Thread: Russian Military Doctrine

17 ICBMs will be bought? Is that a lot? Do you know how many will be retired? That's not seriously - the arguments of such kind. I can give you a lot of such information in respect of US.

Long-Range Bombers: How Many Does the U.S. Need?
While the Air Force has thousands of tactical combat aircraft, capable of short-range strike missions, it has no more than 208 long-range bombers in its active and reserve forces, and many of them are more than 40 years old. They include:
94 long-winged B-52s, which were first deployed in 1955.
93 supersonic, swept-wing B-1s, which entered service in 1985.
21 B-2s, which were introduced in 1993.
NDM Article - Long-Range Bombers: How Many Does the U.S. Need?

New Long-Range Bomber On Horizon For 2018
he new bomber is necessary to recapitalize the Air Force's fleet of B-52 and B-1 "legacy bombers," and to counter advanced anti-access systems of America's enemies, said Lt. Col. Kevin Shorb, chief of Air Combat Command's Next Generation Long Range Strike Division. Modern enemy anti-access systems, such as surface-to-air missiles and enemy aircraft, are emerging and becoming common, he added.
New Long-Range Bomber On Horizon For 2018

United States Delivered Key Radar to Russia’s Borders
The key component of the U.S. Ground-Base Midcourse Defense
Program, Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX), has been delivered to
Russia’s borders. The new base of the facility is the Aleutian Islands.
United States Delivered Key Radar to Russia’s Borders - Kommersant Moscow

The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget, funding for the Department of Energy (which includes nuclear weapons) and “other” which the source does not define. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars—$50 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 and an extra $70 billion for FY 2006, on top of the $50 billion approved by Congress.)
For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion .
For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.
The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.
The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.

World Military Spending - Global Issues

Originally Posted by MrFirst

17 ICBMs will be bought? Is that a lot? Do you know how many will be retired? That's not seriously - the arguments of such kind. I can give you a lot of such information in respect of US.

Ever noticed on these reports you quoted never talks about military spending in terms of % of GDP or purchasing power parity?

All of a sudden PPP is irrelevent.

Mr First

Let me say firstly I consider Russia an ally.

And have posted a number of articles proving this point.

Do we have differences most assuredly. As we do with even our most trusted allies like the UK, Japan, Canada, Spain, Austrailia, Italy, S. Korea, Germany, Singapore to name but a few.

But our futures are far more inextricably intertwined than most would admit.

However Russian extremists(or maybe more fittingly those who want a return to the USSR, the Cold War and Stalin.) now have apparently reagained power and influence at least for the short term.

Now onto more specific matters:

You could have posted the whole story but chose only an excerpt in a futile attempt to portray the reverse of what the article said(Ive posted it in its entirety below) seeing as how it is all about Russian "paranoia", its attempt to regain its ill gotten territories and its insane, illogical and unrealistic pretensions as a globlal hegemonist.

Again it is just more proof that some elements in Russia just cannot live or even survive without the US as the enemy.

Gates made the comment you refer to because we are getting conflicting signals from Russia.

And once again the lack of even the most basic concepts of transparency and consistency seem elude the Russian mind.

Read the next story following this one to see my point.

And below that a link to two articles about the China issue that I posted on another thread.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/int...tml#post342106

My only conclusion is that Russia is indeed about to give up vast tracts of land to China to avoid a confrontation they cant win to counter this loss of face they are plunging heedlessly and haplessly into a new doctrine hell bent on recapturing the so-called Eastern Bloc/Warsaw Pact nations.

Their comfort zone is bullying the territories it formally occupied and having the US as an enemy.

The extremist Russians can only do this by painting the US as the ultimate adversary.

It will fail.

Because the whole scenario is illogical, untruthful and unrealistic.

And therefore it is destabilizing.

And thus Gates comment that no one has a clue what is actually going to happen in Russia.

Russian Says U.S. Expansion a Threat

Saturday February 10, 2007 3:16 AM


By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's top military officer said the United States is expanding its economic, political and military presence in Russia's traditional zones of influence and described that as the top national security threat, the latest signal of a growing chill in relations.

Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the military's General Staff, said Russia now faces even greater military threats than during the Cold War and the nation needs a new military doctrine to respond to these challenges, according to a speech posted on the Defense Ministry's Web site Friday.

``Russia's cooperation with the West on the basis of forming common or close strategic interests hasn't helped its military security,'' Baluyevsky said in the speech, delivered at a recent security conference in Moscow. ``Moreover, the situation in many regions of the world which are vitally important for Russia and near its borders has sometimes become more difficult.''

Russian-U.S. ties have worsened steadily over disagreements on Iraq and other global crises, and U.S. concerns about an increasingly authoritarian streak in Russia's domestic policy and strong-arming of ex-Soviet neighbors.

Baluyevsky referred to what he called ``the U.S. military leadership's course aimed at maintaining its global leadership and expanding its economic, political and military presence in Russia's traditional zones of influence'' as a top threat for Russia's national security.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has reacted angrily to U.S. plans to deploy missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, saying Moscow does not trust U.S. claims they were aimed to counter missile threats from Iran and will take relevant countermeasures. Both countries are former Soviet satellites that became NATO members.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, meanwhile, said Russia would find an ``intellectual response'' to the U.S. move and not plunge into a new arms race, according to an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine posted on the ministry's Web site Friday.

Russian officials have assailed the United States and its NATO allies for their refusal to ratify an amended version of the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty which regulates the deployment of military aircraft, tanks and other heavy non-nuclear weapons around the continent.

Russia has ratified the amended version of the treaty signed in 1999, but the United States and other NATO members have refused to do that until Russia abides by its commitment to withdraw troops from the ex-Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia.

Russia said the link was irrelevant, and threatened to opt out of the treaty.

In remarks posted Friday, Lavrov said that the failure to ratify the amended document had ``led to very serious imbalances between the armed forces,'' since the arsenals of former Soviet allies which that have joined NATO were counted alongside Soviet weapons in the original 1990 CFE Treaty.

Amid growing distrust of U.S. intentions, Russia's lawmakers and commentators reacted nervously to comments by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates naming Russia as a potential threat.

``We don't know what's going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere,'' Gates told a House of Representatives committee meeting earlier this week, according to a Pentagon transcript.

The daily newspaper Gazeta on Friday said that Gates' statement could ``go down to history books as a starting point for a new twist of the Cold War.''

Viktor Ozerov, the head of the defense committee in Russia's upper house of parliament, said Gates' comments signaled ``U.S. attempts to draw our nation into a new arms race,'' the Interfax news agency quoted him as saying. ``We will have to find an asymmetrical response.''

Russia Pledges More NATO Help in Afghanistan

By MARK JOHN, REUTERS, SEVILLE, Spain


Russia pledged a support package to help NATO crush a Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan on Feb. 9 while ruling out sending troops to the country it occupied for nine years during the Cold War.
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said after meeting NATO counterparts in the Spanish city of Seville that Moscow would provide intelligence and reconstruction aid, and confirmed plans to write off $10 billion of Soviet-era debt.
"Russia has the most vital, visceral interest in ensuring that (the NATO-led) International Security Assistance Force makes a success of stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan," he told a news conference after the talks.
"Clearly we are never going to be able to send our troops into Afghanistan," he said of the country from which Soviet forces pulled out in 1989 after suffering humiliating losses at the hands of Islamic insurgents.
Ivanov noted Russia had already signed agreements with France and Germany to allow them to transport equipment across Russian territory to their troops in Afghanistan and said Moscow was ready to sign a similar accord with Spain.
He also offered unspecified intelligence support to NATO and help in getting the war-shattered Afghan economy -- largely dominated by the illegal drugs trade -- back on its feet.
"Our efforts are going already into mitigating Afghan financial debt to Russia. Its debt is $10 billion," he said.
Moscow agreed in principle last year to write off the debt piled up during its occupation but debates on the precise size of the debt and conditions of the deal have slowed the talks.
Access for Russian businesses to contracts in Afghanistan was a condition for writing off the debt, but Ivanov made no mention of such agreements.
NATO and Russia agreed five years ago to explore how to cooperate militarily but Ivanov acknowledged that joint efforts have been limited to a few projects such as Russian support for NATO anti-terrorist shipping patrols in the Mediterranean.
"Now we have reached a plateau now we are a bit stuck. We both want to know what are the prospects of our relation," he said, calling for renewed discussions this year on how to develop closer ties.
NATO is still perceived with suspicion by many Russians and tensions between Russia and the West have grown amid concerns that Moscow is using its dominance as an energy supplier to wield influence over its European neighbors.


http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/int...tml#post342106

So where do you stand MrFirst?

As an ally?

Or as an unrepentant Stalinist, Cold War loving master of the Eastern European nations that only relatively recently have gotten out from under the heel of USSR domination?

It cant be both.

So I exhort you to come clean and show your true colors without obfuscating the issues.

Its one or the other.

Choose!!!! Be a man!!!

So it will become clear to me on how to effectively deal with you.

Which BTW is Gates point and thats not "paranoia" only a reasonable request.

Or do you even know the meaning of "reasonable" or care?

Ive chosen as I stated at the beginning as has the vast majority of the US.

Ally!!!

Now its time for you and Russia to choose.

Choose carefully and wisely.

Our lives may depend on it and most certainly our nations futures.

LOL

What a World!!!!!!!!!!

ROTFLMAO

Now heres a man who appears not to have chosen carefully or wisely:

The Administrator under the moniker forties at the influential warfare.ru site.

A picure of Stalin graces his every utterance along with this tag line.:

The policy of Russia is changeless. Its methods, its tactics, its maneuvers may change, but the polar star of its policy, world domination, is a fixed star. - Karl Marx

And where does he state hes from the "USSR".

Case Closed.

And apparently first on the agenda has always been to crush the USA by any means necessary.

And why? Because the US is the only nation who champions the right of people to live free.

And therefore is the biggest threat to Russias goal of "world domination".

Hopefully this goal is only for the extremist factions in Russia and not all of Russia.

Otherwise all hope of peace is gone.

Ah yes the old myth of the poor, innocent so-called indigenous peoples of N. America.

"Or else it should have been some American Indian language, they being the original inhabitants!"

Historical record shows they were killing, enslaving, robbing each other. They were anything but peace loving.

They were neither stupid, naive or helpless.

They were as intelligent, proud and arrogant as any white man.

Might made right in their world no more and no less than in the rest of the world

You reap what you sow as the saying goes.

They only attempted to inhabit many areas AFTER the white man came from accross the sea.

They were quite shrewd and still are today.

"political correctness" once again rears its ugly head.

rickusn
There are no extremists of wanting enmity from the USA at authority. There are small political parties with their supporters of teenage age, but they will never operate Russia.
But:
There is a policy of the USA in the states next to Russia which cannot be named "allied".
There is a political support of extremists in the Chechen Republic and the idiot of the president of Georgia which want war with Russian on Caucasus.
There is an expansion of NATO which (theoretically) represents threat of our safety.
There is an intervention in sphere of vital interests of Russia
There are charges of Russia in imperial ambitions, during too time.
There is a period with 91 for 99 years when the USA directly dictated conditions to the ugly creature to president Eltsynu (greater humiliation Russia never tested).
There is many other things

These statements will seem to probably you disputable, but look at a policy of the USA concerning Russia for last 15 years. All this that that is seen by any person living in Russia. It is not necessary any slogans and appeals, everyone and so understands: the USA probably and not the enemy, but it is already exact not the friend.
On this theme

Originally Posted by rickusn

"political correctness" once again rears its ugly head.

Completely with you it agree. If always existed " political correctness ", there were in the world no countries, there were only tribes.
But too that you speak about the American Indians, I can tell and about some nationalities was in the USSR. There was the greater Russian empire last millenium which has given them more, than they have given this empire.
Now they shout about the small and proud nation which was occupied with the big and malicious Russian. Malicious Russian has grasped them, having banished kind and lovely nazis and SS. He has forced them to use an electricity, gas and gasoline which he made at itself(himself) in Russia. Now they hate it for it, now they put in prisons of old men which at war in the second world war with fascists and take down monuments.

Cohen is a Soviet apologist and has no credibility.

But even with that he outlines all the Russian problems.

All of which Russians created he adds.

He also details the threats Russia is making to its neighbors.

He also fails to add that all the aid given by the US was used for purposes not inteneded.

And then for some odd reason blames the US.

LOL

I wish he would come to this forum. So I could set this arrogant, egotisctical, appeasing, traitorous, apologist, elitist, socialist screw-up straight.

He acknowledges that Russia wants back all the easten bloc nations plus the Ukraine and Georgia and by force if necessary.

Is it any wonder then that these nations want to come under the NATO umbrella?

When Russia becomes a good, reliable, trustworthy neighbor and no one fears for their very survival and existence then their pleading to join NATO will end.

And not until.

Are you Russians willing to do this? No? Then whats the poblem?

Dont tell me you fear Estonia, Latvia, Lithiuania, Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Romamia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ukraine etc!!!!

Look on a world map. It will tell you everything you need to know about who fears who.

As Patton would say somebody needs to to grab Cohen "by the nose and give him a swift kick in the ass."

LOL

But here he states the crux of the problem and doesnt even realize it.:

"The stability of the political regime atop this bleak post-Soviet landscape rests heavily, if not entirely, on the personal popularity and authority of one man, President Vladimir Putin, who admits the state "is not yet completely stable." While Putin's ratings are an extraordinary 70 to 75 percent positive, political institutions and would-be leaders below him have almost no public support."

And so he has reverted to the age old authoritarian tradition and custom of using the military to stay in power.

This in turn makes the military all powerful eventually leading to a nations disinegration. See below:

"The huge military is equally unstable, its ranks torn by a lack of funds, abuses of authority and discontent. No wonder serious analysts worry that one or more sudden developments--a sharp fall in world oil prices, more major episodes of ethnic violence or terrorism, or Putin's disappearance--might plunge Russia into an even worse crisis."

Of course Cohens conclusion is again that this is somehow the US fault.

Cohen writes the facts and then spins them into something totally unrecognizable.

Despicable and disgraceful.

He even states that Russia presents "unprecedented threats to US and international security."

But of course its the US fault? BS

You Russian apologists and US bashers are going to have to do better than this.

Its way too easy even for a simple minded person like me to to put the lie to your arguments and assertions.

And using Cohens article was a huge tactical and strategic mistake.

If you think his assertions on "constant US interventions in Moscow's internal affairs" hold water.

Then why does he not give specific examples except innuendos and resorts to unsubtantiated , undocumented accusations. Totally unwarranted.

"gobbling up former Soviet-bloc members and republics" LOL

They are asking, clamoring to join.

He makes it sound like the Germans WWII blitzkrieg rolling up to the Gates of Leningrad and Moscow for petes sake.

A bunch of BS.

And when in actuality thats exactly what some elements of extremist Russia who now have power want to do and thats roll its Army across Europe to the Atlantic Ocean and even extending the invasion across the Engish Channel to enslave the UK.

If I havent presented enough for you just say the word and Ill use the words of your precious apologist Cohen to prove even more of your and his outlandish, misleading, false and foolish contentions.

This guy has no credibility and neither do you if you dont own up to what is really happening here.

Cohens conclusions of trying to blame his own country are totally illogical.

But heres the rub thats how he makes his "living". He has an axe to grind and a vested interest to see that the US and Russia are portrayed as enemies.

And in actuality he doesnt really care who gets the blame as long as he makes a ton of money off of his delusional writings.

LOL

What a world!!!!!!!!!

ROTFLMAO

Postscript: I must say all you have done is concvince me that indeed maybe we are not allies and war is inevitable. If thats the case lets start right now and get it over with. Im not willing to subject myself and my familly to another 50 years of asinine Cold War.

So I say to the Russians now is the time to put up or shut up.

Ive had enough.

Im done with being conciliatory until I see some reciprocation.

Your not "victims" (so stop acting like it) in fact by your very statements and those of your apologists you brand yourselfs as "perpetrators".

I have resulted newspaper article Cohen for an example of one of YOUR opinions on us. It not OUR opinion, and I with it in many respects do not agree.
I can give you some articles of our opinion, but they are written in russian, and without the translator you will understand nothing.

Here fluent translation of some part by the electronic translator:

The USA striked the disguised blows on the Russian economy and inside of the country. It is well visible on two operations - to conversion and privatization which the Russian government has lead above own military-industrial complex under dictation of Washington. For consultation on privatization to Russia there has arrived the American economist with a world name - Jeffrey Sachs, before managed to stop a galloping inflation in Bolivia and successfully lead "shock therapy" in Poland. Whether to a saxophone "advisers" from the World bank have prevented, whether he not so tried, but its activity has come to the end with a full failure in Russia.

To government Eltsyna pining without money which could not find money even for salaries to state employees, Jeffrey Sachs has suggested to privatize the enterprises of a military-industrial complex as the most advanced and it is better than others the countries equipped in industrial sector. It is necessary to tell, that because of conversion of the enterprise of the Military-industrial complex already then have started to leave thousand designers and the engineers, not wished to make instead of systems of arms children's carriages and bicycles. Privatization of the Military-industrial complex which should give the Russian treasury of tens billions dollars as promised Jeffrey Sachs, has put the second crushing blow on the defensive industry.

The original

You call that this:

"Im done with being conciliatory until I see some reciprocation."

AS President Reagan once stated "let the bombing begin". LOL

Connect Post # 201

The issue of "Or else it should have been some American Indian language, they being the original inhabitants!" has been juggled to appear as ridiculous.

Obviously, the post where it was mentioned has not been read and a cavalier attitude adopted.

For recap the post from where it has been taken is:

Gunnut,

So it proves very clearly that there has to be a national language.

English in the case of the USA.

Or else it should have been some American Indian language, they being the original inhabitants!

This was in context of having a common language in a multi lingual country.

This post addresses the general debate by inference that the language should be of the original inhabitants.

As far as the persecution or otherwise or the intelligence or being of a rambunctious mindset of the American Indians was never discussed or inferred.

The rationale to imply things not implied by me is rather queer!

With such a mindset anything that one does not agree with is as if the right to exist has been denied! Discussion thus has to conform to 'kowtowing' or bust!

It speaks of arrogance and belittling others who hold contrary views.

More so, the arrogance is set afire on those who do not have English as their mother tongue and cannot respond in a befitting manner to such arrogance and imperial manners!

Though the undermentioned is not in reply to my post, but it is an example worth note (confined to the statement alone and not the debate, since I have not read the posts in detail):

I wish he would come to this forum. So I could set this arrogant, egotisctical, appeasing, traitorous, apologist, elitist, socialist screw-up straight.

The above indicates the intolerance and arrogance of the poster . A forum is for discussion, debate and interaction and not spewing venom on those one cannot 'convert' (if you wish) to one's own ideas. Anger, intolerance and arrogance indicates weakness in what one believes in.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Ever noticed on these reports you quoted never talks about military spending in terms of % of GDP or purchasing power parity?

All of a sudden PPP is irrelevent.

Please, your wish to be executed…
US military spendings – from 3.7% to 4.06 (from different sources) of GDP.
Russia’s – 2.6%-2.8%.

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said May 11
“Our military budget will correspond to about 2.6, 2.7 or 2.8 percent of GDP.”
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1768049&C=europe

The nominal defense budget stays at a level of 2.6% to 2.7% of GDP.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../mo-budget.htm

Originally Posted by rickusn

So where do you stand MrFirst?
As an ally?
Or as an unrepentant Stalinist, Cold War loving master of the Eastern European nations that only relatively recently have gotten out from under the heel of USSR domination?
So I exhort you to come clean and show your true colors without obfuscating the issues.

Maybe I wouldn’t want to choose colors from your color palette that seems like very poor, Rickusn. Black and white palette. I don’t understand why I have to choose or to be an US ally or to be an Stalinist. That’s not necessary to mix up a warm and a soft.
You say the US “are getting conflicting signals from Russia.” But Russia gets such signals from USA already for a long time. Since then as they increased NATO until Russian border. Since then as the US deployed the radar stations in Norway, Estonia, Latvia. Since then as they left antimissile defense treaty of 1972, and declared the creation of anti-missile system components in Poland and Czech rep., and installed radar near Kamchatka. You welcome the Chechen separatists like so-called “foreign minister of Ichkeria” Akhmadov, you allow your allies as Qatar to give a shelter for bandits and terrorists like former “president” Yandarbiev. You interfere into internal affairs of Russia’s neighbors like Ukraine and Georgia, you make so-called “revolutions”, you support every Russian opponent and ill-wisher despite who is he or where is he. And that makes additional problems for Russia. What is your deal to the Ukrainian nationalists or the Georgian psychos? Why Russia should trust the US after all of that?
When Gen. Mahmud Gareev talked about military threats he was ascertaining the real facts, that was enough for you to claim him as a “paranoiac”. But when your defense minister Gates basing on “signals from Russia” informs the US are going to be ready to war against Russia, you are calling this just the “only a reasonable request”. Something like double standards. What are these “signals”? Ridiculous false inventions about Russian extremists that ostensibly regained power now? Compare it to the extensive military preparations of US near Russian borders.

Mr.First - ´´Since then as the US deployed the radar stations in Norway, Estonia, Latvia. ´´ - sorry it was us, not US. these are 2 ordinary, quite normal 3-D TPS-117 radars , not some ABM radar stations. We bought them , it´s local air traffic control system to prevent unhappy accidents , like wreck of Rus. Su-27 in middle of Lithuania.

Firral - Now they shout about the small and proud nation which was occupied with the big and malicious Russian. Malicious Russian has grasped them, having banished kind and lovely nazis and SS. He has forced them to use an electricity, gas and gasoline which he made at itself(himself) in Russia. Now they hate it for it, now they put in prisons of old men which at war in the second world war with fascists and take down monuments.

Ok, that seems to be directed towards me: well first of all , most of Czarist Russias western influences came from Baltic states, from local german nobility . The theory that russia has brought enlightement and civilization - well that is sure for big part of empire , but here it is a laughingstock. Not because we think Rus. were below us, but simply because it´s not true. Well one more thing about economy - 1939 we were mostly on par with Finland , now we are at least 15 years behind them. Third - nazis and commies are basicly one and same system to me , I have no love for any of them. And of the lovely nazis and SS and on other hand the East. Europe´s joining of NATO : well, ever wondered why all Russias neighbours take such steps ? Everything seems is ok, as long as it protects them from Russia/Sov. Union? Fourth - the old men going to prison - remember they go to prison , because they were part of deportation parties in 1949. They were the ones that send people to GULAG. AND I THINK RUSSIA SHOULD DO THE SAME WITH THEM JUST AS IT DID WITH NAZI WAR CRIMINALS BECAUSE IT´S THE SAME THING

oh BTW, they are simply relocating the monument, what about you´re speaking , not destroying it (in 1939 there were about 170(?) monuments of Freedom War in estonia , to independence there were survivors of about 10(?) - rest demolished, blown up , etc. by soviets)

Originally Posted by braindead

Mr.First - ´´Since then as the US deployed the radar stations in Norway, Estonia, Latvia. ´´ - sorry it was us, not US. these are 2 ordinary, quite normal 3-D TPS-117 radars , not some ABM radar stations. We bought them , it´s local air traffic control system to prevent unhappy accidents , like wreck of Rus. Su-27 in middle of Lithuania.

Perhaps the Latvians are also "to prevent unhappy accidents" but not in Latvia but somewhere in Russia as they established it in 30 km from Russian border. As for you, anyway you don't have aircrafts "to prevent unhappy accidents" of such kind as in Lithuania. And for air traffic control system the ordinary civilian radars in airports exist. "Normal" TPS-117 radars are used for "normal" military purposes.