al-qaida chief ayman al-zawahiri the coordinator 2016 part 19-122-russia-10-59

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent [email protected] In Confidence

Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2016 Part 19-122-Russia-10-59

BRITAIN and its NATO allies face the prospect of nuclear annihilation if the West continues to "encroach on Russia" with expanded exercises in Eastern Europe, according to a top Kremlin official. Sergey Karaganov, who sits on the influential Foreign Policy and Defence Council of the Russia Foreign Ministry, said NATO's actions would be met by a fierce response.He said: "The help offered by NATO is not symbolic help for the Baltic states. It is a provocation. "If NATO initiates an encroachment - against a nuclear power like ourselves - it will be punished. He went on to issue his own warning that Moscow would not hesitate to "destroy" NATO's build-up of weapons and machinery. He continued: "Fears in countries like Poland, Lithuania and Latvia are to be allayed by NATO stationing weapons there. But that doesn't help them; we interpret that as a provocation."In a crisis, we will destroy exactly these weapons." NATO, he argued, had switched from being a defensive alliance to one which was encouraging the militarization of the region.

He also sensationally claimed, "Russia will never again fight on its own territory", suggesting the Kremlin's military build-up is aimed at foreign conflicts rather than domestic defence.

“Kavkaz 2016.” During the exercise, “Western Country” attacked the “Federation of the North,” leading to sea and air operations, while the task of the defenders was to stop the attack and move to counter-attack. In “Kavkaz 2016,” the Russians demonstrated their ability to defend their hold on Crimea, occupied since 2014.

While many experts maintain that NATO’s size, fire-power, air supremacy and technology would ultimately prevail in a substantial engagement with Russia, that does not necessarily negate the Rand study’s findings that NATO would be put in a terrible predicament should Russia invade the Baltic states.

The current NATO force structure in Eastern Europe would be unable to withstand a Russian invasion into neighboring Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, a new think tank study has concluded. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia could be likely Russian targets because all three countries are in close proximity to Russia and spent many years as part of the former Soviet Union

Russia’s economic pressures have not slowed the countries’ commitment to rapid military modernization and the increase of defense budgets, despite the fact that the country’s military is a fraction of what it was during the height of the Cold War in the 1980s.

Cees allow me to recall: The Zapad 2009 Maneuvers: A Simulated Nuclear Attack on Poland 1 “Zapad 2009″ war

games the post-Red-Army certainly rehearsed a nuclear attack on Warsaw and the crushing of a hypothetical uprising by the Polish minority in western Belarus (eastern Poland before the Second World War). The Moscow-led war games aimed at Poland, Sweden, and the Baltics—and therefore against NATO and the U.S.

The Zapad 2013 Maneuvers: Thus, these “terrorists” appear to have been a deliberately misnamed surrogate for NATO. According to reports, the training scenario featured an attack and/or landing by “Baltic terrorists” targeting Belarus in which these forces held out despite numerous assaults by the Russo-Belarusian defenders. The enemy forces then fled into

1 http://www.cicerofoundation.org/lectures/Marcel_H_Van_Herpen_RUSSIA_EMBRACE_OF_TACTICAL_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS.pdf

1The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see. –Winston ChurchillCees de Waart: CdW Intelligence to Rent of 9

01/05/2023

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cicerofoundation.org/lectures/Marcel_H_Van_Herpen_RUSSIA_EMBRACE_OF_TACTICAL_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS.pdf

http://www.cicerofoundation.org/lectures/Marcel_H_Van_Herpen_RUSSIA_EMBRACE_OF_TACTICAL_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS.pdf


cities, leading to urban operations to dislodge them—hence the integration of anti-terrorist and conventional operations. As in 2009, it was called “Zapad” or “West” to confound foreign observers into underestimating its scope. But in fact, the September 20–26 drills stretched all the way from the Arctic to Voronezh.

Russia 'simulated a nuclear strike' against Sweden, Nato admits, 2013 Russian bombers targeted military and intelligence installations in 2013 war game that caught Swedish airforce unprepared. The Russian airforce conducted a mock nuclear strike against Sweden during war games less than three years ago, Nato has said. The 2013 exercise, which saw a contingent of Russian aircraft approach Swedish airspace after crossing the Gulf of Finland, was one of several examples of dummy nuclear attacks against Nato and its allies in recent years, according to a new Nato report.

Tens of thousands of Russian soldiers in March 2013 simulated a ‘blitzkrieg’ invasion of northern Norway, Russian forces 'practiced invasion of Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden'“The Coming Storm. 2” During an exercise in March, Russian troops rehearsed how to invade four regional neighbours. “The scenario included the speedy seizure of northern Norway, the Åland islands…,the Swedish island of Gotland and the Danish island of Bornholm,” the report reads. “If carried out successfully, control of those territories would make it all but impossible for NATO allies to reinforce the Baltic states.”

Russia’s New Maritime Doctrine: Attacking NATO’s Sea Lanes of Communication in the Atlantic – Sustainability, Future Capabilities and Potential Countermeasures

This week, Russia Putting 40 Million Citizens into 5,000 Shelters from October 4 – 7 as Military “Exercise”

Army Secretary Eric Fanning said that the U.S. military is "stretched very thin" at the Association of the United States Army's (AUSA) 2016 annual meeting according to Defense News. Fanning, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in May and became the highest ranking openly gay man in the Department of Defense, said that the army's goal of reducing the number of active soldiers in the military to 980,000 was set before a number of more recent national security threats emerged. "We did not see Russia being as aggressive as it is. We did not have ISIL to contend with like we do now," Fanning said. "There are a lot of requirements on an Army that is being asked to do a lot of things globally. Just in the last four years or so, we have increased our uniformed [and] civilian presence in the Pacific theater by 50 percent while we are drawing down."

RAND: After conducting an exhaustive series of wargames wherein “red” (Russian) and “blue” (NATO) forces engaged in a wide range of war scenarios over the Baltic states, a Rand Corporation study called “Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO’s Eastern Flank” determined that a successful NATO defense of the region would require a much larger air-ground force than what is currently deployed. In particular, the study calls for a NATO strategy similar to the Cold War era’s “Air Land Battle” doctrine from the 1980s. During this time, the U.S. Army stationed at least several hundred thousand troops in Europe as a strategy to deter a potential Russian invasion. Officials with U.S. Army Europe tell Scout Warrior that there are currently 30,000 U.S. Army soldiers in Europe. The Rand study maintains that, without a deterrent the size of at least seven brigades, fires and air support protecting Eastern Europe, that Russia cold overrun the Baltic states as quickly as in 60 hours.“As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members.

2 http://cepa.org/index/?id=f3af38a9500cfc72614a7cb788e5a56b the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) releases its ground-breaking report on Baltic security: “The Coming Storm.” Authored by CEPA Senior Vice President Edward Lucas, the report marks the first phase of CEPA new Baltic Sea Security Program.


01/05/2023


http://cepa.org/index/?id=f3af38a9500cfc72614a7cb788e5a56b


Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours. Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options,” the study writes.(This first appeared in Scout Warrior here.)“AirLand” Battle was a strategic warfighting concept followed by U.S. and allied forces during the Cold War which, among other things, relied upon precise coordination between a large maneuvering mechanized ground force and attack aircraft overhead. As part of the approach, air attacks would seek to weaken enemy assets supporting front line enemy troops by bombing supply elements in the rear. As part of the air-ground integration, large conventional ground forces could then more easily advance through defended enemy front line areas.A rapid assault on the Baltic region would leave NATO with few attractive options, including a massive risky counterattack, threatening a nuclear weapons option or simply allowing the Russian to annex the countries.One of the limited options cited in the study could include taking huge amounts of time to mobilize and deploy a massive counterattack force which would likely result in a drawn-out, deadly battle.

Another possibility would be to threaten a nuclear option, a scenario which seems unlikely if not completely unrealistic in light of the U.S. strategy to decrease nuclear arsenals and discourage the prospect of using nuclear weapons, the study finds.

A third and final option, the report mentions, would simply be to concede the Baltic states and immerse the alliance into a much more intense Cold War posture. Such an option would naturally not be welcomed by many of the residents of these states and would, without question, leave the NATO alliance weakened if not partially fractured.The study spells out exactly what its wargames determined would be necessary as a credible, effective deterrent. “Gaming indicates that a force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigades—adequately supported by airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities—could suffice to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states,” the study writes.During the various scenarios explored for the wargame, its participants concluded that NATO resistance would be overrun quickly in the absence of a larger mechanized defensive force posture.“The absence of short-range air defenses in the U.S. units, and the minimal defenses in the other NATO units, meant that many of these attacks encountered resistance only from NATO combat air patrols, which were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The result was heavy losses to several Blue (NATO) battalions and the disruption of the counterattack,” the study states.Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia could be likely Russian targets because all three countries are in close proximity to Russia and spent many years as part of the former Soviet Union“Also like Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia are home to sizable ethnic Russian populations that have been at best unevenly integrated into the two countries’ post-independence political and social mainstreams and that give Russia a self-justification for meddling in Estonian and Latvian affairs,” the study explains.While the Pentagon’s European Reassurance Initiative calls for additional funds, forces and force rotations through Europe in coming years, it is unclear whether their ultimate troop increases will come anywhere near what Rand recommends. Pentagon officials would not, at the moment, speculate as to whether thoughts and considerations were being given to raising forces levels beyond what is called for in the initiative.At the same time, the Pentagon’s $3.4 Billion ERI request does call for an increased force presence in Europe as well as “fires,” “pre-positioned stocks” and “headquarters” support for NATO forces.Officials with U.S. Army Europe tell Scout Warrior that more solidarity exercises with NATO allies


01/05/2023



in Europe are also on the horizon, and that more manpower could also be on the way. "We are currently planning the future rotations of units through Europe. The heel-to-toe concept will increase how often they're here for the Armored BCT mission, but it won't increase how many are here at once -- that will remain just one at a time. We currently have some aviation assets on a rotation here but plans aren't yet firm on what that looks like going forward. We've requested additional funding for National Guard and Reserve manpower which may come in the form of full or partial units or even individuals," Cathy Brown Vandermaarel, spokeswoman for U.S. Army Europe told Scout Warrior in a statement. Increased solidarity exercises would be designed to further deter Russia by showing allies cooperation along with an ability to quickly deploy and move mechanized forces across the European continent, Vandermaarel added. The Rand study maintains that, while expensive, adding brigades would be a worthy effort for NATO.Buying three brand-new ABCTs and adding them to the U.S. Army would not be inexpensive—the up-front costs for all the equipment for the brigades and associated artillery, air defense, and other enabling units runs on the order of $13 billion. However, much of that gear—especially the expensive Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles—already exists,” the study says. The Russian Military

Russia’s military maneuvers and annexation of the Crimean peninsula have many Pentagon analysts likely wondering about and assessing the relative condition of the former Cold War military giant’s forces, platforms and weaponry.Russia has clearly postured itself in response to NATO as though it can counter-balance or deter the alliance, however expert examination of Russia’s current military reveals it is not likely to pose a real challenge to NATO in a prolonged, all-out military engagement.Russia’s economic pressures have not slowed the countries’ commitment to rapid military modernization and the increase of defense budgets, despite the fact that the country’s military is a fraction of what it was during the height of the Cold War in the 1980s.While the former Cold War giant’s territories and outer most borders are sizably less than they were in the 1980s, Russia’s conventional land, air and sea forces are trying to expand quickly, transition into the higher-tech information age and steadily pursue next generation platforms.Russia’s conventional and nuclear arsenal is a small piece of what it was during the Cold War, however the country is pursuing a new class of air-independent submarines, a T-50 stealth fighter jet, next-generation missiles and high-tech gear for individual ground soldiers. During the Cold War, the Russian defense budget amounted to nearly half of the country’s overall expenditures, analysts have said.Now, the countries’ military spending draws upon a smaller percentage of its national expenditure. However, despite these huge percentage differences compared to the 1980s, the Russian defense budget is climbing again. From 2006 to 2009, the Russian defense budget jumped from $25 billion up to $50 billion according to Business Insider – and the 2013 defense budget is listed elsewhere at $90 billion.Overall, the Russian conventional military during the Cold War – in terms of sheer size – was likely five times what it is today.Overall, the Russian military had roughly 766,000 active front line personnel in 2013 and as many as 2.4 million reserve forces, according to globalfirepower.com. During the Cold War, the Russian Army had as many as three to four million members.By the same 2013 assessment, the Russian military is listed as having more than 3,000 aircraft and 973 helicopters. On the ground, Globalfirepower.com says Russia has 15-thousand tanks, 27,000 armored fighting vehicles and nearly 6,000 self-propelled guns for artillery. While the Russian


01/05/2023



military may not have a conventional force the sheer size of its Cold War force, they have made efforts to both modernized and maintain portions of their mechanized weaponry and platforms. The Russian T-72 tank, for example, has been upgraded numerous times since its initial construction in the 1970s.Analysts have also said that the Russian military made huge amounts of conventional and nuclear weapons in the 80s, ranging from rockets and cruise missiles to very effective air defenses. In fact, the Russian built S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft air defenses, if maintained and modernized, are said to be particularly effective, experts have said. In the air, the Russian have maintained their 1980s built Su-27 fighter jets, which have been postured throughout the region by the Russian military.Often compared to the U.S. Air Force’s F-15 Eagle fighter, the Su-27 is a maneuverable twin engine fighter built in the 1980s and primarily configured for air superiority missions.While many experts maintain that NATO’s size, fire-power, air supremacy and technology would ultimately prevail in a substantial engagement with Russia, that does not necessarily negate the Rand study’s findings that NATO would be put in a terrible predicament should Russia invade the Baltic states. Kris Osborn became the Managing Editor of Scout Warrior in August of 2015. His role with Scout.com includes managing content on the Scout Warrior site and generating independently sourced original material. Scout Warrior is aimed at providing engaging, substantial military-specific content covering a range of key areas such as weapons, emerging or next-generation technologies and issues of relevance to the military. Just prior to coming to Scout Warrior, Osborn served as an Associate Editor at the Military.com. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at CNN and CNN Headline News. This story originally appeared in Scout Warrior.

According to Anna Maria Dyner, Kavkaz 2016 was the most important readiness test this year for Russia’s armed forces. Over 12,000 troops not only demonstrated the country’s ability to defend its hold on the Crimea Peninsula, they also made plain the Putin administration’s dual desire to break down its isolation and demonstrate its regional influence to others.This article was originally published by the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) on 20 September 2016.The military exercise “Kavkaz 2016” was the most important test this year of the combat readiness of the Russian Armed Forces. The scenarios carried out in recent months by Russia and Collective Security Treaty Organisation members included a clear political message addressed to neighbouring countries (namely Ukraine) and NATO members, evidenced by the location and scale of the manoeuvres. In “Kavkaz 2016,” the Russians demonstrated their ability to defend their hold on Crimea, occupied since 2014.

“Kavkaz 2016.” The year’s largest Russian military exercise took place on 5–9 September in the Southern Military District (SMD), including in Crimea and on the Black and Caspian Seas. More than 12,000 SMD soldiers took part, supported by forces from other military districts. In total, 400 pieces of major military equipment (including more than 100 aircraft and helicopters) and 15 warships were used.During the exercise, “Western Country” attacked the “Federation of the North,” leading to sea and air operations, while the task of the defenders was to stop the attack and move to counter-attack. The scenario also assumed a wide range of tactics, such as rapid mobile defence (involving troops from mobile divisions), defence of the coast as well as the isolation and elimination of enemy sabotage and intelligence groups. Moreover, the command systems dedicated to the various troop units and the


01/05/2023



cooperation between them and with other state services and local authorities were also tested. Also, it checked communications systems and the level of military training, starting from the individual soldier, to sub-units, to tactical units, as well as the interaction between different troop formations and groups of armed forces.The “Kavkaz” exercises are cyclical and this year’s edition was announced two years ago. It was the last in a series of strategic manoeuvres in all of Russia’s military districts (“West”/“Zapad” took place in 2013, “East”/“Vostok” in 2014, and “Centre”/“Centr” in 2015) and the culmination of smaller-scale exercises over the summer. Since 2009, when reform of the Russian Armed Forces began, September’s manoeuvres in various military districts are the most important test of its increasing combat capability. Particular attention is being paid to problem-prone areas such as logistics, state mobilisation and expeditionary operations.

Political Dimension. “Kavkaz 2016” aroused controversy even at the preparation stage since it called for the redeployment of Russian troops near the border with Ukraine and in Crimea. They were preceded by a series of smaller exercises that included defence of a Russian sea base in Sevastopol from submarine attack. On 25–31 August, the combat readiness of the armed forces in the Southern, Western and Central MD’s, the Northern Fleet and the commands of the Russian Aerospace Forces and Airborne Forces were also checked. According to international rules, the Russians did not have to offer notification of these drills, but NATO countries objected to them.“Kavkaz 2016” does not exceed the 13,000 troop threshold at which the Vienna Document says it would be obligatory to invite observers from signatory countries of the agreement. Nevertheless, Russia has given notice of “Kavkaz 2016” and invited military attachés accredited in that country. However, even then there was some controversy, as most of the exercise took place in Crimea (European attachés excused themselves from observation in that area of the drills). Ukraine also strongly objected and in response began territorial defence exercises in Kherson Oblast, which borders Crimea.Military Importance. The intensification of Russia’s military activities observed in recent years shows its armed forces’ growing potential. In 2015, about 5,000 drills of varying scale and scope were carried out, including unannounced checks of combat readiness. This year’s total is likely to be similar.The previous year’s military exercises and the one this year have been used by the Russians to test new types of weapons, including some with considerable firepower such as thermobaric rounds. It considers presentations of new weapons to be important to new arms contracts. According to SIPRI data, Russia remains the second-largest arms exporter in the world with 25% of the global arms market (the U.S. is first with about 30%). It is also a signal that regardless of problems caused by sanctions, Russia’s defence industry can produce modern weaponry.Exercises Involving Russia. Every year, Russia conducts joint exercises with allied countries, including members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. The intensity of these manoeuvres in recent years is a reflection of the pivotal risks perceived by Russia, such as political instability in the post-Soviet space and the threat of terrorism. The drills also have a clear political context, because when they take place in countries from the former Soviet Union or their armed forces participate, Russia aims to designate its visible zone of influence.In August, CSTO rapid-reaction forces (KSOR) staged “Cooperation 2016” and the joint Russian-Belarusian exercises “Indestructible Brotherhood 2016” followed. The first involved 6,000 troops (three times as many as the year before) and about a thousand pieces of military equipment. “Cooperation 2016” included not only the KSOR forces but also aviation and artillery support in a scenario aimed at resolving a conflict in one of the regions bordering the state. In turn, the scenario of “Indestructible Brotherhood” contained exercises in which peacekeepers enforcing the observance of


01/05/2023



a ceasefire between warring sides, which is very similar to the current situation in eastern Ukraine (Donbas).The “Cooperation 2016” drills were held on the training grounds of the Western Military District (Pskov Oblast) while “Indestructible Brotherhood” was held in polygon-shaped training areas close to the border with Poland and Ukraine. Similar to “Kavkaz,” they were a demonstration of Russian capability for NATO countries and Ukraine. This was indicated by the proximity of the polygons to those countries and the scenarios carried out by the Armed Forces, including the use of rapid-reaction troops. At the same time, the strong cooperation between Russia and Belarus in the military sphere provides evidence that the Russians perceive Belarusian territory as their operational space.In August, the Russian Armed Forces, together with Transnistria troops, carried out manoeuvres in that region, including practice forging the Dniester River with heavy military equipment. There was no notice of these exercises, which was a clear political message to Moldovan authorities and confirmation of increasing Russian influence in Transnistria (a few weeks after the drills, the Transnistrian authorities began adoption of Russian law, seen as the first step in integration with Russia). In the first half of August, international military competitions were held with the participation of military units from 12 countries (Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Mongolia, Serbia, Tajikistan, and Venezuela). The range of countries clearly shows the Russian interests in military cooperation and arms exports.Conclusions. The broad spectrum of exercises conducted during the summer by the Russian Armed Forces is part of a two-track policy. On the one hand, Russia is seeking to break down its isolation in the international arena and have EU sanctions lifted through its involvement in military and diplomatic activities in the Middle East and by shifting onto Ukraine a sense of responsibility for the failure of the Minsk agreements. On the other hand, the Russian authorities aim to use their growing military capabilities to demarcate the country’s area of influence as a message to the international community, NATO, and, above all, Ukraine and other countries neighbouring Russia.Its military manoeuvres on this scale also have a propaganda dimension in terms of the Russian public, which perceives the condition of its Armed Forces as one of the main indicators of the country’s status as a world power. According to a Levada Centre poll from the beginning of 2016, 81% of surveyed Russians said that the Armed Forces are able to defend the country from the threat of war, and 65% of respondents considered such a threat to be real. What is more, the scenarios used in the drills are a response to the threats perceived by Russia as both pivotal and corresponding to new versions of its “Military Doctrine” or “Maritime Doctrine.” In the case of “Kavkaz 2016,” the Russians also demonstrated they have real capability to defend their hold on Crimea, where 24,000 Russian soldiers are stationed and, in the last several months, a significant amount of military equipment has been shifted.About the AuthorAnna Maria Dyner is the head of the Eastern Europe Programme at the Polish Institute of International Affairs. She is a political scientist and specialist in Eastern affairs. Her interests include domestic and foreign policy of Belarus and the role of Russia in the post-Soviet area. In The Institute of International Affairs she deals with Belarus and Russia.

Regards Cees***

“We have a contract for a pilot batch of more than 100 machines. They are already arriving for trials,” Deputy Defense Minister Jury Borisov reported, as quoted by RIA. The program to supply the Russian army with T-14s was initially planned to last until 2020, but, according to Uralvagonzavod chief Oleg Sienko, it is now due to be extended until 2025.


01/05/2023



The Russian military estimates that it will need 2,300 of the state of the art tanks.

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO, wrote in his annual report for 2015: 'Over the past three years, Russia has conducted at least 18 large-scale snap exercises, some of which have involved more than 100,000 troops. 'These exercises include simulated nuclear attacks on NATO Allies (eg, ZAPAD a large-scale Russian military exercise]) and on partners [e.g, March 2013 simulated attacks on Sweden],' he added. During the military exercise in Sweden, on March 29 2013, two Tupolev Tu-22M3 strategic bombers escorted by four Sukhoi Su-27 jet fighters came within 24 miles of Swedish territory off the island of Gotland, 100 miles from Stockholm. They conducted dummy bombing runs against targets thought to include a military base in southern Sweden and the headquarters of the country's signals intelligence agency outside Stockholm.The incident caused controversy at the time because the Swedish military was caught unprepared and had to rely on Danish airforce jets, operating as part of a Nato's Baltic air policing mission, to respond,

the Daily Telegraph reported. NATO refused to comment, saying it had 'nothing to add' to the statement in the report.This week, it emerged Sweden has re-militarised an old Cold War frontier base on the island of Gotland because of the rising threat from Russia. Sweden's Supreme Commander, General Micael Byden, said: 'This is one of the great challenges right now: What are they up to, and why do they do it?'

It comes after a US military think-thank concluded it would take a resurgent Russia between 36 and 60 hours to push its 27 heavily-armored battalions past NATO's lightweight 12 to occupy the Baltic States. Most likely, the study found, Russia would start by launching a two-pronged attack across the Latvian border, sending heavily-armed battalions in from the north and the south. These battalions would push past the light-weight Latvian and NATO battalions before uniting to take the capital of Riga. Once secured, the remaining part of Russia's 27 maneuver battalions would cross


01/05/2023



the Narva reservoir into Estonia to take the ethnic Russian north-east before heading to Tallinn, the capital. NATO's only hope would be to concentrate its forces in Tallinn and Riga while stationing some delays along the main routes. But eventually, the West 'would have to launched a belated nuclear attack'.

'The outcome was, bluntly, a disaster for NATO,' the report concluded.


01/05/2023


al-qaida chief ayman al-zawahiri the coordinator 2016 part 19-122-russia-10-59

Documents