3732-ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? | View Thread

This Tiny Sliver of Russian Territory (and Its Weapons) Is What NATO Fears Most

November 25, 2016

In 1945, Soviet armies occupied East Prussia, a portion of Germany territorially detached from the rest of the Reich since 1918 (briefly reunified in 1939). Ethnically German and featuring the historic Prussian city of Königsberg, the territory represented a problem for the Soviets. They had no interest in returning it to Germany, especially as such a move would increase tension with the Poles, and they did not want to create an independent German socialist state, the birth of the German Democratic Republic remained in the future. Stalin decided to simply annex the territory, expelling the German inhabitants and replacing them with Russians.

Until 1991, the Kaliningrad enclave was territorially contiguous with the Soviet Union, if not the Russian Federation. After the secession of the Baltic Republics and the collapse of the USSR, Kaliningrad was separated from the rest of Russia. When the Baltics joined NATO, it became hostile territory deep inside the Western alliance. This has left Kaliningrad deeply vulnerable, but has also made it apotentially deadly military threat. Recently, the Russian government has taken to publicly highlighting the deployment of some of its most lethal military systems to the enclave. Intended to defend Kaliningrad, these systems could also represent a critical offensive threat to the heart of the NATO alliance.

The S-400 System

As detailed in numerous National Interestarticles, the S-400 is one of the most lethal air defense systems in the world. It includes a variety of radars, communications equipment and information-management technology necessary to conducting a layered, integrated area air defense, and can protect against aircraft, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. The radars can dozens (possibly hundreds) of targets across the threat spectrum.

The S-400 system comes with a variety of different missiles, from forty-kilometer short-range SAMs to four-hundred-kilometer extreme long-range weapons. The four-hundred-kilometer weapons would extend deep into NATO territory, making the staging of an air campaign in support of operations near the Baltics awkward and difficult. The presence of the S-400 would also complicate efforts to reduce the Kaliningrad enclave, forcing NATO to rely on stealth aircraft, standoff precision weapons, or (possibly) conventional long-range artillery to eliminate the threat posed by Russian ground forces and offensive missile systems.

The ability of the S-400 to track, identify and target U.S. stealth aircraft remains in question. However, there is little doubt that S-400 systems could wreak havoc against fourth-generation warplanes, much less against the fleets of civilian aircraft that normally operate across Central Europe. Indeed, conceived in offensive terms, the S-400 system in Kaliningrad could completely disrupt the economy of air travel in the region, at least for the duration of any conflict.

The Iskander Missile

The Iskander-M ballistic missile is the land-and-sea attack component of Kaliningrad’s long-range defenses. Precise information on the capabilities of the Iskander-M remains hard to come by, but we know that it can deliver conventional or nuclear warheads of various types up to four hundred kilometers (some estimates suggest five hundred kilometers). The Iskander can maneuver during its terminal phase, potentially allowing it to avoid missile defense systems.

Recently, the Russian government made a great public display of transferring nuclear-armed Iskanders to Kaliningrad, which would enable Moscow to strike numerous NATO targets in an extremely short period of time. Whether armed with conventional or nuclear weapons, the Iskanders could disrupt NATO operations and mobilization. The nuclear missiles could threaten to hold NATO hostage in case of conflict over the Baltics, or other territory. In particular, these missiles could target BMD installations in Poland, the destruction of which would leave NATO at even greater risk of Russian attack.

However much of a threat Kaliningrad can pose to NATO, it can only ever have a temporary impact. Russia has no plausible means of long-term defense of the enclave beyond an offensive that would open a corridor through NATO territory. While Russian forces might enjoy temporary superiority in the Baltics and eastern Poland, NATO forces would undoubtedly concentrate on overrunning Kaliningrad as quickly as possible. NATO would also subject the enclave to consistent and overwhelming electronic and PGM attacks at the initiation of hostilities, hoping to destroy or disrupt any offensive capabilities before they could do the same to NATO.

Nevertheless, the existence of Kaliningrad (and its accessibility by sea) give the Russian government the opportunity to manage political escalation dynamics with NATO. When Moscow wants to put pressure on wavering NATO governments, it can make a great show of deploying some new and frightening weapon to the enclave. However, it is not inconceivable that if Kaliningrad becomes too inconvenient, NATO could take political steps designed to destabilize the enclave, giving Moscow plenty of headaches it doesn’t need. In this, as in so many other areas, NATO and Russia play a delicate game of coercion dynamics.

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to TNI, is author of The Battleship Book. He serves as a Senior Lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Information Dissemination and The Diplomat.

Image: S-400 at the 2011 Victory Day parade, Moscow. Wikimedia Commons/Kremlin.ru

(nationalinterest.org)

Eric Chenoweth is co-director of the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe.

In assessing Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Americans continue to look away from this election’s most alarming story: the successful effort by a hostile foreign power to manipulate public opinion before the vote.

U.S. intelligence agencies determined that the Russian government actively interfered in our elections. Russian state propaganda gave little doubt that this was done to support Republican nominee Trump, who repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and excused the Russian president’s foreign aggression and domestic repression. Most significantly, U.S. intelligence agencies have affirmed that the Russian government directed the illegal hacking of private email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and prominent individuals. The emails were then released by WikiLeaks, which has benefited financially from a Russian state propaganda arm, used Russian operatives for security and made clear an intent to harm the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

Russian President Vladimir Putin says his country is ready to fully restore relations with the United States in an on-camera statement congratulating President-elect Donald Trump for his win against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. (Reuters)

From the Russian perspective, the success of this operation can hardly be overstated. News stories on the DNC emails released in July served to disrupt the Democratic National Convention, instigate political infighting and suggest for some supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — without any real proof — that the Democratic primary had been “rigged” against their candidate. On Oct. 7, WikiLeaks began near daily dumps from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account, generating a month of largely negative reporting on Clinton, her campaign staff, her husband and their foundation. With some exceptions, there was little news in the email beyond political gossip and things the media had covered before, now revisited from a seemingly “hidden” viewpoint.

Russian (and former communist) propaganda has traditionally worked exactly this way: The more you “report” something negatively, the more the negative is true. Trump and supportive media outlets adopted the technique and reveled in information gained from the illegal Russian hacking (as well as many “fake news” stories that evidence suggests were generated by Russian intelligence operations) to make exaggerated claims (“Hillary wants to open borders to 600 million people!”) or to accuse Clinton of illegality, corruption and, ironically, treasonous behavior.

Part of the Russian operation’s success is that we cannot measure the effect. Did the DNC emails depress the Sanders vote for Clinton? Did the Podesta emails turn off independents? Would voters have responded differently if major media had reported the email releases not as legitimate news but as an intelligence operation by a hostile foreign power aimed at undermining the integrity of U.S. elections? There are no clear answers. But there are certainties: The email operation increased negative stories about Clinton, fueled an immense propaganda attack and diminished coverage of actual issues. The large polling lead Clinton gained after the debates slipped significantly under this barrage of negativity — even before FBI Director James B. Comey’s bombshell.

Again, was there coordination with this foreign intervention? Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei A. Ryabkov, boasted that government representatives maintained multiple “contacts” during the campaign with Trump’s “immediate entourage.” (Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks issued a denial.) This is on top of reported U.S. government suspicions that a Trump adviser met with the intelligence operative directing the hacking. Where are the committee chairmen in Congress demanding an investigation? How is it that Republican Party leaders accept the intervention of a foreign power in the election of their party’s presidential candidate?

Putin is pursuing large strategic goals: recognition of theannexation of Crimea and international acceptance of foreign aggression to change state borders; Russian control of all ofUkraine; weakening or even dissolution of the European Union and NATO; restoration of Russia as a great power; and restored dominance over the former Soviet bloc and its environs. In pursuing these aims, Putin is engaged in a disciplined effort to influence democratic politics in the West, including financial and propaganda support for the narrow Brexit victory and for a network of far-right (and pro-Russian) nationalist political parties and groups throughout Europe. Now he has achieved what had to have been his most improbable goal: helping elect a sympathetic U.S. president who wants to form an alliance against terrorism. What will Trump give in exchange? He has already reaffirmed his intention to end support for pro-Western rebels in Syria, which effectively gives Russia a free hand to make President Bashar al-Assad its satrap. The greater danger is Trump’s attitude toward NATO as a “soft” alliance that, like the Western powers in 1939, won’t “die for Danzig.” It would mean the alliance’s end.

Michael 9348 2248 Indian...	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/27/2016 1:32:59 AM
	Hello Miguel. How have you been? It has been a long time since I have been in here, but I thought that I would come by and say hello. As usual, your articles are very informative and gives us an idea of what is really happening around the world. It also shows me that we really are living in the end times. I am not seeing much difference between the cabel and the illuminati right now. It seems to me that both groups are seeking world domination and we now have a new president that is a ticking time bomb. Once he takes office and starts putting his new policies into place, there are going to be riots in the streets day and night. The Weathermen will once again set bombs at government facilities and they will be able to recruit a lot more people then they did in the 70's. Trump is too radical and impulsive to lead the people in a constructive manner. His leadership is going to create a lot of destruction in his first 100 days in office. He seems to feel that the only way to solve problems is to retaliate and of course most of his followers feel the same way. Hillary, The Queen of England, and of course the Vatican are all cabal and I believe Trump could be described as being illuminatti so I believe we have gotten ourselves in a no win situation no matter what path we take. At one time we had a beautiful planet with clean drinking water, fresh air, and peaceful people. All that has changed because greed crept into the picture and everyone had to have more than the next person. I am greatful to have met wonderful people like yourself, but I feel the end is much closer than any of us have ever imagined. Hopefully, we can all enjoy one more Christmas with friends and family before it all comes to an end. GOD BLESS YOU AND GOD BLESS THE U>S>A> Come on down and claim your space
	Michael J. Caron (Mike) TRUTH IN ADVERTISING!! Friends First. Business Later.
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/27/2016 9:57:05 AM
	Hi and welcome Mike, I don't know if I should thank you for your pessimistic but precise diagnose of the world situation. However, I still hope for a change of mind and course from Trump. Since nothing good can come from the cabal, I'm afraid that is our last hope. Miguel
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+0

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/27/2016 10:13:09 AM
	This Tiny Sliver of Russian Territory (and Its Weapons) Is What NATO Fears Most Robert Farley November 25, 2016 In 1945, Soviet armies occupied East Prussia, a portion of Germany territorially detached from the rest of the Reich since 1918 (briefly reunified in 1939). Ethnically German and featuring the historic Prussian city of Königsberg, the territory represented a problem for the Soviets. They had no interest in returning it to Germany, especially as such a move would increase tension with the Poles, and they did not want to create an independent German socialist state, the birth of the German Democratic Republic remained in the future. Stalin decided to simply annex the territory, expelling the German inhabitants and replacing them with Russians. Until 1991, the Kaliningrad enclave was territorially contiguous with the Soviet Union, if not the Russian Federation. After the secession of the Baltic Republics and the collapse of the USSR, Kaliningrad was separated from the rest of Russia. When the Baltics joined NATO, it became hostile territory deep inside the Western alliance. This has left Kaliningrad deeply vulnerable, but has also made it apotentially deadly military threat. Recently, the Russian government has taken to publicly highlighting the deployment of some of its most lethal military systems to the enclave. Intended to defend Kaliningrad, these systems could also represent a critical offensive threat to the heart of the NATO alliance. The S-400 System As detailed in numerous National Interestarticles, the S-400 is one of the most lethal air defense systems in the world. It includes a variety of radars, communications equipment and information-management technology necessary to conducting a layered, integrated area air defense, and can protect against aircraft, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. The radars can dozens (possibly hundreds) of targets across the threat spectrum. The S-400 system comes with a variety of different missiles, from forty-kilometer short-range SAMs to four-hundred-kilometer extreme long-range weapons. The four-hundred-kilometer weapons would extend deep into NATO territory, making the staging of an air campaign in support of operations near the Baltics awkward and difficult. The presence of the S-400 would also complicate efforts to reduce the Kaliningrad enclave, forcing NATO to rely on stealth aircraft, standoff precision weapons, or (possibly) conventional long-range artillery to eliminate the threat posed by Russian ground forces and offensive missile systems. The ability of the S-400 to track, identify and target U.S. stealth aircraft remains in question. However, there is little doubt that S-400 systems could wreak havoc against fourth-generation warplanes, much less against the fleets of civilian aircraft that normally operate across Central Europe. Indeed, conceived in offensive terms, the S-400 system in Kaliningrad could completely disrupt the economy of air travel in the region, at least for the duration of any conflict. The Iskander Missile The Iskander-M ballistic missile is the land-and-sea attack component of Kaliningrad’s long-range defenses. Precise information on the capabilities of the Iskander-M remains hard to come by, but we know that it can deliver conventional or nuclear warheads of various types up to four hundred kilometers (some estimates suggest five hundred kilometers). The Iskander can maneuver during its terminal phase, potentially allowing it to avoid missile defense systems. Recently, the Russian government made a great public display of transferring nuclear-armed Iskanders to Kaliningrad, which would enable Moscow to strike numerous NATO targets in an extremely short period of time. Whether armed with conventional or nuclear weapons, the Iskanders could disrupt NATO operations and mobilization. The nuclear missiles could threaten to hold NATO hostage in case of conflict over the Baltics, or other territory. In particular, these missiles could target BMD installations in Poland, the destruction of which would leave NATO at even greater risk of Russian attack. However much of a threat Kaliningrad can pose to NATO, it can only ever have a temporary impact. Russia has no plausible means of long-term defense of the enclave beyond an offensive that would open a corridor through NATO territory. While Russian forces might enjoy temporary superiority in the Baltics and eastern Poland, NATO forces would undoubtedly concentrate on overrunning Kaliningrad as quickly as possible. NATO would also subject the enclave to consistent and overwhelming electronic and PGM attacks at the initiation of hostilities, hoping to destroy or disrupt any offensive capabilities before they could do the same to NATO. Nevertheless, the existence of Kaliningrad (and its accessibility by sea) give the Russian government the opportunity to manage political escalation dynamics with NATO. When Moscow wants to put pressure on wavering NATO governments, it can make a great show of deploying some new and frightening weapon to the enclave. However, it is not inconceivable that if Kaliningrad becomes too inconvenient, NATO could take political steps designed to destabilize the enclave, giving Moscow plenty of headaches it doesn’t need. In this, as in so many other areas, NATO and Russia play a delicate game of coercion dynamics. Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to TNI, is author of The Battleship Book. He serves as a Senior Lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Information Dissemination and The Diplomat. Image: S-400 at the 2011 Victory Day parade, Moscow. Wikimedia Commons/Kremlin.ru (nationalinterest.org)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/27/2016 10:49:12 AM
	Election recount will take place in Wisconsin, after Stein files petition By Karoun Demirjian November 25 Former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein filed a petition Friday for a recount of election results in Wisconsin. (Christopher Dolan/Citizens’ Voice via AP) An election recount will take place soon in Wisconsin, after former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein filed a petition Friday with the state’s Election Commission, the first of three states where she has promised to contest the election result. The move from Stein, who raised millions since her Wednesday announcement that she would seek recounts of Donald Trump’s apparent election victories in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, came just 90 minutes before Wisconsin’s 5 p.m. Friday deadline to file a petition. Now it will keep some hope alive for many Hillary Clinton supporters for another few weeks while Wisconsin recounts ballots before a Dec. 13 deadline. Trump scored upset victories in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and seems on the path to declare a victory in Michigan as well, though the result of the election in that state will not be certified officially until Monday. Had Clinton won those three states, previously seen as part of the Democrats’ “firewall,” she would have secured enough electoral votes to win the election. Stein announced her intention to file the petition following reports that a group of data experts and election lawyers were urging Clinton to demand a recount in those three states, on suspicion that a cyberattack could have manipulated the results of the election in those states. While the group had no specific proof of hacking, they noted anomalies suggesting Clinton routinely did more poorly in Wisconsin counties that used voting machines, as opposed to those that relied on paper ballots. Trump secured a total of 1,404,000 votes in Wisconsin, according to the commission; Clinton had 1,381,823. In the end, Stein, who secured 31,006 votes in Wisconsin, was not the only presidential candidate to demand a recount. Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente, the Reform Party nominee who got 1,514 Wisconsin votes, also filed a recount petition, according to the state’s Election Commission. George Martin, a Green Party official, said on Nov. 25 in Milwaukee that his party is seeking a vote recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania “for the benefit of the American public.” (Reuters) [Why are people giving Jill Stein millions of dollars for an election recount?] To be on the safe side, the group of experts urged a recount — but it was Stein’s campaign that ended up demanding one, soliciting at first $2.5 million and later up to $7 million to fund the recounts. As of Friday evening, Stein’s campaign reported taking in over $5.25 million in recount-related donations — the most by a third-party candidate in history. Wisconsin has the first deadline of the three states in question. If Stein’s campaign wishes to file recount petitions in the other states as promised, she must do so by Monday to meet Pennsylvania’s deadline, and Wednesday to meet the Nov. 30 deadline in Michigan. In a statement, Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Michael Haas guessed that the cost and complexity of the recount would be in excess of the state’s last recount in 2011, which carried a price tag of more than $520,000. In that recount over a state Supreme Court seat, the commission had to recount 1.5 million votes — about half the 2.975 million ballot votes that were cast during the 2016 presidential election. Stein put a note on her Facebook page on Friday, asking supporters “to consider volunteering to help in the recount process.” The county boards of canvassers will conduct the recount, according to the commission’s statement, and will have the authority “to decide which ballots should and should not be counted,” Haas said. If the candidates disagree with the results of the Wisconsin recount, they will have five business days to contest the outcome in court. (The Washington Post)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 11/27/2016 11:02:28 AM
	Americans keep looking away from the election’s most alarming story Russian President Vladimir Putin. (Alexei Druzhinin/Associated Press) By Eric Chenoweth November 25 at 7:23 PM Eric Chenoweth is co-director of the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe. In assessing Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Americans continue to look away from this election’s most alarming story: the successful effort by a hostile foreign power to manipulate public opinion before the vote. U.S. intelligence agencies determined that the Russian government actively interfered in our elections. Russian state propaganda gave little doubt that this was done to support Republican nominee Trump, who repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and excused the Russian president’s foreign aggression and domestic repression. Most significantly, U.S. intelligence agencies have affirmed that the Russian government directed the illegal hacking of private email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and prominent individuals. The emails were then released by WikiLeaks, which has benefited financially from a Russian state propaganda arm, used Russian operatives for security and made clear an intent to harm the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Russian President Vladimir Putin says his country is ready to fully restore relations with the United States in an on-camera statement congratulating President-elect Donald Trump for his win against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. (Reuters) From the Russian perspective, the success of this operation can hardly be overstated. News stories on the DNC emails released in July served to disrupt the Democratic National Convention, instigate political infighting and suggest for some supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — without any real proof — that the Democratic primary had been “rigged” against their candidate. On Oct. 7, WikiLeaks began near daily dumps from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account, generating a month of largely negative reporting on Clinton, her campaign staff, her husband and their foundation. With some exceptions, there was little news in the email beyond political gossip and things the media had covered before, now revisited from a seemingly “hidden” viewpoint. Russian (and former communist) propaganda has traditionally worked exactly this way: The more you “report” something negatively, the more the negative is true. Trump and supportive media outlets adopted the technique and reveled in information gained from the illegal Russian hacking (as well as many “fake news” stories that evidence suggests were generated by Russian intelligence operations) to make exaggerated claims (“Hillary wants to open borders to 600 million people!”) or to accuse Clinton of illegality, corruption and, ironically, treasonous behavior. Part of the Russian operation’s success is that we cannot measure the effect. Did the DNC emails depress the Sanders vote for Clinton? Did the Podesta emails turn off independents? Would voters have responded differently if major media had reported the email releases not as legitimate news but as an intelligence operation by a hostile foreign power aimed at undermining the integrity of U.S. elections? There are no clear answers. But there are certainties: The email operation increased negative stories about Clinton, fueled an immense propaganda attack and diminished coverage of actual issues. The large polling lead Clinton gained after the debates slipped significantly under this barrage of negativity — even before FBI Director James B. Comey’s bombshell. Again, was there coordination with this foreign intervention? Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei A. Ryabkov, boasted that government representatives maintained multiple “contacts” during the campaign with Trump’s “immediate entourage.” (Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks issued a denial.) This is on top of reported U.S. government suspicions that a Trump adviser met with the intelligence operative directing the hacking. Where are the committee chairmen in Congress demanding an investigation? How is it that Republican Party leaders accept the intervention of a foreign power in the election of their party’s presidential candidate? Putin is pursuing large strategic goals: recognition of theannexation of Crimea and international acceptance of foreign aggression to change state borders; Russian control of all ofUkraine; weakening or even dissolution of the European Union and NATO; restoration of Russia as a great power; and restored dominance over the former Soviet bloc and its environs. In pursuing these aims, Putin is engaged in a disciplined effort to influence democratic politics in the West, including financial and propaganda support for the narrow Brexit victory and for a network of far-right (and pro-Russian) nationalist political parties and groups throughout Europe. Now he has achieved what had to have been his most improbable goal: helping elect a sympathetic U.S. president who wants to form an alliance against terrorism. What will Trump give in exchange? He has already reaffirmed his intention to end support for pro-Western rebels in Syria, which effectively gives Russia a free hand to make President Bashar al-Assad its satrap. The greater danger is Trump’s attitude toward NATO as a “soft” alliance that, like the Western powers in 1939, won’t “die for Danzig.” It would mean the alliance’s end. In his book “Putinism,” Soviet and Russian historian Walter Laqueur describes the varied ideological strains that animate the former KGB agent. The “Russian national idea” that has emerged is to defend Russia, Eurasia and the world from the anti-civilizational corruption of Western liberal democracy. Frighteningly, Putin’s worldview has resonance in the populist and nationalist fixations of Stephen K. Bannon, the president-elect’s senior counselor, whose stated mission is to “destroy” the “establishment” and end the domination of the “donor class.” Bannon’s “closing argument” ad for Trump, redolent of Russian propaganda, described the United States as a corrupt and failing state because of nefarious “global special interests.” It all points to grave danger for democracy and a world order that has kept the peace for 70 years. Is this what America voted for? (The Washington Post)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Menu

Forums

This Tiny Sliver of Russian Territory (and Its Weapons) Is What NATO Fears Most

Like us on Facebook!