Russian Geopolitics and Economy Discussions

[GoatsMilk]

How? Georgia wasted more money than them and they were taken in 5 days with just a small fraction of their power.


All it takes is one nuclear warhead Zircon to be launched from underwater via satellite via HARMONY SONAR networks and thats it.

Georgia had no real military power but still caused problems for a nation with magnitudes more power.

Americans have nuclear bases all over earth. Then they have nuclear submarines and what not. If Russia nukes the USA, Russia will be wiped from the surface of this earth.

Whats with all this russian shilling? too much RT? Stay away from RT people, it will rot your mind. Russia at their peak power under the soviet union were still weaker then the USA. Today they are shadow of the soviet union.

There biggest advantage Russia had for the past 300 years was having a massive population comparatively to their euro neighbours including Turkey, Iran. That is rapidly diminishing too. Its not longer 140 million vs 10 million its a 140 vs 90 million in the case of Turkey.

 

[blackjack]

Georgia had no real military power but still caused problems for a nation with magnitudes more power.

Americans have nuclear bases all over earth. Then they have nuclear submarines and what not. If Russia nukes the USA, Russia will be wiped from the surface of this earth.

Whats with all this russian shilling? too much RT? Stay away from RT people, it will rot your mind. Russia at their peak power under the soviet union were still weaker then the USA. Today they are shadow of the soviet union.

There biggest advantage Russia had for the past 300 years was having a massive population comparatively to their euro neighbours including Turkey, Iran. That is rapidly diminishing too. Its not longer 140 million vs 10 million its a 140 vs 90 million in the case of Turkey.

how does georgia getting steam rolled in 5 days cause problems when that military uses a small fraction of its power your probably mean the amount of money NATO wasted for just Serbia with the shitiest equipment? your making it sound look it was a full force invasion which wasnt the case. bigger population means a bigger body count, it doesnt cost alot money to kill 1000s singing a carrier with a single missile because thats the way warfare is. A single Yasen sub is able to carry 40 zircons and each zircon is able to sink a ship, and it seems they have quite enough submarine projects as it is. That leaves U.S. isolated from supported Europe where europe has to face the russian and chinese bulls.

There is a reason why many believe Putin can do whatever the fuck he wants

 

[Anastasius]

I apologize in advance for asking an off-topic question.

@AlphaMike, why are you using the Indonesian flag? If you are a US citizen why not use the US flag?

Might as well ask blackjack why is using a Ukrainian flag when he's Russian or Dalit why he's using a Dutch flag when he's Pakistani.

Too simplistic. Russia and China are putting their differences aside for the time being because they know they have mutual interests that converge on so many levels. Do you really think Russia and China would bother quarreling over a supposedly Siberian region when both are being maligned and challanged by Western powers? You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Obviously, the most pressing challange for both China and Russia is facing off the US and her cronies.

Let's hear it from a knowledgeable Turkish member. @Cabatli_53 @T-123456 Would Turkey fight on EU behalf against Russia? Why would Turkey shed blood on behalf of EU and the US which don't treat Turkey with respect? Turkey had to step out of the F-35 project because it was going to get sanctioned for acquiring S-400 missile system from Russia. The EU treats Turkey like an orphan and Turkey is not even a full EU member after so many decades. In fact, Turkey and Western nations are locked in a war of culture and identity. In many Northern European nations Turkey is treated with suspicion and disdain because it has Eastern and Islamic roots. Right wing and liberal politicians in European nations often target Turkey for its Islamic history. That is actually the main reason why a powerful nation like Turkey has never become a full EU member in the first place. Western powers are deliberately pressuring the lira to break Erdogan's Turkey first policy. Other ragtag nations are being included into the EU membership, but Turkey with its bigger economy and history is being shunned. Not a secret why this is happening.

Britain gave the entire EU bandwagon a middle finger by going its own seperate way after Brexit. Why would Britain risk wrath of Russia when the war is actually between the US and Russia/China? Britain couldn't even lift a finger when Russia was accused of poisoning Litvinenko in broad daylight. Other little European states are just cannon fodder. When Putin walked into Crimea and integrated this important piece of land into the Russian Federation the Western powers just stood by and watched the show. What more proof do we need that Western powers only gang up and pounce against weaker opposition?

Internal strife like Western funded Pussy Riot and Navalny? There is no internal rife in Russia of a similar magnitude such as the EU. The EU is fighting for its existence and Brexit was just a small glimpse of what may come. Russia walked into Crimea and the entire Western world stood like a spectator. Why didn't the Western powers intervene and help Ukraine during crunch time? Now you want us to believe that US and EU are ready to conquer Russia. I actually live in a Northern European nation. I was born and raised in a Northern European nation. I know the mindset and sentiment of European people. What you are portraying is largely baloney. Most Europeans are sick and tired of their governments that kowtow US position. In fact, NATO itself has discovered how unreliable the US actually is. Just have a good look at Afghanistan.

Throw them all in. It won't make much of a difference. You know as well as I do, when push comes to shove the world will cease to exist when a clash between Russia/China vs the West really happened. Let's just give the hypotheticals a break. There is not one superior side in reality.

If it's too simplistic because China and Russia are allying out of convenience, then would you not say the same for the EU and the US among others? And yes, they would quarrel over Siberia. They still do. Russian commentators have been warning for over a decade that Putin is selling Russia to the Chinese and Russian nationalists consider China a much bigger threat than the West, although that has to do with "white unity" undertones as well.

I have already pointed out multiple times that Russia is an even bigger threat to Turkey. Their historical spheres of influence directly overlap and the two didn't fight 14 wars just between them and Russia didn't directly contribute to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire through subterfuge for nothing. And oh my God, you are citing the same AKP logic "foreign powers are targeting the lira! It can't possibly be because Erdogan's economic policy is stupid". Not to mention that Turkey has pretty strong ties with several EU nations like Spain, Poland, Romania, etc.

I am going off the actual British political behavior. Out of all European nations, Britain has been the most hostile towards Russia in their rhetoric. You seem to think that "Brexit = Britain is no longer part of Europe" when this is not the case and even the UK's political elite has started admitting that Brexit was a foolish endeavor.

No, not Pussy Riot which hasn't been relevant since about a decade ago and Navalny, who is an even bigger nationalist hawk than Putin who directly referred to Caucasians like myself as trash only good for the Russian boot. I am talking about Russia's own, self-caused internal problems which I have pointed out but you have ignored. I also pointed out that Afghanistan was actually a crushing victory for NATO in a conventional sense. What the Taliban did is hide and when your opposition gets bored and left, crawl out and declare victory. Except now Taliban is having the same problem holding Afghanistan together that NATO did and the Soviets before them.

You want an explanation for Crimea, take a look at what I explained to you before - nuclear weapons.

BTW, I told you once, stick to the topic. Russia vs. NATO. You keep trying to dodge this topic and shift the goalposts. Stick to it or this conversation is over and I take it as your acknowledgement that you have no legitimate arguments, not that it wasn't clear enough already, and concede defeat.

And I haven't even gotten to blackjack shilling Zircons on this forum yet.

 

[Gary]

No disrespect for Russia, but the discrepancy between NATO and Russia is by quite a margin, I believe that NATO would go from air superiority to air supremacy in a week or two (or even less). By the time of this writing there are already 730 F-35 JSF in service, 500+ in which in service with the US while the rest with its Asian and European allies. By the time the Russians reach 50 Su-57 in service, there will be 1500+ if not more F-35s in service. The skies of Europe will be literally swarmed by the F-35.

Russia currently operate around 400 4th gen frontline fighter (Flankers, Fulcrums), NATO minus US alone operate more than 1500 4th gen advanced frontline jets. Add the US into the calculations it will be a no match at all.

Now all these fighters wont do much without ISR, again which NATO have the upper hand by quite a margin. Tell me how much AWACS Russia operate vis a vis NATO ? Or does Russia operate advanced airborne battle management system like the E-8 JSTARS. This is what an army would look like in the operator console of an E-8. Good luck trying to achieve surprise when your every movement are transmitted in real time using GMTI.

Think Russia will maintain air parity because some EW mounted on trucks? NATO has an entire EW squadron prepped for conflicts, in the form of EA-18G, Tornado ECR and soon even Typhoon will be equipped with SPEAR-EW EM attack missile.

Those dreaded Russian SAM and its radars ? Bet your entire next year salary that all of it were already mapped out by US surveillance aircraft buzzing near Russian airspace daily.

A U.S. Air Force B-52 Just Set Another Intelligence Trap For The Russians

On Friday, a U. S. Air Force B-52 bomber flew through Ukrainian air space near the Black Sea. It was bait for the Russians.

www.forbes.com

read this particular part:

Look closely at the transponders in the air at the time of the Aug. 28 intercept. While the Su-27s were needling the Stratofortress, two four-engine RC-135V/W Rivet Joint electronic-intelligence planes—which the U.S. and U.K. air forces use to surveil enemy air-defenses—were loitering nearby, presumably scooping up all kinds of useful data on Russian sensors and communications.

All this is to say, it’s clear that the United States and its NATO allies aren’t just showing off. The Stratofortress-Rivet Joint missions are helping the alliance to gather strategic intelligence on Moscow’s forces in and around Crimea. In wartime, this information could help planners determine how to suppress or destroy Russian air-defenses in the region

operating air defence is like a double edged swords, once you turn on your radar, the emmissions will be picked by the radar homing seeker of anti radiation missile. One of those case study is Desert Strom '91, where the US initially flew drones mimicking fighters, Iraqi radar operators picked it up and moments later AGM-88 HARM's come in their way in what could only be described as the Iraqi turkey shot.

When the Gulf War air campaign began on the night of 17 January 1991, Iraq was hit by attack waves of Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters and BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. A group of 38 BQM-74Cs were assigned to be launched as diversion for the second wave of attacks, with the launches generally in groups of three, and 37 were launched successfully in precisely timed waves. One group of three was intercepted by Iraqi aircraft, while all the others made it to target.

The drones flew over 500 kilometers (310 miles) at 630 km/h (390 mph), then began to circle Baghdad for up to 20 minutes. Iraqi air defense radars which probed for the drones were engaged by allied strike aircraft firing AGM-88 HARMs (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles). The Navy also launched ADM-141 TALDs (Tactical Air Launched Decoys) to contribute to the countermeasures blitz. Iraqi air defenses never recovered from this blow, and though large Allied aircraft losses had been predicted, the Iraqis only succeeded in shooting down 44 manned aircraft. After the war, the 4468th was disbanded, and one of the remaining BQM-74Cs was donated to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio, where it is now on display.

Northrop BQM-74 Chukar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russian radar operator would not be able to distinguish if the ones flying in their radar scope is an actual manned jet or a drone. Russian over reliance on SAM could be fatal.

In fact the US/NATO not need to destroy the whole opposing AD system, they'll only need to create enough puncture in the system to punch through with an attack. a destruction of one, two or even three radar system would create a hole for the OPFOR (in this case Russia) to worry about and for NATO to exploit.

With the advent of VLO aircraft like the F-22, F-35 and B-2, contra NATO forces will not even know what will hit them. Without air superiority, large army wont even move (unless you're suicidal).

 

[Dalit]

Might as well ask blackjack why is using a Ukrainian flag when he's Russian or Dalit why he's using a Dutch flag when he's Pakistani.

If it's too simplistic because China and Russia are allying out of convenience, then would you not say the same for the EU and the US among others? And yes, they would quarrel over Siberia. They still do. Russian commentators have been warning for over a decade that Putin is selling Russia to the Chinese and Russian nationalists consider China a much bigger threat than the West, although that has to do with "white unity" undertones as well.

I have already pointed out multiple times that Russia is an even bigger threat to Turkey. Their historical spheres of influence directly overlap and the two didn't fight 14 wars just between them and Russia didn't directly contribute to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire through subterfuge for nothing. And oh my God, you are citing the same AKP logic "foreign powers are targeting the lira! It can't possibly be because Erdogan's economic policy is stupid". Not to mention that Turkey has pretty strong ties with several EU nations like Spain, Poland, Romania, etc.

I am going off the actual British political behavior. Out of all European nations, Britain has been the most hostile towards Russia in their rhetoric. You seem to think that "Brexit = Britain is no longer part of Europe" when this is not the case and even the UK's political elite has started admitting that Brexit was a foolish endeavor.

No, not Pussy Riot which hasn't been relevant since about a decade ago and Navalny, who is an even bigger nationalist hawk than Putin who directly referred to Caucasians like myself as trash only good for the Russian boot. I am talking about Russia's own, self-caused internal problems which I have pointed out but you have ignored. I also pointed out that Afghanistan was actually a crushing victory for NATO in a conventional sense. What the Taliban did is hide and when your opposition gets bored and left, crawl out and declare victory. Except now Taliban is having the same problem holding Afghanistan together that NATO did and the Soviets before them.

You want an explanation for Crimea, take a look at what I explained to you before - nuclear weapons.

BTW, I told you once, stick to the topic. Russia vs. NATO. You keep trying to dodge this topic and shift the goalposts. Stick to it or this conversation is over and I take it as your acknowledgement that you have no legitimate arguments, not that it wasn't clear enough already, and concede defeat.

And I haven't even gotten to blackjack shilling Zircons on this forum yet.

I am Dutch with Pakistani roots living in The Netherlands. I was born and raised in The Netherlands. Learn the difference. I don't falseflag like your friend.

You wish Russia and China quarrelled over Siberia. Wishes aren't realities. When that happens quote me again and I will eat my words. Until then I know that Russia and China will partner and take on Western threats very seriously.

What a joke. Right now Western powers are attacking Turkish economy and they even orchestrated a military takeover against Erdogan. You think Turks don't know this? The Western powers were cheerleading and hoping for a miltary coup in Turkey which is otherwise always deemed an undemocratic takeover. Yet, the Western powers made an exception to their own rules. LOL Turkey is buying Russian S-400 and ditching F-35 and here you are trying to convince us that Turkey and Russia at warfooting. What a desperation.

Let's entertain your wish for a moment. Britain joins the US coalition against Russia and China. What can Britain possibly do? Everyone knows the ourcome. This war won't be conventional. Not for a single minute. Nuclear tipped warheads will be flying all over the place and it will be game over. If you think that Russia, China and the US will try to fight a conventional war by occupying each other's land you are mistaken. You can gather the largest coalition in the history of mandkind. Russia and China aren't Afghanistan or Iraq that US/NATO can occupy.

The NATO walked out of Afghanistan disgraced and humiliated. Every person with a pair of eyes witnessed the epic humiliation. There was zero victory. Also conventionally NATO achieved nothing because the Taliban were always controlling more swaths of land. The US/NATO were busy growing opium and turning a blind eye to bacha baaz Northern Alliance warlords. Zero success both on the military and diplomatic front. The final nail in the coffin was how quickly the Afghan forces withdrew without even firing a single bullet. For 20 years NATO trained Afghan military. Yet, in the end the Afghan army didn't even fight for US/NATO cause. What conventional success are you talking about? The Afghan Taliban are in absolute full control of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance crooks are fleeing to Western capitals, but most Western nations don't want to acommodate Afghan refugees.

You have nothing to add to this discussion. Every point you make is based on emotions and muscle flexing. Your so-called European and American coalition won't be fighting a coventional war with China and Russia. All you are suggesting is a broader coalition against Russia/China which won't have any impact in the end.

 

[Anastasius]

I am Dutch with Pakistani roots living in The Netherlands. Learn the difference. I don't falseflag like your friend.

You wish Russia and China quarrelled over Siberia. Wishes aren't realities. When that happens quote me again and I will eat my words. Until then I know that Russia and China will partner and take on Western threats very seriously.

What a joke. Right now Western powers are attacking Turkish economy and they even orchestrated a military takeover against Erdogan. You think Turks don't know this? The Western powers were cheerleading and hoping for a miltary coup in Turkey which is otherwise always deemed an undemocratic takeover. Yet, the Western powers made an exception to their own rules. LOL Turkey is buying Russian S-400 and ditching F-35 and here you are trying to convince us that Turkey and Russia at warfooting. What a desperation.

Let's entertain your wish for a moment. Britain joins the US coalition against Russia and China. What can Britain possibly do? Everyone knows the ourcome. This war won't be conventional. Not for a single minute. Nuclear tipped warheads will be flying all over the place and it will be game over. If you think that Russia, China and the US will try to fight a conventional war by occupying each other's land you are mistaken. You can gather the largest coalition in the history of mandkind. Russia and China aren't Afghanistan or Iraq that US/NATO can occupy.

The NATO walked out of Afghanistan disgraced and humiliated. Every person with a pair of eyes witnessed the epic humiliation. There was zero victory. Also conventionally NATO achieved nothing because the Taliban were always controlling more swaths of land. The US/NATO were busy growing opium and turning a blind eye to bacha baaz Northern Alliance warlords. Zero success both on the military and diplomatic front. The final nail in the coffin was how quickly the Afghan forces withdrew without even firing a single bullet. For 20 years NATO trained Afghan military. Yet, in the end the Afghan army didn't even fight for US/NATO cause. What conventional success are you talking about? The Afghan Taliban are in absolute full control of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance crooks are fleeing to Western capitals, but most Western nations don't want to acommodate Afghan refugees.

You have nothing to add to this discussion. Every point you make is based on emotions and muscle flexing. Your so-called European and American coalition won't be fighting a coventional war with China and Russia. All you are suggesting is a broader coalition against Russia/China which won't have any impact in the end.

A minor difference, if any, in your case. Might as well put Pakistan as your country of origin. At least I don't mislead people that I am a pure American. I let them know my Azerbaijani biases straight-up. I also find it funny how you latched on AlphaMike's supposed US citizenship because another member claimed it with zero proof.

If you are actually genuinely buying Erdogan's rhetoric about le evil West attacking the Turkish economy instead of the readily observable reality that Erdogan screwed everything with his own economic illiteracy, then I'm not sure how much it is possible to get through to you. Turkey is no stranger to coups and in fact several of them is how Turkey managed to avoid being destroyed earlier. It's honestly debatable how much of it was real and how much was infighting between two sets of a-holes (FETO vs. Erdogan's posse). Strange, I look up foreign reactions to the 2016 coup and I struggle to find one example of Western "cheerleading". More like "expressing deep concern".

And let's stop entertaining your continuous shifting of goalposts and get to the point that started this:

Is NATO vs. Russia in any way favorable towards Russia in a conventional war unless nukes start flying? No. End of story. Russia cannot keep up with NATO. China, hypothetical breakdown of European solidarity which has actually grown stronger since Putin decided to openly threaten war, all of that is irrelevant and you keep bringing them in because you realize that you cannot hope to convince anyone without trying to muddy the waters.

I don't like ANA any more than anyone else did. But whenever the Taliban tried to openly fight NATO, they got crushed. Humiliatingly. There was no contest and you know it and we can even cite articles on the battles fought and how they ended.

 

[Gary]

A minor difference, if any, in your case. Might as well put Pakistan as your country of origin. At least I don't mislead people that I am a pure American. I let them know my Azerbaijani biases straight-up. I also find it funny how you latched on AlphaMike's supposed US citizenship because another member claimed it with zero proof.

Thanks. I always find it funny how I could suddenly be an American in an instance. Maybe if they accuse enough I could one day apply for an actual American citizenship.

But whenever the Taliban tried to openly fight NATO, they got crushed. Humiliatingly. There was no contest and you know it and we can even cite articles on the battles fought and how they ended.

They never won a single fight. The largest killer of NATO troops in Afghanistan during the 20 years war is IED and suicide bombings. Pretty much nothing to do with Taliban fighting prowess. And oh that particular member claimed that Taliban had been 'steadily advancing' for 20 straight years.

The funniest of all is he would shamelessly attribute Taliban conquest of Afghanistan to Pakistan. As if he forgot where are those bombs and logistics for the coalition transported in the first place.

 

[Ryder]

A minor difference, if any, in your case. Might as well put Pakistan as your country of origin. At least I don't mislead people that I am a pure American. I let them know my Azerbaijani biases straight-up. I also find it funny how you latched on AlphaMike's supposed US citizenship because another member claimed it with zero proof.

If you are actually genuinely buying Erdogan's rhetoric about le evil West attacking the Turkish economy instead of the readily observable reality that Erdogan screwed everything with his own economic illiteracy, then I'm not sure how much it is possible to get through to you. Turkey is no stranger to coups and in fact several of them is how Turkey managed to avoid being destroyed earlier. It's honestly debatable how much of it was real and how much was infighting between two sets of a-holes (FETO vs. Erdogan's posse). Strange, I look up foreign reactions to the 2016 coup and I struggle to find one example of Western "cheerleading". More like "expressing deep concern".

And let's stop entertaining your continuous shifting of goalposts and get to the point that started this:

Is NATO vs. Russia in any way favorable towards Russia in a conventional war unless nukes start flying? No. End of story. Russia cannot keep up with NATO. China, hypothetical breakdown of European solidarity which has actually grown stronger since Putin decided to openly threaten war, all of that is irrelevant and you keep bringing them in because you realize that you cannot hope to convince anyone without trying to muddy the waters.

I don't like ANA any more than anyone else did. But whenever the Taliban tried to openly fight NATO, they got crushed. Humiliatingly. There was no contest and you know it and we can even cite articles on the battles fought and how they ended.

Well to be honest the Taliban once tried to fight US troops head on they usually lost which led to the Taliban to avoid fighting head on battles against us troops and take out easy targets with the use of unconventional warfare.

Same tactics with the vietcong. When you are outgunned, outumbered also outmatched its always wise to avoid the enemy head on. Even if the Taliban won an engagement head on it will come at a enormous cost for them.

Us invaded Afghanistan and a matter of weeks the Taliban government fell.

 

[blackjack]

No disrespect for Russia, but the discrepancy between NATO and Russia is by quite a margin, I believe that NATO would go from air superiority to air supremacy in a week or two (or even less). By the time of this writing there are already 730 F-35 JSF in service, 500+ in which in service with the US while the rest with its Asian and European allies. By the time the Russians reach 50 Su-57 in service, there will be 1500+ if not more F-35s in service. The skies of Europe will be literally swarmed by the F-35.

Russia currently operate around 400 4th gen frontline fighter (Flankers, Fulcrums), NATO minus US alone operate more than 1500 4th gen advanced frontline jets. Add the US into the calculations it will be a no match at all.

Now all these fighters wont do much without ISR, again which NATO have the upper hand by quite a margin. Tell me how much AWACS Russia operate vis a vis NATO ? Or does Russia operate advanced airborne battle management system like the E-8 JSTARS. This is what an army would look like in the operator console of an E-8. Good luck trying to achieve surprise when your every movement are transmitted in real time using GMTI.

Thank god I found someone that can actually entertain me here

Well the thing is those F-35s have quite a limited range meaning their air bases are not too far away, meaning those F-35s will only have one flight trip and thats it. Thats what seperates the Russians from the Serbs in the Kosovo war as an example. Europes air defenses of course we all know are not on Russias level to defend their air bases and you can also forget about them trying to intercept Scramjets next or even have a fast enough reaction time to deal with internal hypersonic air to ground Larva-MD missiles. F-35s are mainly produced to get involved with 3rd world affairs.

Unlike Serbs they have EW systems that can disrupt aircraft avionics and communications links with air to ground missiles missing targets. NATO aircrafts were still shot down in the Kosovo war because the Serbs only had some shitty 1960s and 1970s air defenses. They did not have S-200s or even S-300s and we have yet to find out how F-35s can deal with 57 S-400 battallions which is more than enough to deal with each F-35 along the addition of S-500 systems and other air defenses like upgraded S-300s while Buk-m3 and pantsir systems can deal with the air to ground weapons of F-35s.

Think Russia will maintain air parity because some EW mounted on trucks? NATO has an entire EW squadron prepped for conflicts, in the form of EA-18G, Tornado ECR and soon even Typhoon will be equipped with SPEAR-EW EM attack missile.

Yeah the F-16Is have EW systems as well but still got shot down by a syrian S-200 it makes think what the results would be if the Serbs replaced their shitty SAMs with some S-200s because I dont think NATO aircraft in that war have used EW systems.

S-300s and S-400s and EW protection and have 300km GaN jamming krasukhas-4 that can jam LEO and aircrafts with newer EW systems that can replace them also photonic radars will be impossible to jam because of the dynamic range of their crystals being used https://naukatehnika.com/fotonnye-radary-fotonika-stels-texnologii.html

Those dreaded Russian SAM and its radars ? Bet your entire next year salary that all of it were already mapped out by US surveillance aircraft buzzing near Russian airspace daily.

SAMs are mobile by the way, NATO air bases are not from getting whacked by missiles.

operating air defence is like a double edged swords, once you turn on your radar, the emmissions will be picked by the radar homing seeker of anti radiation missile. One of those case study is Desert Strom '91, where the US initially flew drones mimicking fighters, Iraqi radar operators picked it up and moments later AGM-88 HARM's come in their way in what could only be described as the Iraqi turkey shot.

vice versa aircrafts need comms and radars to find and target SAMS meaning these SAMs can also use passive radars for targetting aircrafts and those missiles in particular have dual homing capabilities with passive and active tracking while shutting their active radars off making it hard for aircrafts to find them. These HARMs can even be fooled with cheap radio emitting decoys to go target something else. I hope you knew all about this as well?

Russian radar operator would not be able to distinguish if the ones flying in their radar scope is an actual manned jet or a drone. Russian over reliance on SAM could be fatal.

In fact the US/NATO not need to destroy the whole opposing AD system, they'll only need to create enough puncture in the system to punch through with an attack. a destruction of one, two or even three radar system would create a hole for the OPFOR (in this case Russia) to worry about and for NATO to exploit.

With the advent of VLO aircraft like the F-22, F-35 and B-2, contra NATO forces will not even know what will hit them. Without air superiority, large army wont even move (unless you're suicidal)

Do you even know that passive radars have the ability to discriminate what kind of signals are used by antennas to help determine if an aerial object is for example a missile or an aircraft? Did you also know that OTH radars like Konteyner cover the entirety of Europe in which they can see aircrafts take off from runways, immediately share that data to their SAMs that those incoming aerial targets would be labeled as aircraft and that any additional aerial object coming of that labeled target is going to be a missile where they can plan to use either SAMs or emitting decoys?

Depends how big their air defense network is some can intercept air to ground missiles and some can go hit aircrafts, if your starting a war with the Russians but not the serbs those aircrafts only have one trip flights and thats it.

Radars get improved and those VLOs have yet to prove themselves other the U.S. freaking out that they dont want Turkey to have those so called VLO aircrafts next to S-400 systems. Apologies If i am going to be another headache here to deal with than the current user your talking to. No disrespect for the west either.

 

[Gary]

Nice, I'll address one by one.


The F-35 has actually a better combat range than their F-16 and F-18 that it replaces in the USAF, USN and Marine corps, The F-35C for example carries nearly 20,000 lbs of internal fuel and has a range of greater than 1,200 nm, and this is achieved without using drop tanks like its teen series predecessors.

recent development has seen the US will eventually replaces the current F135 engine with an adaptive cycle jet engine, competing design are the XA101 by Pratt and the XA100 by General Electric. Both promises to deliver at least 10% increase in thrust while improving fuel efficiency by 25%. Which means more range for the F-35 already impressive combat range.

GE Vernova Company News & Energy Industry- Related Articles

Read news articles related to GE Vernova, as well as energy industry news about a variety of topics including sustainability, grid solutions, and more.

www.ge.com

Now, in combat there WILL be casualties. Militaries are already trained for casulaties since as long as combat existed in the first place. What makes the difference is the eventual combat ratio losses in a particular battle. When the US are busy bombing Gemrany and Japan in WW2, the losses of around 10-20 bombers per sortie are considered the norm. Fast forward half a century later, a single F117 stealth bomber were shot down after over 38000+ air sortie. That's a huge leap in losses to success ratio.

An In-Depth Analysis of how Serbs Were Able to Shoot Down An F-117 Stealth Fighter during Operation Allied Force - The Aviation Geek Club

An In-Depth Analysis of how Serbs Were Able to Shoot Down An F-117 Stealth Fighter during Operation Allied Force

theaviationgeekclub.com

So it doesn't matter if some S-200 are able to down an F-16 or what, by the time it hot shot, the OPFOR would have lose an entire army getting wiped by airstrike.

for countries opposing NATO, this is a big deal, as the F-35 now employed en masse is in magnitude more advanced than the F-117 shot down by pure luck (yes, you read it right pure luck) in Serbia.

==================================================================================================================

Moving on to a supposed vulnerability of airbases to ballistic missiles. Contrary to popular beliefs, Airpower remains the best way to counter ballistic missiles. In an actual combat, the movement of a battalion of lets say an Iskander ballistic missile battalion WILL be noticed by superior NATO ISR and intelligence.

If the commanders sees an imminent missile strike on its airbase, they could order a scramble. Remember that most ballistic missiles uses GPS/INS guidance that means the coordinate are uploaded before the launch. if in those 1 hour or so when the the coordinates are uploaded the fighters are no longer present it would be no use. At best those launches are a complete waste of missiles.

Now Just to inform fighter jets could scramble in just mere 5 minutes.

Ready Five, also referred to as Alert Five in the film Top Gun, is a condition of high alert for aircraft crews on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, in which they are ready to launch within five minutes. Fighter aircraft are placed on the steam catapult complete with flight crew, armament, and fuel, ready to defend the carrier battle group from any unforeseen threat.

Ready 5 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah good luck trying to wipe them in their airbase. I haven't even mentioned how NATO had been training to use highways as alternatives to airfields.

==================================================================================================================

Now about the passive radar that people boast could 'detect' VLO (stealth) fighter

Radar detection is a two-parts process: Transmission and Reception (T/R). Simply put lose one part part, the process cannot be called 'radar'.

The more appropriate terms is Bi-static/multistatic radar. In a bi-static radar system, there are multiple transmitters/receivers. The original configuration have multiple transmitters and one base receiver. Or simply Bistatic radar is a radar system comprising a transmitter and receiver that are separated by a distance comparable to the expected target distance.

This is the difference from a conventional (active) radar which have its T (transmitter) and R (receiver) located in the same place.

Pic of how bistatic radar works

Now what would happen if NATO anti-radiation missile punch through the transmitter, or an airstrike blows up the town electrical generator ??

Or what if NATO planes simply turn off their radar and there's no EM emission to grasp by the bistatic receiver .

and no, Bistatic radar actually having difficulties to determine anything in the sky. Basically anything that transmits EM emission is potentiall caught by the receiver which in this case, can be anything from TV to radio to cosmic background radiation: electromagnetic emissions in the atmosphere. Unlike a conventional (active) radar you have no control over parameters such as freqs. Your radar data processing codes must now be written to compensate for as wide a variety of signals characteristics (TV signals, radio signals whatever signals are currently bouncing in the sky) as possible.

NATO could exploit this and everyone knows that.

So yeah good luck with that

 

[Gary]

One more thing to address about the so called Konteyner OTH radar. First of all you'll have to understand that most of them operates most commonly between 4 and 20 MHz, which is a low transmission frequency and uses very long wavelength.

Yes it could detect target for thousands of miles, but the resolution will be poor

Here educate yourself.

Effects of Wavelength: on the ability to detect an object

 

[blackjack]

The F-35 has actually a better combat range than their F-16 and F-18 that it replaces in the USAF, USN and Marine corps, The F-35C for example carries nearly 20,000 lbs of internal fuel and has a range of greater than 1,200 nm, and this is achieved without using drop tanks like its teen series predecessors.

only half of that fuel can be used because you got to fly back to whatever is left of the air base if it is still intact. Your saying greater combat range but listing its full ferry range which threw me off to re-edit this

recent development has seen the US will eventually replaces the current F135 engine with an adaptive cycle jet engine, competing design are the XA101 by Pratt and the XA100 by General Electric. Both promises to deliver at least 10% increase in thrust while improving fuel efficiency by 25%. Which means more range for the F-35 already impressive combat range.

Now, in combat there WILL be casualties. Militaries are already trained for casulaties since as long as combat existed in the first place. What makes the difference is the eventual combat ratio losses in a particular battle. When the US are busy bombing Gemrany and Japan in WW2, the losses of around 10-20 bombers per sortie are considered the norm. Fast forward half a century later, a single F117 stealth bomber were shot down after over 38000+ air sortie. That's a huge leap in losses to success ratio.

The reason is S-75s and S-125s are shorter range SAMs S-200s however having longer distances and is considered long range, many aircraft in that war had enough range to launch missiles at a safe distance.

So it doesn't matter if some S-200 are able to down an F-16 or what, by the time it hot shot, the OPFOR would have lose an entire army getting wiped by airstrike.

for countries opposing NATO, this is a big deal, as the F-35 now employed en masse is in magnitude more advanced than the F-117 shot down by pure luck (yes, you read it right pure luck) in Serbia.

==================================================================================================================

Moving on to a supposed vulnerability of airbases to ballistic missiles. Contrary to popular beliefs, Airpower remains the best way to counter ballistic missiles. In an actual combat, the movement of a battalion of lets say an Iskander ballistic missile battalion WILL be noticed by superior NATO ISR and intelligence.

If the commanders sees an imminent missile strike on its airbase, they could order a scramble. Remember that most ballistic missiles uses GPS/INS guidance that means the coordinate are uploaded before the launch. if in those 1 hour or so when the the coordinates are uploaded the fighters are no longer present it would be no use. At best those launches are a complete waste of missiles.

Now Just to inform fighter jets could scramble in just mere 5 minutes.

The kosovo war lasted months what I have yet to hear from you is how Europe is able to defend their airbases. More than 27000 sorites were flown just for Serbia so do you think 1000 sorties for each F-35 is enough for Russia assuming its not a smaller country than Serbia?

Give me a list of Europes air defenses and battalions because I dont see any mobile defense wise being sufficient enough to deal with ballistics let alone HGVs and scramjets. GPS and INS wont be needed because air bases are not mobile and pre-programmed for said missiles to strike said locations.

Now what would happen if NATO anti-radiation missile punch through the transmitter, or an airstrike target the town electrical generator ??

have you heard of mobile diesel generators? it sounds like you are brand new in just figuring out the purposes of passive radars alone and now electricity?

Or what if NATO planes simply turn off their radar and there's no EM emission to grasp by the bistatic receiver

Than some aircrafts can be sent where they will be forced to turn their radars back on unless you think secondary sensors like IRST is suficient enough or better than active radar? those SAMs are mobile as well and can be in a different location where you need to process some signals out to find out.

and no, Bistatic radar actually having difficulties to determine anything in the sky. Basically anything that transmits EM emission is potentiall caught by the receiver which in this case, can be anything from TV to radio to cosmic background radiation: electromagnetic emissions in the atmosphere. Unlike a conventional (active) radar you have no control over parameters such as freqs. Your data processing codes must now be written to compensate for as wide a variety of signals characteristics as possible, or more like as much as you can guess that might be in the area.

NATO could exploit this and everyone knows that.

Yeah good luck.

Target detection relies only on an emitter having sufficient power and being within Kolchuga's frequency range. Target identification, however, is more complex and is based on the measurement of different parameters of the transmitted signal—such as its frequency, bandwidth, pulse width, pulse repetition interval, etc. Kolchuga has been reported to use around forty different parameters when identifying a target. These parameters are compared to a database in order to identify both the type of emitter and, in some cases, even the specific piece of equipment (by identifying the unique signature or "fingerprint" that most transmitters have, due to the variations and tolerances in individual components). The database within Kolchuga is said to have the capacity to store around three hundred different types of emitter and up to five hundred specific signatures for each type.

that is a soviet passive radar moskva-1 among others might have more complex ways of finding targets.

And I haven't even gotten to blackjack shilling Zircons on this forum yet.

They matter because how can U.S. mobilize more ships for more troops to assist Europe from fighting off the Chinese and Russians?

 

[Gary]

1. This is what the current F-35 combat radius is

now superimpose that over Europe.

its not even a big deal considering NATO airbase are very near to the borders. Good luck trying to fight what officially is the most advanced flying object man ever made. If there's ever a need for extension of flights over a particular area. Tankers would do the job extending the flight time of those warbirds.

================================================================================================================

2. It's really a poor excuse to blame the weapons instead of the operators. What Zoltan Dani achieves in Kosovo is by pure luck a.k.a accidental. Your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill of that particular event just wont cut.

Dani’s SA-3 battery was able to track the F-117 only at a distance of 8 miles (13 km), obtaining a lock and launching two missiles towards it only on the third attempt. Its basically spray and pray.

on the other hand the statistics don't lie. 30K sortie only two losses. Yikes

3. Yes, passive radar could identify aircrafts from its database. That means whatever it have in its database (aircraft radar freq, bandwidth etc) could be mimicked by a drone and flown as decoys towards a particular air defense site. You would not know if its a real jet or decoys and in the stress if combat you don't have time to think much. If you don't shoot there's a probability that you'll going to be killed. But if you shoot and your target is a decoy than you just waste a good amount of missiles.

Remember how Iran shot one if its own airliners in the stress of combat ?

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

on a side note, you focus too much on the electrical generator. What I meant is that bistatic radars are vulnerable and prone to NATO's exploit. You lose your transmitter, say goodbye to your ability to detect anything in the sky. That means we're going to talk about EMCON.

and when it comes to EMCON, do know that the US is the world's premier practitioner of EMCON. This is just one example of what these people could do. In 1986 a lone USS Ranger set sail towards Hawaii and 'attacked' the island as well as nearby naval group tasked to hunt her for straight two weeks without ever been detected.

How to Make an Aircraft Carrier Vanish

WASHINGTON (AP) _ U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, despite their incredible size, are becoming adept at a form of magic. Utilizing weather, speed, advanced logistical planning and high-tech tomfoolery, several carriers in recent months have managed to vanish from antagonist's eyes into the...

apnews.com

If anything NATO showdown in Desert Storm shows just a fraction of what kind of airpower the could brought to bear. Remember NATO minus USA alone had already outnumbered Russia in air power. In an actual attack you will be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of fighter jets NATO operate and when it comes to EW, no one is as advanced as NATO. So whatever Russia brought is probably dead on arrival (DoA). We have seen how vulnerable Russian equipment are in Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Defense World

View News at Defense World

www.defenseworld.net

4. Answering your statements about NATO supposed lack of anti ballistic missile defense. They do have a robust and possibly unmatched anti ballistic missile system.

There are currently AEGIS ashore in Romania, TPY-2 long range radar in Turkey as well as a whole fleet of ABM capable ship like the Dutch DZP, German Sachsen, UK's Type 45 and US advanced Arleigh Burke Flt II/IIA with AEGIS baseline 9c and SM-3 Block IIA. Not to mention the hundreds of PAC-3s deployed.

 

[blackjack]

its not even a big deal considering NATO airbase are very near to the borders. Good luck trying to fight what officially is the most advanced flying object man ever made. If there's ever a need for extension of flights over a particular area. Tankers would do the job extending the flight time of those warbirds.

================================================================================================================

2. It's really a poor excuse to blame the weapons instead of the operators. What Zoltan Dani achieves in Kosovo is by pure luck a.k.a accidental. Your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill of that particular event just wont cut.

Dani’s SA-3 battery was able to track the F-117 only at a distance of 8 miles (13 km), obtaining a lock and launching two missiles towards it only on the third attempt. Its basically spray and pray.

on the other hand the statistics don't lie. 30K sortie only two losses. Yikes

3. Yes, passive radar could identify aircrafts from its database. That means whatever it have in its database (aircraft radar freq, bandwidth etc) could be mimicked by a drone and flown as decoys towards a particular air defense site. You would not know if its a real jet or decoys and in the stress if combat you don't have time to think much. If you don't shoot there's a probability that you'll going to be killed. But if you shoot and your target is a decoy than you just waste a good amount of missiles.

1.so using ballistic missiles for the long range or for fun using the 1500km range of zircon near anywhere around the coast of europe, or HGVs, or stealth drones with internal hypersonic missiles would still do? The aircraft is advanced enough to not be next to an S-400.

2. What part of dont you understand when I said Serbs only had short range air defenses but were not equipped with any long range air defenses like S-200s and S-300s, of course strikes and many sorties can still be flown. But 30k sorties will be cut to only 1k sorties were Europe has to rely on its ground forces to only have them get leveled to the ground with artillery. modern 4th gen aircrafts with EW capabilties were proven to be shot down in Syria, by an air defense system that is way below their standards of long range air defense SAMS

3. different size antennas have different signals based on 40 or so different parameters that it finds out about the signal. But again there is also the OTH radars with ranges that surpass the combat radiuse of an F-35 in which the aircraft is already marked as an aircraft and any additional missiles coming out of target will be a missile or decoy because HF waves will pick them up.

on a side note, you focus too much on the electrical generator. What I meant is that bistatic radars are vulnerable and prone to NATO's exploit. You lose your transmitter, say goodbye to your ability to detect anything in the sky. That means we're going to talk about EMCON.

and when it comes to EMCON, do know that the US is the world's premier practitioner of EMCON. This is just one example of what these people could do. In 1986 a lone USS Ranger set sail towards Hawaii and 'attacked' the island as well as nearby naval group tasked to hunt her for straight two weeks without ever been detected.

https://apnews.com/article/498fce4717dfd3be940a0cd8630c9f12

If anything NATO showdown in Desert Storm shows just a fraction of what kind of airpower the could brought to bear. Remember NATO minus USA alone had already outnumbered Russia in air power. In an actual attack you will be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of fighter jets NATO operate and when it comes to EW, no one is as advanced as NATO. So whatever Russia brought is probably dead on arrival (DoA). We have seen how vulnerable Russian equipment are in Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh.

I get it but in order to make such radars or emitters loose their reliance for SAMs they need to be targetted and destroyed and in order to get targetted and destroyed they need to go through short and medium range SAMs that were designed to specifically engage them.

Afhganistan does not have satellites, OTH radars, SONAR networks that can be place anywhere at sea being powered by nuclear reactors or passive radars let alone air defenses that were to standards used by Russians this is a piss poor comparison to make.

The amount of SAMs outnumber F-35s as much as the amount of Zircons outnumber the amount of ships NATO's Navy has and I hope you are not being serious as comparing a sand****** conflict where one side uses some soviet equipment in comparison to the modern equipment Russia possesses?

4. Answering your statements about NATO supposed lack of anti ballistic missile defense. They do have a robust and possibly unmatched anti ballistic missile system.

There are currently AEGIS ashore in Romania, TPY-2 long range radar in Turkey as well as a whole fleet of ABM capable ship like the Dutch DZP, German Sachsen, UK's Type 45 and US advanced Arleigh Burke Flt II/IIA with AEGIS baseline 9c and SM-3 Block IIA. Not to mention the hundreds of PAC-3s deployed.

Key words I didnt say they lacked an anti-ballistic system but the insufficiency to deal with missiles that can manuever thorugh every phase of their flight.

than of course HGVs and scramjets are a different story while the Russians themselves test intercepting 30 manuevering hypersonic missiles at kasputin yars. There are still failed missile interceptions done by AEGIS so we can forget about them working against multiple salvos being launched..... Not Europe does seem to be low on strategic missiles.

 

[Gary]

Finland insists on its right to join Nato in defiance of Russia

Finland insists on its right to join Nato in defiance of Russia Moscow’s bellicose stance against Ukraine fires up security debate in the Baltics Leading politicians in all three Baltic countries believe that Finnish and Swedish membership of Nato is crucial for improving security on Russia’s...

defencehub.live

 

[Glass🚬]

Baltics in talks to increase NATO troops on their soil -Estonian PM​

By Andrius Sytas

1/2
Estonian army reservists build a temporary razor wire fence on a border with Russia during a snap military exercise Okas 2021 near Meremae, Estonia November 20, 2021. REUTERS/Ints Kalnins

Jan 12 (Reuters) - The Baltic States are talking to NATO allies about increasing military deployments on their soil to deter Russia, Estonia's prime minister told Reuters on Wednesday, and NATO's chief said any Russian attack on Ukraine would spur a decision.
Russia, which has massed troops on its border with Ukraine, has demanded an end to such deployments and no more expansion of the Western defence alliance. It laid out its demands for security guarantees in Europe to NATO's 30 allies in Brussels on Wednesday. read more

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said following those talks that reinforcements in eastern NATO member countries would be seriously considered if Russia invaded Ukraine.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, once ruled from Moscow, have been members of both NATO and the European Union since 2004, and have long sought more NATO involvement.
"Of course, we are discussing with our allies to increase their presence here to act as a deterrent," Estonian premier Kaja Kallas told Reuters in a video interview from Tallinn, without giving any details.

"If you look at the map, the Baltic states are a NATO peninsula and therefore we have our worries".
Stoltenberg said in Brussels: "If Russia once again uses force against Ukraine and further invades Ukraine, then we have to seriously look into the need to further increase our presence in the eastern part of the alliance."
One NATO diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the issue of more deployments in the Baltics could be discussed by NATO defence ministers when they hold a scheduled meeting in mid-February.

NATO units were deployed in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland after Russia annexed the Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. They have just over 1,000 troops each. Kallas said a boost to existing detachments was a possibility.
The West could have constructive talks with Moscow, she said but should also let the Kremlin know that if it escalates the situation in Ukraine there would be a high price to pay in terms of economic sanctions.
"I think we should not fall into the trap, into discussing what the West could do, because West hasn't done anything wrong," Kallas said. "The West hasn't formed military groups to attack Russia."
Moscow has denied any aggressive intent and has said it is entitled to station troops where it wants within its borders.

Baltics in talks to increase NATO troops on their soil -Estonian PM

The Baltic States are talking to NATO allies about increasing military deployments on their soil to deter Russia, Estonia's prime minister told Reuters on Wednesday, and NATO's chief said any Russian attack on Ukraine would spur a decision.

www.reuters.com

--

they are in trouble lel

 

[Ryder]

Baltics in talks to increase NATO troops on their soil -Estonian PM​

By Andrius Sytas

1/2
Estonian army reservists build a temporary razor wire fence on a border with Russia during a snap military exercise Okas 2021 near Meremae, Estonia November 20, 2021. REUTERS/Ints Kalnins

Jan 12 (Reuters) - The Baltic States are talking to NATO allies about increasing military deployments on their soil to deter Russia, Estonia's prime minister told Reuters on Wednesday, and NATO's chief said any Russian attack on Ukraine would spur a decision.
Russia, which has massed troops on its border with Ukraine, has demanded an end to such deployments and no more expansion of the Western defence alliance. It laid out its demands for security guarantees in Europe to NATO's 30 allies in Brussels on Wednesday. read more

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said following those talks that reinforcements in eastern NATO member countries would be seriously considered if Russia invaded Ukraine.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, once ruled from Moscow, have been members of both NATO and the European Union since 2004, and have long sought more NATO involvement.
"Of course, we are discussing with our allies to increase their presence here to act as a deterrent," Estonian premier Kaja Kallas told Reuters in a video interview from Tallinn, without giving any details.

"If you look at the map, the Baltic states are a NATO peninsula and therefore we have our worries".
Stoltenberg said in Brussels: "If Russia once again uses force against Ukraine and further invades Ukraine, then we have to seriously look into the need to further increase our presence in the eastern part of the alliance."
One NATO diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the issue of more deployments in the Baltics could be discussed by NATO defence ministers when they hold a scheduled meeting in mid-February.

NATO units were deployed in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland after Russia annexed the Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. They have just over 1,000 troops each. Kallas said a boost to existing detachments was a possibility.
The West could have constructive talks with Moscow, she said but should also let the Kremlin know that if it escalates the situation in Ukraine there would be a high price to pay in terms of economic sanctions.
"I think we should not fall into the trap, into discussing what the West could do, because West hasn't done anything wrong," Kallas said. "The West hasn't formed military groups to attack Russia."
Moscow has denied any aggressive intent and has said it is entitled to station troops where it wants within its borders.

Baltics in talks to increase NATO troops on their soil -Estonian PM

The Baltic States are talking to NATO allies about increasing military deployments on their soil to deter Russia, Estonia's prime minister told Reuters on Wednesday, and NATO's chief said any Russian attack on Ukraine would spur a decision.

www.reuters.com

--

they are in trouble lel

The baltic and scandanvia is not our concern. We should not sacrifice nothing to them only thing we should do is profit by selling weapons.

 

[TR_123456]

Russia will decide on advisability of its further work with the United States and NATO after receiving written responses to its security proposals, Anatoly Antonov has told

Russia’s Ambassador Anatoly Antonov
© Sergei Bobylev/TASS

WASHINGTON, January 15. /TASS/. NATO’s eastward expansion is one of the major threats to Russia’s national security, as the flight time to cities in the country’s European part is becoming shorter, Russia’s Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said in an interview with Newsweek.


The interview was posted on the Facebook page of the Russian embassy to the US on Saturday.


"The continuing advance of the North Atlantic bloc to the east is one of the main threats to Russia's national security. As the bloc approaches our border proper, the flight time of NATO air and missile weapons to Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities in the European part of the country is reduced," Antonov said. "How would the US Government react if Washington, New York or Los Angeles were 'under the bombsight'?".


The ambassador said that the talks focused on the ways to preserve peace and stability in Europe by working out security guarantees based on draft agreements proposed by Moscow.

"After the collapse of the USSR, the security situation in Europe deteriorated sharply. Five ‘waves’ of NATO expansion have brought the Alliance States forces closer to our borders," he stated.


"NATO is constantly building up its offensive potential, demonstrating military force along the perimeter of the Russian territory. Every year, about 40 major exercises are held in the immediate vicinity of Russia's borders, including training cruise missile launches by strategic aviation and naval maneuvers in the Black and Baltic Seas," the Russian diplomat said.


On Monday, Geneva hosted Russian-US consultations on security guarantees. On Thursday, a Russia-NATO Council meeting was held in Brussels, and a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council was held in Vienna on Thursday.

NATO’s efforts at military development of former Soviet republics​

NATO’s efforts, aimed at military development of former Soviet republics, are unacceptable for Moscow, Antonov has told.

"NATO's efforts aimed at the military development of the former Soviet republics are unacceptable to us. This is fraught with the deployment of missile systems and other destabilizing weapons that directly threaten our country. As a result, the risks of escalation and direct military clashes in the region and beyond will increase manifold. Everything has its limits. We are, in fact, on the edge of precipice," the ambassador said.


He went on to say that Russia compiled draft security guarantees "to prevent such a development of the situation."


"It was these documents that were discussed at the Russian-American talks, as well as in the framework of the Russia-NATO Council and the OSCE. Their goal is to put legally binding guarantees on paper that the alliance will refrain from any further expansion to the east and from the deployment of strike weapons in the immediate vicinity of our borders," the Russian diplomat said.

Work with the United States and NATO​

Russia will decide on advisability of its further work with the United States and NATO after receiving written responses to its security proposals, Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov has told.


"It must be admitted that the discussions held last week with the United States and NATO have not yet yielded any significant results," the ambassador said.


"We expect written responses from Washington and Brussels to our draft agreements. Based on them, we will make a decision on the advisability of further joint work," he added.

The situation in Ukraine​

Ukraine was not among the issues discussed during the Russia-US talks in Geneva on January 10, but it was mentioned as a secondary topic at the meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in Brussels on January 12, Russia’s Ambassador said.


"As for the situation in Ukraine, this issue was not on the agenda of the Russian-American talks in Geneva, but was only mentioned as a secondary topic at consultations with NATO in Brussels," said the Russian diplomat.

On December 17, 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry published draft agreements on security guarantees and measures of ensuring the security of Russia and NATO member states, which Moscow expects from Washington and NATO. The two treaties - with the US and NATO, respectively - would, among other things, halt NATO’s eastward expansion, including granting membership to Ukraine, and introduce limits on the deployment of serious offensive weapons, such as nuclear weapons.

NATO expansion one of main threats to Russia’s national security - ambassador

Russia will decide on advisability of its further work with the United States and NATO after receiving written responses to its security proposals, Anatoly Antonov has told

tass.com

 

[Glass🚬]

Now the swedish want to join NATO as well

We should block it.

btw. kinda funny how all these years I predicted that the Russians sooner or later gonna annex the baltics, parts of scandinavia etc. and people saying it was nonsense lel

 

[Merzifonlu]

Now the swedish want to join NATO as well

We should block it.

Why?

Yes, I think Swedes are ungrateful people who forget the past quickly. Especially for the last 20 years, they've been barking louder and louder at us with sheer liberal-left bigotry.

Therefore, I think it is no longer our concern to defend Scandinavia and the Baltic states against Russia. We defend those who do business with us, not those who bark at us!

However, preventing them from joining NATO would create unnecessary tensions. There's no need for that. It's best to step aside and calmly watch what's going on.