Russian Military To Practice Repelling Invasion From East

[Ryan Ruck]

Russian Military To Practice Repelling Invasion From East

Russia's military will practice repelling a foreign invasion during exercises this month in the country's far east, the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta said Tuesday. The exercises will take place on the Kamchatka peninsula some time in the second half of August and will be presided over by President Vladimir Putin, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources on the military's general staff.

The aim is to improve cooperation between different arms of the military in "defending the coast from possible armed invasion," the newspaper said.

"The 'conditional opponents' are not abstract terrorists but the armed forces of real states," the paper said.

Taking part will be 5,000 servicemen, 20 ships, nuclear submarines, artillery and air defence forces, the newspaper said.

The exercises will be a continuation of staff-level exercises that took place last month, the paper said.

The military will practice "repelling a coastal landing by foreign forces, cutting the naval communications of the conditional opponents and fighting submarines and airborne enemies," the newspaper said.

It is telling that they would be practicing to repel an invasion from the area of Japan and Alaska rather than near China.

[American Patriot]

You know, this brings up a question to me....

Why is it that when WE, that is the US military practices... we go somewhere else? We do NOT go to the coast of Florida, or Maine, or California.

Exceptions of course are SMALL UNIT exercises that involve one base, or one area, the Air Force doing major wing operations from within the US (but bombing, say... Nevada....) and normal troop training, which is always small scale.

Why do we NOT practice defending our OWN country?

[Joey Bagadonuts]

Hiya Rick,

Well, it's probably because some people (liberals and whiners) will be calling their Congressmen to protest whatever perceived "inconveniences" or "environmental destruction" that such an exercise might entail.

Waahhh...."what do you mean I won't be able to sail my megayacht in that area of the coast that day??? I have my rights!"

Or waahhh...."why do I have to wait in traffic for that army convoy up ahead"?

You get the idea.

Very few politicians would dare stand up to these people and tell them the truth, so, the local politician will call their US senator who will call the White House to protest, and then bad-mouth the President in their "frank for free" newsletters to their constituents.

BUT...you have a GREAT idea there! The President might be able to kill SEVERAL birds with one stone here.

1. Train the troops at home, which will be cheaper
than shipping them to some foreign country.
2. Give the commanders and the troops a bit of "local knowledge".
3. Give the troops some extra inspiration and very possibly some appreciation.
4. Let the people see what their tax money is being spent on...(keeping them
safe).
5. Maybe it will instill a sense of patriotism in some folks who really need it
and let them think about "what if" and "it CAN happen here".


Maybe I'm being naive about this but I think your idea would work. Have you given any serious consideration to suggesting it? Screw the whiners!


***

[wallis]

I see two possibilities, something I learned from watching exercises in the past:

1. The exercise is focused on defending the area where the exercise takes place.

2. The exercise is focused on a different area from that where the exercise takes place.

One way to determine which of the two may be most correct is to map out the exercise and then see if it fits a different part of the world. Something else to take note of is certain similarities of terrain and conditions where the exercise is being held.

I understand that a lot of ranger/Green Beret training is conducted in parts of the United States to reflect jungle, tundra, mountain, and desert terrain.

I agree with Rick on more homeland defense training. I believe the latest "scare" is the proposed warning by some that technology exists to execute hit and runs off our coasts by small boats loaded down with missiles that cannot (or almost) be detected or intercepted.

[Ryan Ruck]

Good ideas Joey.

In addition to the previously mentioned things about inconveniencing people and the environment ( ), I think that many, many people suffer from a sort of "god" complex where they think "That'll never happen here."

I would have thought that 9/11 would have cleared that up but, apparently not.

To date, we do not have:

- Costal defense emplacements (artillery or anti-ship missile) near major costal cities and ports
- Surface-Air missile sites around cities, military locations, and other high value targets nationwide
- A national level BMD (with nuclear elements) capable of dealing with large numbers of incoming ICBM/SLBM threats
- Comprehensive border security
- Interceptor aircraft loaded out, on alert and, ready to go at a moments notice from airfields all around our nation's periphery
- SAC bombers on constant alert to respond immediately in the event of a surprise attack

We don't have these large scale air defense drills, we don't have these large scale costal defense drills, we just don't really practice defending our homeland period.

About all we have is:
- The remnants of the DEW line now called the NWS and a few Pave Paws sites
- A prototype BMD system limited to kinetic warheads
- Stinger missile based air defense vehicles limited to low flying aircraft around only the highest value targets (i.e. White House, Capitol Building, etc.)