Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO - Russia relations:

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16036
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:04 am

    max steel wrote:Russia Prepared for Conventional Arms Control Consultations With NATO   No


    Hahaha... don't worry... NATO will be less interested than Russia in conventional arms limitations in europe.

    The CFE agreement collapsed because Russia had troops in a few conflict zones including Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    Now that the US has moved troops into eastern europe there is no way they will want to talk about removing those forces.

    I can understand Russias issues... the Soviet Union withdrew its forces from eastern Europe and various former soviet states and NATO has moved right in to replace them... no wonder Russia feels threatened.

    What Russia needs to do is be preemptive and add a capability that scares the shit out of NATO that they can then offer to dismantle in return for the US leaving europe... perhaps it is time for the INF treaty to fold... pretty much having a mobile S-500 and S-400 and S-350 as well as S-300V4 and BUK-3 means Russian forces would be largely protected from intermediate range ballistic weapons so why deny themselves such a capability?

    Having thousands of IRBMs with ranges up to 5,000km would shift the balance in favour of Russia without too much economic outlay... especially with a mix of cheap subsonic cruise missiles are added into the mix.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 940
    Points : 972
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Firebird on Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:12 pm

    I wonder what the yanks were up to earlier in the week in Moscow.
    Pretty high profile smarm offensive. I'm surprised Nuland wasn't battered walking down the street.

    The Yanks are doing the same with Cuba. And did the same with dickhead Yeltsin. Which meant Russian assets plundered on the cheap and NATO moving to within spitting distance of some of Russia's major cities.

    I kind of feel that a "pretend climbdown" actually means more evil is being stored up, being prepared.

    Obummer was actually comparing Russia to ISIS etc in recent months.
    To me, once the US was killing Russian people in the Donbass and Odessa etc (because it was the US coup that allowed it all) then a huge red line was crossed.

    I also wonder whether NATO knew of risks to a Russian airliner before the Sharm attack.

    Then there was ofcourse the attempt to frame Russia for the Ukrainian Air Malaysia plane disaster.

    I really don't see how any real partnership can happen until massive compensation and a new offer is made to Russia.
    avatar
    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2153
    Points : 2258
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  higurashihougi on Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:56 am

    Well, yes, of course, why not.

    https://www.rt.com/politics/326294-cancer-tumor-of-europe-/

    ‘Cancer of Europe’ – Russian Duma speaker calls for NATO dissolution

    Europe now really needs to think seriously, should NATO really continue to exist ? And at the moment does NATO bring anything good to Europe ?
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2981
    Points : 3013
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  max steel on Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:48 pm

    The Problem With NATO's Nukes

    Time to Rid Europe of Its Cold War Legacy.


    US President Barack Obama came into office promising to work toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Over the past several years, the United States has made uneven progress toward that goal. The nuclear agreement with Iran, if strictly implemented, will preclude an Iranian bomb and mitigate the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East for at least the next 10–15 years. But North Korea continues to develop and test its nuclear capabilities, India and Pakistan show no signs of winding down their nuclear competition, and Russia and China have forged ahead with the modernization of their nuclear arsenals, with little prospect of either country agreeing to negotiate nuclear reductions any time soon. And in Europe, the risk of nuclear use, although low, may be increasing.

    It would certainly not be low-hanging fruit, but ridding Europe of its Cold War nuclear legacy would be a good place for the next president to achieve early progress in making the world a safer place. U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on the continent and NATO’s plans to modernize and increase the capabilities of its nuclear systems may be increasing the risk of nuclear use and undermining NATO’s conventional defense capabilities. The United States needs to take bold action to rethink NATO’s nuclear deterrent in order to reduce the dangers and strengthen the alliance. Such moves could include a freeze on tactical nuclear modernization, a phased withdrawal of all U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe, and measures to adapt and strengthen NATO’s arrangements for nuclear cooperation and consultations to reassure allies.

    The Russian nuclear threat to Europe is not new. Moscow has leaned on nuclear weapons ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union took down the Red Army and Russia’s defense industrial base. Nonetheless, until very recently, the risk of nuclear war in Europe—indeed the risk of any armed conflict between NATO and Russia—has been virtually nonexistent. Since Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in the spring of 2014, however, what is rightly perceived as increased nuclear-muscle flexing has rattled European nerves. Russian officials have issued nuclear threats against NATO countries; at the same time, Moscow has increased air patrols of nuclear-capable planes, conducted simulated military exercises with nuclear weapons, and continued to modernize its tactical nuclear weapons opposite NATO.

    There are signs, too, that Russia is officially changing its war-fighting doctrine in Europe to include the possibility of early use of limited nuclear strikes in order to bring conflicts to a halt on terms more favorable to Russia. This is a dangerous development—not so much because Russia is developing new capabilities, but because the deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations has increased the risk of an accident, mistake, or miscalculation that could trigger a conflict.
    The United States' and NATO's tactical nuclear plans are not helping matters. The United States intends to spend billions of dollars over the next decade to upgrade its tactical nuclear bombs stored in Europe—and the United States’ European allies will need to allocate hundreds of millions of euros to improve the infrastructure supporting these weapons and associated dual-capable aircraft. The more modern U.S. nuclear warheads that will replace the estimated 160–200 U.S. nuclear bombs currently in Europe will be smaller and more accurate—and Russia is reportedly making similar improvements to its tactical arsenal. According to U.S. General James Cartwright, former commander of U.S. Strategic Forces and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), these weapons will make limited nuclear strikes more conceivable.

    It is unclear, moreover, whether NATO’s modernized tactical nuclear weapons would actually add to the alliance’s deterrence and defense posture. Over the past two decades, the military rationale for maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe has all but disappeared. Over five years ago, when Cartwright was the vice-chairman of the JCS, he declared that U.S. tactical nukes in Europe were redundant because they fulfilled no military function that was not already being met by U.S. strategic and conventional forces. Colin Powell, when he was chairman of the JCS in the early 1990s, supported elimination of tactical nuclear weapons, and in 2008, U.S. European Command ended its support for maintaining nuclear weapons in Europe. Few today within U.S. and allied militaries would question these judgments.

    The more vexing issue for the alliance is whether these weapons have any political and psychological value if they do not possess any military utility. NATO experts including former Pentagon officials Franklin Miller and Kori Schake continue to maintain that the weapons based in Europe are essential for reassuring allies of the United States’ security commitment. They also argue that basing them in several NATO countries is a valuable demonstration of the alliance’s principle of “equal risks, equal responsibilities.” It is important to preserve this principle. But reassurance and burden sharing might be better served if NATO spent more of its precious defense resources buying weapons and capabilities—such as improved C4ISR, strategic airlift, and heavy equipment for defense in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic states—that are relevant to the real threats the alliance faces today and will confront in the future. It isn't clear why allies would be reassured by investments in new nuclear warheads and infrastructure that offer no real increase in usable military capabilities and no added deterrence beyond what British, French, and U.S. strategic arms already provide. Nor is it clear why these allies would be reassured by more modern NATO tactical nuclear weapons that could actually lower the threshold of nuclear use on allied territory.
    The alliance, after much internal debate, gave an important nod toward revising its nuclear posture earlier in the decade. In NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept and its 2012 Deterrence and Defense Posture Review, the alliance left the doors open to further nuclear reductions and to other means of providing reassurance and preserving burden sharing that do not require basing U.S. nuclear weapons on NATO soil, such as more rotational deployments of U.S. strategic bombers to NATO bases. Very little has been done in the past few years, however, to move in these directions. In view of Europe’s deteriorating security environment, the United States needs to restore momentum to these efforts or at least prevent backsliding.

    The United States and Russia can and should begin a new high-level dialogue on deterrence and security issues writ large, including on the impact of planned developments in strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, conventional forces, cyberweapons, and missile defenses. And nothing should be kept off the agenda, as U.S. officials have occasionally tried to do in the past with missile defenses and so-called prompt-strike conventional weapons. The alliance should also take two more immediate and meaningful steps: impose a freeze on its plans to deploy upgraded B61 bombs in Europe and announce its commitment to undertake a phased withdrawal of all U.S. nuclear weapons from the continent.


    There will be resistance to these measures. Some defense and arms control experts will argue that NATO should only change its nuclear posture if Russia takes reciprocal action through a new treaty. For example, Miller, Schake, and former NATO Secretary General and British Defense Secretary George Robertson have argued for either parity between NATO and Russia (where Moscow agrees to reduce its tactical nuclear weapons to NATO’s level) or equal percentage reductions in a legally binding treaty. This is a recipe, however, for forcing NATO to continue spending money on anachronistic nuclear weapons with little gain in deterrence, while siphoning funds from much-needed conventional defense improvements. Moreover, pressing Russia to negotiate reductions in—and especially the elimination of—its roughly 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons is a fool’s errand. Moscow sees these weapons as a counter to what it perceives as NATO’s conventional superiority and China’s growing military capabilities, as well as a symbol of its great power status. Further, the total lack of trust in Russia’s relations with the West makes it very unlikely that Moscow would agree to legally binding transparency and other confidence-building measures for its tactical nuclear weapons programs anytime soon.
    There will also be pushback within NATO. Some members of the alliance—Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, and Germany—would conceivably support nuclear risk reduction measures; however, others such as the Baltic countries, Poland, and other Eastern European members would oppose any changes in the alliance’s nuclear plans and posture. The key to bringing recalcitrant members on board is to demonstrate with concrete actions, such as the Pentagon’s new budget proposal to spend $3.4 billion in the fiscal year 2017 to bolster U.S. and NATO military capabilities in Central and Eastern European countries and the Baltic states, that greater and more sustained investments in conventional force improvements will make them safer; that allied strategic nuclear forces are and will remain the backbone of NATO’s strategic deterrent for as long as nuclear weapons exist; that NATO’s security and nuclear deterrent are not tied to the presence of nuclear bombs on alliance soil; and that both can be maintained through broader and more robust NATO involvement in nuclear cooperation, planning, and consulting arrangements.

    To borrow from the Cold War lexicon of the great nuclear strategist Herman Kahn, Russia is re-conceptualizing the ladder of escalation from conventional to nuclear conflict. NATO’s agreement to abandon plans for tactical nuclear weapons’ modernization and to eventually remove its nuclear bombs from Europe could, over time and as part of a broader strategy to re-engage Moscow on all aspects of Euro-Atlantic security, influence Russia to climb back down that ladder. And it could immediately strengthen the alliance’s defense and deterrent posture against the full range of current and emerging threats. To remain a nuclear alliance, NATO does not need to spend billions of dollars to upgrade nuclear weapons and infrastructure that it does not need and that risk lowering the nuclear threshold in Europe. The Strategic Concept and the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review left the doors open to a safer, stronger, and more affordable NATO deterrent posture. It is important for alliance leaders to pry these doors apart a little more—or at least keep them from being shut—when they meet in July at the Warsaw NATO summit.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16036
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:45 am

    Since Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in the spring of 2014, however, what is rightly perceived as increased nuclear-muscle flexing has rattled European nerves.

    Hahahahaha... fuck off.

    Russia had nothing to do with the overthrow of the democratically elected government of the Ukraine, and they also had nothing to do with the armed coup or the murder of Ukrainian citizens that followed.

    That was the EU and US... they have made their bed and now they can enjoy the fruits of their labour... just the same as they can enjoy the refugee recriminations of their murderous adventures in Libya and Syria and Iraq.

    Screw em.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10043
    Points : 10531
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:38 am

    NATO expansion east was in focus of Russia-NATO Council meeting — diplomat

    The US has announced that it is increasing fourfold expenses on maintenance of forces in Europe

    MOSCOW, April 21. /TASS/. NATO’s building up military presence in Eastern Europe was one of the focal points at a session of the Russia-NATO Council, Russia’s NATO Ambassador Alexander Grushko told Rossiya 24 television on Thursday.

    "I will say without going deep into details that of course it was one of the main issues, as the military theme is the closest to the competences of the Russia-NATO Council and the aims it was set up for," he said, noting that the discussion had been very substantial.

    According to Grushko, the Alliance’s countries put an accent on demand for instrument of control over arms in conditions of increased military activity, urging Russia to join a dialog on modernization of these instruments, as well as spoke about the Treaty on Open Skies.

    "We said absolutely clearly that NATO is trying to ‘put the cart before the horse’. The prime cause of the worsening of the military situation is not in the lack of instruments of arms control - there is a lot of them and Russia in this sense is an intensive user of these instruments," Grushko said.

    "The problem is that from the mid-2000s, NATO started getting closer to our borders in military and military-infrastructural terms, exploring territories of new members, and after the Ukrainian crisis, or taking advantage of the Ukrainian crisis to be more exact, it moved to the policy of deterrence, which is expressed in concrete military construction measures," he went on.

    Grushko listed among them rotation of troops, setting up of headquarters and their strengthening, creation of permanent depots of American hardware on the border with Russia, deployment of an additional continent in Europe.

    "The US has announced that it is increasing fourfold expenses on maintenance of American forces in Europe," he said, noting that the level of USA presence would be brought to that of division. "All this is accompanied by repeated exercises training defense against aggression of the so-called foreign enemy. The military presence is being built up in the Black and Baltic seas," Grushko went on.

    The first in the past two years session of the Council was held in Brussels on April 20.

    "NATO and Russia have profound and persistent disagreements. Today’s meeting did not change that," North Atlantic Alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said after Russia-NATO Council session.

    "But we will keep channels of communication open. Especially when tensions are high, political dialogue is necessary to discuss our differences and to reduce the risk of military incidents," Stoltenberg concluded.

    Grushko, for his part, said "Russia is not against a new meeting of the Russia-NATO Council, but only when it has a real agenda".


    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/politics/871732


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2981
    Points : 3013
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  max steel on Tue May 24, 2016 6:37 am

    US spy plane flew ‘dangerously close’ to passenger jets near Russian border

    WHO IS UNPROFESSIONAL NOW ? angry

    A US defense attache has been summoned by Russia's Defense Ministry after an incident over the Sea of Japan near Russia's eastern borders, where an American spy plane was detected flying too close to civilian aircraft.

    Russia's air defense detected an RC-135 spy plane belonging to US Air Force on Sunday, the ministry said in its statement. The plane was on an air reconnaissance mission with all of its transponders having been shut off, it added.

    The US crew had not provided any information regarding its flight to air traffic controllers in the region, despite it flying at the same altitude as scheduled civil aviation flights.

    “As the result of the unprofessional actions of the American plane crew, the hazard of a collision with civil aviation planes was created," Russia's Defense Ministry said, adding that it asked the US official to take measures to prevent such incidents from happening near Russia's borders in the future.

    At least two passenger jets belonging to major European airlines were endangered by the then-unknown aircraft over the neutral waters of the Sea of Japan on Sunday, Interfax reported.

    The "unknown aircraft" was flying at the altitude of some 11,000 meters (36,000 feet) and did not respond to air traffic control, the agency said citing its source. Russian air controllers had to immediately change the flight path of a KLM Boeing-777, which was in the same region en route from Japan to Holland.

    Pilots from another airplane, operated by Swiss airlines, heading to Switzerland from Japan, even reported "visual contact with a large four-engine aircraft, which was in direct proximity to their plane" and sent no recognition signals, the source said. The flying altitude for the Swiss jet also had to be changed by the air traffic control.

    Following the episodes over the Baltic Sea, Russia's Defense Ministry released an official statement, saying US surveillance planes should either not approach the Russian borders or at least keep aerial transponders switched on. "Turn on transponders for automatic identification by our radars," the ministry said at the time.

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4185
    Points : 4242
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  JohninMK on Thu May 26, 2016 1:31 am

    The EU not NATO but here seemed to be the best place to put this.

    Lavrov certainly has a way with words. Mind you, not sure he is head of the MoD as well as his normal role.

    Russia has somewhat overestimated the independence of the European Union in the world arena. This was stated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Sergey Lavrov, during an interview with the Hungarian newspaper Magyar Nemzet.

    “Judging by everything, we have somewhat overestimated the independent role of Europeans in the world arena. It seems that the Ukrainian crisis has highlighted the high degree of dependence of the EU on the political and economic influence of Washington,” Lavrov said.

    The head of the Russian Defense Ministry also noted that Moscow “would like to deal with a strong European Union, which would build relationships with partners in the international arena on the basis putting their own interests first and foremost, and not by putting solidarity with extra-regional players at the forefront.

    The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, is currently (May 25th) on a visit in Hungary. Earlier on Wednesday, he met the prime minister of the country, Viktor Orban, in Budapest and then with his the Hungarian foreign minister Peter Siarto. The politicians discussed bilateral relations, the EU’s anti-Russian sanctions, as well as cooperation between Russia and NATO.


    http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/05/lavrov-to-hungary-russia-has.html
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  sepheronx on Tue May 31, 2016 4:29 am

    Russian NATO envoy says Black Sea will never be "NATO’s lake" More: http://tass.ru/en/politics/879042

    Really good article and pretty sober of how Russian authorities actually feel (well, just Grushko, but he cannot just say things out of the blue of course).

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4185
    Points : 4242
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  JohninMK on Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:21 pm

    A Russian naval expedition to the Gulf of Mexico coming up perhaps? Laughing

    According to the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's European Cooperation Department the entry of US vessels into the Black Sea will trigger response measures from Russia.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The entry of US vessels into the Black Sea will trigger response measures from Russia, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's European Cooperation Department said Friday.

    "From time to time, US vessels enter the Black Sea. Obviously, we do not appreciate it and, undoubtedly, this will lead to retaliatory measures," Andrei Kelin told RIA Novosti.

    Earlier this week, the US Nimitz-class aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman entered the Mediterranean Sea. The move was described by Kelin as a "show of power" ahead of the NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland.


    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/world/20160610/1041111937/russia-us-black-sea.html#ixzz4BAd4mbOt
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1705
    Points : 1733
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:33 pm

    JohninMK wrote:A Russian naval expedition to the Gulf of Mexico coming up perhaps?  Laughing

    According to the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's European Cooperation Department the entry of US vessels into the Black Sea will trigger response measures from Russia.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The entry of US vessels into the Black Sea will trigger response measures from Russia, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's European Cooperation Department said Friday.

    "From time to time, US vessels enter the Black Sea. Obviously, we do not appreciate it and, undoubtedly, this will lead to retaliatory measures," Andrei Kelin told RIA Novosti.

    Earlier this week, the US Nimitz-class aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman entered the Mediterranean Sea. The move was described by Kelin as a "show of power" ahead of the NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland.


    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/world/20160610/1041111937/russia-us-black-sea.html#ixzz4BAd4mbOt

    Even in that case, the two sides wouldn't be on par with each other. The US has NATO (and non-NATO) allies in the Black Sea and the straits are under a NATO member's control. In addition the US vessels operate in the Black Sea under full cover of SM-3 based in Develesu, Romania (new blocks covers everything), various airbases filled with friendly jets and enjoys submarine cover in that sea. Furthermore USN doesn't accompany their ships with permanent group of tug boats.

    On the other hand a Russian destroyer in the Gulf of Mexico will have no NATO-like allies around, no air cover, no SM-3 equivalents based in Cuba and not many friendly jets or subs around. It will be a big fat target, far away from home.

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4185
    Points : 4242
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  JohninMK on Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:58 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:A Russian naval expedition to the Gulf of Mexico coming up perhaps?  Laughing

    According to the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's European Cooperation Department the entry of US vessels into the Black Sea will trigger response measures from Russia.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The entry of US vessels into the Black Sea will trigger response measures from Russia, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's European Cooperation Department said Friday.

    "From time to time, US vessels enter the Black Sea. Obviously, we do not appreciate it and, undoubtedly, this will lead to retaliatory measures," Andrei Kelin told RIA Novosti.

    Earlier this week, the US Nimitz-class aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman entered the Mediterranean Sea. The move was described by Kelin as a "show of power" ahead of the NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland.


    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/world/20160610/1041111937/russia-us-black-sea.html#ixzz4BAd4mbOt

    Even in that case, the two sides wouldn't be on par with each other. The US has NATO (and non-NATO) allies in the Black Sea and the straits are under a NATO member's control. In addition the US vessels operate in the Black Sea under full cover of SM-3 based in Develesu, Romania (new blocks covers everything), various airbases filled with friendly jets and enjoys submarine cover in that sea. Furthermore USN doesn't accompany their ships with permanent group of tug boats.

    On the other hand a Russian destroyer in the Gulf of Mexico will have no NATO-like allies around, no air cover, no SM-3 equivalents based in Cuba and not many friendly jets or subs around. It will be a big fat target, far away from home.
    Think you are missing the point. What you say is correct from a military standpoint but a Russian ship or two in the Gulf is hardly a target unless you want WW3 to start. Incidently, were WW3 in the offing, the Black Sea is probably the last place you would expect to see a US warship as it would be certain death.

    My suggestion is much more a public poke at the US, a naval version of the Bear trips down the Californian coast.

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:43 am