Tensions between the US and Russia are already at a near-term high in recent weeks, and look to be getting even worse amid new reports from Germany’s ZDF that the US intends to deploy new nuclear weapons to Germany and upgrade its nuclear infrastructure across Europe.
Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the move a “very serious step toward exacerbating tensions on the European continent,” and warned that if the US follows through on these plans Russia would carry out retaliatory countermeasures, adding more ballistic missiles to its exclave of Kaliningrad.
Kaliningrad’s location, adjacent to NATO members Lithuania and Poland, has made it a popular place for Russia to threaten retaliatory deployments, because such moves would starkly change the balance of power in Eastern Europe. During the dispute over US missile shield deployments along the Russian frontier, Russia similarly threatened to place Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad.
That’s the same thing they’re talking up today, and while they’re not going into details about numbers of variations, the fact that the current US deployment is itself nuclear in nature probably means Iskander-M ballistic missiles, capable of carrying 50 kT nuclear warheads, would be part of the deployment.
The ZDF report came simply out of publicly available US budgetary information, and publicized some deployments the administration clearly did not intend to make a matter of serious discourse. The deployments are likely to also rankle Germany itself, because the deployment of Cold War-era nuclear arms was already highly controversial, and many Germans simply want the weapons of mass destruction removed, not upgraded.
Historically the Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct result of putting Nukes on the Border with USSR, and it was the US who were shown to have been responsible, they were also responsible for the siting in Cuba, if it wasn't for the Bay of Pigs fiasco there would have been no crack in the door for Russia to offer Cuba! One wonders whether the US Overtures towards Cuba today are in fact to stop a repeat of Russian Nukes on the doorstep!
I don't think so. In practical terms, tt would be very difficult and hugely costly for Russia to install and keep missiles in Cuba, even if the dying Cuban dictatorship was willing. And, the Russians would have to maintain ground forces and, most of all, airpower, in Cuba to protect the sites. Russia has no in-flight refuelling facilities. Planes would need overfly and refuelling facillities from a series of countries just to get planes from Russia to Cuba, unless they were brought in by ship and re-assembled. Russia has nothing to offer countries to compensate for the US wrath that such facilities would generate. Of course, on the other side, it would be yet another monumental blunder on Putin's part to do something like that..
You know, I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't some kind of pro-Putin "reverse psychology" propagandist. Very occasionally, your arguments start to make sense, and then you go out of your way to throw out some risible and obviously false claim to poison those arguments, e.g. your continual references to Putin's "violation" of an agreement which imposes no obligations on anyone and to which no party to the Russia/Ukraine set-to is signatory anyway (the "Helsinki Final Agreement").
This time it's the claim that "Russia has no in-flight refuelling facilities." In fact, Russia has an entire regiment — the 203rd Guards Air Refuelling Regiment — composed of Ilyushin-78 aerial tankers, and has used those "in-flight refuelling facilities" to keep other aircraft flying for in excess of 24 hours over the Atlantic, right in front of NATO observers.
Thomas, I could not have said it any better. You hit the mark!
I agree with your technical statements as I wasn't sure exactly what Mr. Kenny was getting at. In fact,. I just recently read of very advanced refueling capabilities by the Russian Air Force. Maybe Mr. Kenny was referring to interim base refueling centers that would allow for easier in-air refueling.
As to his assertions that Putin has violated certain agreements there is absolutely no evidence of Russia breaching any agreements recently. I am fairly well read on the subject…
I think its a good time to start working on my Bunker.
The Soviet Union was brought down by Afghanistan and an arms race. Putin has now managed to saddle himself with both.
They had the good sense to withdraw from Afghanistan, unlike us so far.
Oh, the outrage when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan when we slapped a graiin embargo and boycott of the Olympics on them. Then later, when we get attacked by Islamists (the same as Russia had been), the double standard hypocrisy came full fore.
So we ask, who is in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria now? Who spends more (much more) than any other nation on earth on weapons? Exactly how does the US master plan to do exactly as the USSR did in the 1980's lead to the collapse of Russia in 2015?
Is there not some risk that the plan might work as it did for the USSR and America might arm itself into bankruptcy?
America gained absolutely nothing from involvement in Iraq, Libya, Kosovo, or Afghanistan. There is nothing to be gained from involvement in Syria. All are net losses paid for by the taxpayer and Chinese bond holders.
Russia but needs to park its nuke sub forces off of US borders, not hidden but at full ready, and ask Obamas military advisors ” YA wanna play”; and mean it.
Not until these fn sheeps headed peons within US see just how fn close they are to becoming ashes will they grab hold of governing institutions once more, Removing this third and fourth generation of geneticly mutated politicos and their NY AIPAC masters, along with the familysbof fantacy land inbreds of beltway blood suckers whose roots go back to beginnings when the ink still undried they began raiding treasury for their decendents futures.