trump's son gave it Melania last night.
But seriously, everything this guy has wanted he has gotten in the past couple of years. He bullied Georgia unperturbed. He meddled in the Ukrainian elections, invaded Crimea, and now has the Ukrainians fighting themselves. He meddled with the British vote for Brexit and got what he wanted there. He meddled with the U.S. elections and got what he wanted there. With Trump making overtures to exit NATO, Angela Merkel is now considered the Leader of the Free World. France and Germany have upcoming elections, and the Russians are expected to meddle in those as well.
Oh yeah. He also came out today as the Great Protector in Aleppo by guaranteeing the civilians safety while evacuating the city (many people willfully forgetting that the Russians have been pretty indiscriminately bombing civilians over there for the past 2 years).
But you mentioned timing. Timing is everything. SSF mentioned in another thread the possibility of disbanding NATO. It was not a bad idea.... 20 or 10 years ago. Now, it is a geo-politically insane idea. The only historical correlation I can draw is what happened in Germany in the 20's and 30's: splitting alliances, intimidating neighbors, re-incorporating sovereign nations based upon historic claims, etc. In that sense, it is almost like history repeating itself. Putin is clearly not a Nazi. Nor is he a Communist. But he has no problem throwing peace aside and playing the brinksmanship game that so many dictators have played in the past.
My problem with Putin is not so much his goals, however. We are still not sure what his goals are exactly. The similarities with Pre-WWII Germany end with that. My problem is with his means right now. They are not acceptable. IMO, you meet him with toughness, or you bend over and lube up.
(12-16-2016, 01:37 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes, standing in a bad place if Iran decides to launch, LOL.
They had a problem with them during the First Gulf War. It was a software glitch that affected the timing of the launch, as I recall. If the system was not periodically shut down, the timing would be off by three hundreds of a second or something like that. It doesn't seem that that would cause a serious problem. But with how fast the missiles move, that could cause them to be of by as much as 600 yards.
The Israelis figured it out and tried to tell us about it. But we didn't listen until after that war. And the fix was incredibly simple: you just turn off and restart the system periodically.
(12-16-2016, 01:08 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Putin is sitting pretty. He has stuck it to the U.S. harder than Trump's son gave it Melania last night.
But seriously, everything this guy has wanted he has gotten in the past couple of years. He bullied Georgia unperturbed. He meddled in the Ukrainian elections, invaded Crimea, and now has the Ukrainians fighting themselves. He meddled with the British vote for Brexit and got what he wanted there. He meddled with the U.S. elections and got what he wanted there. With Trump making overtures to exit NATO, Angela Merkel is now considered the Leader of the Free World. France and Germany have upcoming elections, and the Russians are expected to meddle in those as well.
Oh yeah. He also came out today as the Great Protector in Aleppo by guaranteeing the civilians safety while evacuating the city (many people willfully forgetting that the Russians have been pretty indiscriminately bombing civilians over there for the past 2 years).
But you mentioned timing. Timing is everything. SSF mentioned in another thread the possibility of disbanding NATO. It was not a bad idea.... 20 or 10 years ago. Now, it is a geo-politically insane idea. The only historical correlation I can draw is what happened in Germany in the 20's and 30's: splitting alliances, intimidating neighbors, re-incorporating sovereign nations based upon historic claims, etc. In that sense, it is almost like history repeating itself. Putin is clearly not a Nazi. Nor is he a Communist. But he has no problem throwing peace aside and playing the brinksmanship game that so many dictators have played in the past.
My problem with Putin is not so much his goals, however. We are still not sure what his goals are exactly. The similarities with Pre-WWII Germany end with that. My problem is with his means right now. They are not acceptable. IMO, you meet him with toughness, or you bend over and lube up.
Very concise. You tied together a bundle of disparate events, some I hadn't considered, like the coming elections in Europe.
No ideology. Not a Nazi or a Communist. Fascist-tending, but absent an ideological program beyond Russian nationalism. That makes his long game hard to suss out.
So the means. Low-intensity warfare on borders, cyberwarfare against the "real" powers, a large footprint in a former Soviet Client state in the Levant, leverage with the Iran Treaty, and now missiles in K-grad, near the heart of Europe and Europe's most powerful economy. Given the size of Russia's economy and its inability to lead coalitions to accomplish foreign policy ends, I have not been terribly worried about this, until the apparently successful cyber attack in the US and the missiles in K-grad. Now I confess some concern. Suddenly the forces previously hemming him in are gone or weakened. The cyber attack and missile placement seem VERY bold. Risky. Yet done.
And Timing. Obama has promised unspecified retaliation.
But we are between presidencies, and between presidents with very different levels of competence. Putin certainly watched the debates.
Can you see HIM in a late night name-calling tweet storm about some celebrity or journalist he didn't like?
So, if you have time to think this over--two questions. What sort of "toughness" would you LIKE to see here. Beef up NATO? Missiles in Poland to maybe force a Cuban-style evacuation of K-grad? Combined with a punitive cyberattack like our response to N. Korea? More targeted sanctions?
And what sort of toughness are we LIKELY to see. Trump won't be up to speed by Jan. 20. He'll get competing advice from people he has picked, many from the fringes of the foreign policy establishment, and many like him, favor Russian interests. He may still feel he doesn't need his PDBs while looking for major foreign policy resets east, west, and south. If he contests CIA/FBI intel regarding the Russian hack, why would he follow through any retaliation begun by Obama? Especially against someone who says nice things about him. Personally, I don't think we will see "toughness" at all once Trump is in office, though some of his people may urge him to do something. We may see toughness towards segments of our own populace--against flagburners and the like. Undocumented immigrants.
![[Image: 680px-Kaliningrad_Oblast_within_Europe.svg.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Kaliningrad_Oblast_within_Europe.svg/680px-Kaliningrad_Oblast_within_Europe.svg.png)
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
