what is the scenario they are doing all those exercises for ?
situation getting more nervous and dangerous in that region every week
why Russia thinks it can bully its borderstates militarily
into becoming a member of their socalled security alliance
in which you see why Ukraine is the missing domino as are uzbekistan, Georgia and azerajan
while trying to keep them from joining NATO
and also here you will that the whole geopolitical map changes when Ukraine joins NATO or is linked to it
because if you are linked to it, you are linked to the US and the US has the biggest military machine (even if it doesn't want to use it so massively as it did several times)
and you don't have to be afraid anymore of all those Russian troops at your border because there is a much greater and better shield once they begin to understand that that is necessary to keep the peace - even a cold war peace
and luckily Putin is doing is utter best the last year to convince even the most outspoken defenders of appeasement that it won't work and that Putin is clearly looking for a fight somewhere - the only question is where and when
sorry guys if you are still living in dreamland but it is time the hard reality begins to settle in
"I wish I was exaggerating, but I’m not. The Ohio Replacement Program was conceived to modernize the sea-based part of the nation’s nuclear force — the only part of that force that is certain to survive if Russia, China or some other major nuclear power launches a surprise attack in, say, 2050. The reason why is that the Navy’s ballistic-missile subs patrol silently beneath the surface of the world’s oceans, where enemies cannot find them; the Air Force’s bombers and silo-based missiles, on the other hand, are in known locations that can be easily targeted
Danmark has told the UN panel who is responsable for dividing the North Pole that they don't agree with their attributed piece of the cake and that they want lots more from Russia (sending troops to the North Pole and setting up more military installations around it) and Canada
this is what they are writing on their tanks
this is what they are saying on their social media
this is one of the several columns rumored to be heading to Mariupol
or somebody thought that Putin didn't want to take Mariupol and gave up on the idea ?
what will the rest of the world do if he starts attacking Mariupol ?
at the time it was the US who was thinking and planning a limited nuclear war in Europe (Reagan and Haig and so)
now it is Putin who is sending nuclear missiles to Crimea, the Baltic region and before our coasts (submarines) and along our borders in planes
it are the Russian troops shooting every day to kill in Ukraine, having already killed already thousands of people and not willing to abide by any peace agreement or diplomatic solution
it is in Moscow that people are parading with posters of Stalin, responsable for the deportation of 17 million people to the Gulag and nobody really knew how many millions died during the Big purge
it is Putin that is speaking in terms of war time and time again and Obama who is looking more and more like Roosevelt was treating Stalin (like a friendly Puppy he could handle personally while Churchill didn't trust Stalin a second)
so there may be some peace movements and demonstrations but they will be dubious (Marie Le Pen may even participate) and they won't be understood in the eastern memberstates of the EU and NATO. Well, you will also have the people who are always against the US whatever it is doing and do not want to know anything wrong about Russia because that is all propaganda
For the moment there are about 800 russian missiles targeting Europe with a madman holding the button
the day the first missiles land, don't be surprised that the situation will degrade quite quickly and that US troops will follow fast afterwards - except if Putin is brought back to his senses and stops this circus of military provocations and incursions and undercover destabilisation operations
and they have understood what Putin has said from the beginning
it is about (anti)tanks - not airplanes or longdistance missiles - but tanks and troops
so what do you buy to defend against such an enemy ?
All US tanks have left the European Continent in 2013 although there are plans to send some back soon or they should lease them to the frontier states in the east
in this tweet you see how many Russian troops there are in Kalingrad next to Lithuania - also re-arming themselves and the US starting to send some troops and planes
the situation is becoming more nervous in the Baltic region the last week as the NATO has seen different Russian troop movements in Kalingrad and along the Baltic states increasing the tension
"The former Soviet Union president further said Russia had experienced difficult times after the Soviet Union's collapse and the U.S. had taken advantage of it. Gorbachev said but today was different because Russia is well-armed. He mentioned that it was good to see Russian President Vladimir Putin taking care of security, strengthening the military and developing weapons. He has no doubt that if anything happens, Russia can "hit back." http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/574603/20141202/russia-gor...
not much different from what Putin is saying
maybe he is afraid of his status and his pension in this virtual democracy in Russia (it seems it is there, but it isn't, like with the virtual environment you only have to pull the cable out to end it all)
the airtraffic over baltic where tensions are increasing daily now http://www.flightradar24.com/RYR75LM/500f160
some countries with borders with Russia or not that far from Russia will have to increase their budgets and some are already annoucing these new investments and new military strategies and cooperation agreements
if you look at the table you will also understand better some of Putin's diplomatic efforts from the beginning and lately
the biggest question is if the NATO will stay united throughout this difficult period because anytime a coalition of countries has been faced with a persistant and overwhelming adversary who doesn't have to agree with anyone and doesn't have to comply with anything, there have been different strategies which are defended rightly or wrongly by different groups which gives the dictator at the opposite time the opportunity to win time and at first to achieve his goals without a real war - just by small wars and destabilisation with the right dose of diplomacy
The minister of Security (as he calls himself) proposed to the minister of Defense of the same party (NVA) to let military patrol the streets in Belgium.
They have done already that once but than we had at the same time the attacks from the Bende van Nijvel and from the CCC which was creating the strategy of tension in Belgium voluntary or not as not all information about that will be declassified before I die
He refers to France but France started with military patrols at certain historic and strategic places after some real big terroristic attacks and because from time to time they arrest terroristic cells before they can attack. This is not necessarily a good strategy (in Great Britain it are just heavily armed policemen - but still policemen)
If the minister wants to put the military to any good use, he should place them at and around our nuclear installations where we have already lost one due to internal strategic sabotage and have lost another for two days because of a fire in an external electrical installation that is not protected by any wall or defensive installation
if we lose any of the other nuclear installations we will be in a real blackout and the only thing you have to do is to blow up some electrical installations outside the installations which are totally unprotected
oh, no not only I am saying this, it was on the journal of RTBF (http://www.rtbf.be/video/detail_jt-19h30?id=1975146 from minute 16) and in France there are also calls to militarise the protection and security of our nuclear installations (shortly after 9/11 there were military and missiles around our nuclear installations)
so those who think that we shouldn't have so much attention for it are wrong
here weapons are tested, here strategies are being adopted, here future special soldiers are being trained, here plans are being made for 2020 (by Russia) when its military will have finished its transformation and will have all the new weaponary it needs for...... (read what Putin is saying publicly and you know)
or we win this war and send a clear message now, or we have another one and worse in a few years
Even if those weapons have been developed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have never been tested in real war in Europe with another climate and other battle conditions. So both sides are starting to send their newest military hardware to the Ukranian battlefield (this is what it is really, sad to say) and to learn what works and what should be changed - especially in the new doctrine of waging or combating a Hybrid war (which is even different from the kinds of wars that are being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan).
for those interested in the networking of the battlefield, you will see that secure communication is part of the infrastructure and the success of these military hardware
This is in fact a big argument for NATO or other countries or even industries to get their newest weaponary to Ukraine so they can achieve some military balance and keep the conflict under control as long as there is no diplomatic solution and have a learning process that no exercise can give. When it comes to real or limited war somewhere on our Eastern European borders than those leassons will be very important. The Baltic states surely think so.
two important facts about the fast increasing number of incidents with Russian military might at the European border
First, it takes a long time to prepare this, it is not done like this on a hunch which means that it is planned, coordinated, prepared and agreed upon - even at the same moment Putin is saying he just wants peace and so on. So there are two faces to Russian foreign policy. The practical guy and the tactical guy. You can chose who to believe and who to trust. If you think that practical things (the economy) will be more important than the military tactics you still think that there is not much to it and that peace will prevail (like good sense). If you prefer to look at the military tactics, than you better start preparing for the worst so you send a message that this guy better starts becoming practical because otherwise he will end up in a dead-end street as his bluff has been called.
And the more further away or the bigger the incursions, the longer the planning and the preparations.
And the real question is the following : if all this has been planned long time in advance, what else will come ? And what is the endgame ?
The first important fact is that this is NOT incidental, this is planned and is part of a longterm strategy based upon a number of suppositions. Understand the strategy and the suppositions and you have a first choice of possible responses.
Secondly, the number of incidents is not 30, no for Europe it is MUCH HIGHER over the last year. We are already at 100 military incidents in our airspace and before our coasts.
"Allied jets have intercepted Russian fighter aircraft along Europe’s fringes 100 times this year, three times the 2013 total, according to NATO. The increased activity coincides with the U.S. and the European Union accusations that Russia is fueling the separatist conflict in Ukraine, where a September cease-fire is wobbling. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-12/poland-renews-ba...grow.html
THis means that every THREE days there is somewhere at our NATO borders a military incident with a Russian military aircraft, submarine or warship (some nuclear). I repeat - so you understand it - every THREE days.
So when military commanders start getting nervous and worried, you have to ask yourself how you would react if somebody is knocking on your windows and doors every three days and sometimes is standing in your hall way or kitchen and leaving afterwards saying, sorry - no harm done.
This is way beyond 'tension' and way beyond 'military incidents'.
This is an explicit military strategy of creating a permanent atmosphere of military tension.
And you only need one ship, submarine or fighter plane to make the mistake of beginning to fire to find ourselves in a totally different situation. And this has happened before. Only at that time the lines of communication between the White House and the Kremlin were still open and there were enough backchannels. With a permanent cutting of ties in all spheres between NATO and the US and the Kremlin at the other side one can hope this will still be the case (even if Obama wouldn't do something military without thinking months about it)
It does mean for Belgium which has foreseen new cuts in its military forces that it would take years to adapt afterwards to the new international environment and its NATO obligations. Or we should just say that we don't want a Belgian army and want to pay a part of an European Defense Force or NATO force (or combination). But that is a bit difficult if you don't have One Commander in chief but 26 (as if the Governors of the US would decide where US troops would be send abroad).
it is not the number of Russian incursions but their strategy that is in fact worrying western military
""What is significant is that across history, most of these incursions have been very small groups of airplanes, sometimes singletons or at most two aircraft," the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, said at a Pentagon briefing.
"What you saw this past week was a larger, more complex formation of aircraft carrying out a little deeper, and I would say a little bit more provocative, flight path.
Every action needs a response and was the response to the first incursions with single aircraft, submarines and boats a bit annoyed, this one got the attention of the highest military planners and eventually our political leaders.
What in fact does he want to say ?
I will and I can attack you at any time before you can respond ? I am a big nuclear power ? You are just so frightened that you don't know what to do when I decide to become very angry with you ?
And this from the US to Europe at every existing border in the air or on the sea.
never before in history have Russian military aircraft taken so many risks in so little time against so many possible targets in such a manner
just needs a small misunderstanding or a defender who is too nervous or not listening anymore to his commanders and wants to show them a lesson ..... to be starging off something
"BAGHDAD — From the battlefield near Baiji, an Islamic State jihadist fired a heat-seeking missile and blew an Iraqi Army Mi-35M attack helicopter out of the sky this month, killing its two crew members.
Days later, the Islamic State released a chilling series of images from a video purporting to capture the attack in northern Iraq: a jihadist hiding behind a wall with a Chinese-made missile launcher balanced on his shoulder; the missile blasting from the tube, its contrail swooping upward as it tracked its target; the fiery impact and the wreckage on a rural road.
The helicopter was one of several Iraqi military helicopters that the militants claim to have shot down this year, and the strongest evidence yet that Islamic State fighters in Iraq are using advanced surface-to-air missile systems that pose a serious threat to aircraft flown by Iraq and the American-led coalition.
that is why they need US helicopters who have defenses against such attacks
this is not just a bunch of guys with machine guns, Isis is an army so you have to battle it like an army
the situation can become much worse in Iraq and the region if #ISIS takes Anbar (but who cares over here?)
"So far, Iraqi military and security forces in Anbar report they are receiving supplies and light arms from the government, but not the heavy artillery and tanks they say they need to push back Islamic State gains.
“The general perception is that the Iraqi government doesn’t believe Anbar as a whole to be important,” says Ahmed Ali, an Iraqi researcher with the Institute for the Study of War based in Washington. “It sees parts of Anbar to be important, but it’s clear the government’s priority is to secure the [outskirts] of Baghdad first.”
Similarly, US-led airstrikes have shifted away from targets in and around cities in Anbar in recent weeks. Instead, coalition planes are more often protecting key points of Iraqi infrastructure like the Mosul Dam and Bayji oil refinery.
Ali says beyond the province’s symbolic value, there will be dramatic strategic consequences if Anbar falls out of government control. One of those consequences will be that Islamic State militants will be better positioned to launch attacks on Shia holy sites in Karbala. One such devastating attack, Ali argues, could spark an all out civil war in a manner similar to how the 2006 al-Askari Mosque bombing in Samarra unleashed a torrent of sectarian violence. http://www.mintpressnews.com/isis-making-strong-gaines-in...
war is not sending 9 or 20 times a plane to drop a bomb or 4 - how precise and massive they may seem
war is not only giving small arms to soldiers who are facing an enemy with tanks, rocketlaunchers and heavy artillery
war is not standing by and saying everything is lost even if we have done everything we could (we say)
yeah you read it
they will never go to Antartica