Military Review

The United States intends to remain in the Baltic States on an ongoing basis.

25
According to information RIA News, Curtis Scaparotti, commander of the NATO and US armed forces in Europe, announced the US intention to maintain a permanent presence of troops in the Baltic States.

Each country (of the Baltic region - ed.) Asks for the constant presence of US forces ... and we will remain. We are committed to this as long as the conditions for this are maintained.


The United States intends to remain in the Baltic States on an ongoing basis.


In July, at the NATO summit in Warsaw, 2016 decided to "deploy the eastern flank" of the organization to deploy in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland according to the NATO international battalion. Their formation provides the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the United States.

Как indicates Vladimir Sergeyev, on a monthly basis, regardless of the time of the year, at least two military maneuvers under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are held in the Baltic states. Thus, in February, the Estonian-American winter camp exercises were organized, and the “Training Bridge 2017” maneuvers started in January continued, in which Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and the Visegrad Four countries participated.
25 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech 29 March 2017 04: 54
    +8
    The United States intends to remain in the Baltic States on an ongoing basis.


    A hedgehog is understandable ... that NATO and US troops and infrastructure are gradually expanding there.
    But for RUSSIA, now the main threat is the US missile defense in ROMANIA and POLAND ... not without reason representatives of the General Staff of RUSSIA began to show concern over the rapid improvement of US missile defense elements.
    Eliminating the possibility of RUSSIA delivering a retaliatory nuclear strike is the main task of the US missile defense ... the concentration of US and NATO troops from our borders is a prelude to the upcoming conflict ... there should be no illusions here.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 29 March 2017 05: 11
      +4
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      There should not be any illusions here.

      There are no illusions for a long time ... There are more missile defense missiles than there are our nuclear weapons. They also aimed at satellites .... How will we survive?
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 29 March 2017 14: 14
        +3
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        There are already more missile defense missiles than our nuclear weapons.

        Let it be for you to compose! Another thing: what can they quietly load into the UVP in the TPK under the guise of missile defense? Well, how are the New Pershing? That's where the ambush is ...
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        They also aimed at satellites ...
        They take an example from us ... For "X-1" all satellites must be disabled. This, in fact, is one of the main signs of preparation for aggression. And of course, it’s stupid to solve GPS (Either physically, or derail the synchronization) so that Axes and LCAMs fly on a hunch, and not on coordinates.
        Well, and (holy thing!) To work on them RDG, BRDS, KRBD in advance, in ordinary equipment. And the carrier ships of Aegis are to be put in order by boats and aircraft ... But after that, there will be no "reverse gear!" So think what’s better: a bad world or a good fight! bully
    2. Ascetic
      Ascetic 29 March 2017 05: 25
      +4
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Eliminating the possibility of RUSSIA delivering a retaliatory nuclear strike is the main task of the US missile defense ... the concentration of US and NATO troops from our borders is a prelude to the upcoming conflict ... there should be no illusions here.

      In addition, we increase the survivability and stability of the strategic nuclear forces of Russia in addition to super-protected silos with heavy rockets of the Sarmat type and small-sized type Rubezh, you can think about creating a small number of complexes with ballistic missiles of air launch (BRVZ) capable of operating at intercontinental range. At one time, research on such systems was carried out both in our country and abroad. Moreover, such funds can be placed not only on specialized attack aircraft, but also, for example, on military transport aircraft equipped accordingly.
      Significant experience in creating complexes with the BRVZ has in our country, in particular, the famous State Rocket Center "Design Bureau named after Academician V.P. Makeeva ”(formerly SKB-385, then Design Bureau of Engineering). Here, in the 1970s, research was carried out on an aviation missile system based on a ballistic missile for submarines and An-22 aircraft.
      For these complexes, three duty modes were developed:
      everyday (aircraft in the standard parking lot; crew in the aerodrome buildings);
      high alert (aircraft parked near the runway with engines warmed up by airfield means; crew on the plane); this mode would provide a guaranteed exit from the enemy’s preemptive strike upon receipt of an order based on data from a standard missile attack warning system;
      full readiness (barrage in the air over arctic and sparsely populated areas with guaranteed support by refueling aircraft) outside the detection zones by the “opponent” air defense system.

      Also commissioned by the CEN based on the Tundra spacecraft, in addition to the main functions, it is able to duplicate the Perimeter system
      And so for every insidious plan there is an asymmetric answer
      1. Moore
        Moore 29 March 2017 07: 28
        +1
        Quote: Ascetic
        one might think of creating a small number of complexes with ballistic missiles of air launch (BRVZ) capable of operating at an intercontinental range.

        Also not a panacea.
        1. What about her guidance system, the ballistic? Inertial will not work. Astronavigation, satellite, correlation?
        2. Another primary goal for SSBNs? Given the time of arrival.
    3. antivirus
      antivirus 29 March 2017 06: 30
      0
      feeding and milking of the Baltic goes to the USA from Germany. Merkel could not hold a piece of cheese.
    4. user
      user 29 March 2017 20: 44
      0
      But for RUSSIA, now the main threat is the US missile defense in ROMANIA and POLAND ..


      This is today, but in the medium term, it is necessary to develop a military structure (or restore it) in Kamchatka, the Commander Islands and the coast of the Barents Sea, i.e. if the US is approaching the Russian Federation through Europe, then I don’t understand why we are not approaching it from this direction (especially we won’t mix shock missile weapons in response to missile defense), because current technologies allow us to organize normal conditions of service there, rather than separate border posts .
      I'm not saying that on the Commanders it was necessary to install over-the-horizon radars or similar Voronezh the day before yesterday. This will be sewn into the anus of the United States.
  2. Knowing
    Knowing 29 March 2017 05: 10
    0
    "... the commander of the armed forces of NATO and the United States in Europe Curtis Scaparotti announced the intention of the United States to maintain a constant presence of troops in the Baltic."... ha, well, there will be someone to sell sprats with milk, but if it’s a bit of a shred ..., - the scavengers at the hesitants in the high-alert mode.
  3. Moore
    Moore 29 March 2017 05: 19
    0
    Each country (the Baltic region - ed.) Asks for the constant presence of US forces ... and we will stay.

    .. only the possibilities of the Adazi sewage system can hold us back ...
  4. Spartanez300
    Spartanez300 29 March 2017 05: 52
    +1
    Our missiles and without bases will fly where necessary, but I think in Cuba our contingent would not hurt that life did not seem like honey to mattresses.
  5. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 29 March 2017 06: 47
    0
    That look will include extinctions in the state (with the rights of slaves)!
  6. IGOR GORDEEV
    IGOR GORDEEV 29 March 2017 06: 48
    +1
    It is clear that during the Caribbean crisis we could respond accordingly. Because there were forces and opportunities. Now you have to maneuver, to invent something. But I must admit, while they are much stronger economically, and the army in the aggregate is larger. They have no one, but the NATO bloc and the power of many countries are seized by pro-Western leaders.
    Nevertheless, everything will be fine if our “fighters” with corruption do not drive the country into the next revolution.
  7. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 29 March 2017 07: 01
    0
    The United States maintain a constant presence of troops in the Baltic states.

    And to this everything went. First, joint exercises, then the introduction of equipment under the imaginary Russian threat, and then on the thumb.
  8. mr.redpartizan
    mr.redpartizan 29 March 2017 07: 07
    +1
    The main thing is not to miss the start of the attack on Russia. Knowing the exact time and date, it is necessary to deliver the first nuclear strike on the missile defense position areas in Europe and Southeast Asia. This will deprive the United States of its ability to intercept our ICBMs, so they will only have two options - to retreat or start a full-scale nuclear war with us.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 29 March 2017 07: 27
      0
      What will prevent missile defense systems from defending themselves from a nuclear strike?
      1. mr.redpartizan
        mr.redpartizan 29 March 2017 14: 03
        0
        The stock of missile defense is limited, the number of guidance channels, too. You can even use bait missiles, the trajectory of which is similar to ICBMs at the beginning of their missile defense.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 29 March 2017 14: 54
          0
          And this and that is built up simply by throwing more money. The economic opportunities of the West and Russia are incomparable.
          1. mr.redpartizan
            mr.redpartizan 29 March 2017 15: 43
            0
            To intercept even the simplest earth-to-ground missile, at least one expensive missile defense will be required. R-17 missiles are ten times cheaper than the cheapest missile defense system, although they can carry a nuclear charge. To destroy the missile defense system, it is enough to simply hit or blind the radar. A much greater threat is the deployment of infantry fighting vehicles under the guise of missile defense.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 29 March 2017 18: 10
              0
              And the financial resources of the West are more than 20 times higher than ours.
    2. AID.S
      AID.S 29 March 2017 08: 04
      +2
      Quote: mr.redpartizan
      Knowing the exact time and date, it is necessary to deliver a nuclear strike first

      This is a masterpiece. Here is a solution to all the problems. And live after that happily ever after ....
      1. mr.redpartizan
        mr.redpartizan 29 March 2017 14: 11
        0
        GDP: "If a fight is inevitable, then you have to beat first." And this was not said by me, but by the popularly elected president of the Russian Federation. If the missile defense system intercepts our ICBMs, you will not live long, but quite happily. Until the first Tomahawk arrives at your home ...
        1. AID.S
          AID.S 30 March 2017 01: 00
          0
          Then why not today ??? While their missile defense can not intercept all of our missiles? After all, if they decide to strike, then they will be ready to repel ours. And what then will the knowledge of “exact time” give if we are weak by this time? Your logic is understandable, but we are in the position of a frog in the lid of milk and must bring down the butter in order to live on, and not hope that we all lie in the coffin at least at the same time ...
  9. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 29 March 2017 09: 11
    +1
    The Americans unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty, but we do not have the opportunity to similarly deploy missile defense elements around the United States and all its bases ... except for one place - near-Earth outer space. Expensive, but you won’t feed your army — you will feed someone else’s (if you remain alive as a slave). The development of the idea of ​​"Status6" has not been canceled either.
  10. cedar
    cedar 29 March 2017 09: 41
    +2
    We must return to Cuba. To set up a missile defense system there to protect Cuba from the United States, which captured Guantanam ... At the urgent request of the Cuban government and in the interests of the people concerned about American aggression ...
    "Fight fire with fire..."
  11. Vitalson
    Vitalson 29 March 2017 09: 56
    0
    Did you like sprats?