Russian paratroopers will jump on an Arctic ice floe using the Arbalet-2 parachute system (steerable parachute). http://thesentinel.ca/russian-paratroopers-to-jump-on-arctic-ice-floe/
It's obvious this is a covert operation to rescue polar bears that Al Gore claims are drowning because of global warming. But what Putin is really up to, he's a believer in climate change and when the ice packs melt, the Arctic will become the worlds new maritime route from the Atlantic and the Pacific and the Panama Canal will be obsolete and Russia will control the Arctic. It's a geopolitical move, while Putin plays chess on the geopolitical chessboard, Obama keeps playing checkers when not on the golf course.
What the Russian have is a real Commander in Chief and a President who is good at playing the geopolitical game, America hasn't had one for six years now. Here's what it's all about. [ So while Putin who is recognized as being a chess master on the geopolitical chessboard, Barack Obama continues to play checkers, unless he's playing gold.
I see....so the sign of a "Real" COC with geopolitical skill would be when your country invades neighbors, has it's economy crippled, is seen as pariah by most of the world, and is no longer taken at it's word due to being caught in falsehoods. Glad we have a pansy ass running our stuff over here.
It's CnC not COC. You seem not to understand what geopolitics is. It has nothing to do with going to war. But it does involve knowing how to use gun boat diplomacy. geopolitics : ull Definition of GEOPOLITICS 1 : a study of the influence of such factors as geography, economics, and demography on the politics and especially the foreign policy of a state 2 : a governmental policy guided by geopolitics 3 : a combination of political and geographic factors relating to something (as a state or particular resources) WARNING Before going any further, please read the disclaimers, don't believe if it's on the internet that it must be true. Thank you. USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer You may now continue if you wish.
G.W. Bush was able to deal with that bully known as Putin. In fact Bush got more than Putin did. Putin wasn't a happy camper but he respected Bush being competent of knowing how to negotiate. Obama in 2009 appeased Putin giving Putin every thing he wanted with nothing in exchange. This is when Putin looked upon Obama as a pantywaist and so did most of the world leaders. Lets forget the war in Iraq to remove the man from power who for decades was called the Adolph Hitler of the second half of the 20th Century. Clinton had eight years to deal with the Saddam problem and failed. Lets keep in geopolitical, list all or as many you can of G.W. Bushes failures on the geopolitical chessboard. Geopolitical not domestic.
Interesting, but I really don't see the point, or the problem. So they jumped onto an ice flow, so what? It is not like jumping in with parachutes has any real significance in the 21st century. The idea of "Airborne Troops" making any kind of major offensive operation died back in September 1944.
Don't remember exactly what year but it was during the 1980's I was 25 or so miles north of Barstow in the Mojave pretty close to Fort Irwin. All of a sudden 24 C-141 Starlifters appeared flying in tight formation only a few thousand feet off the ground. Pretty impressive seeing 24 large transports flying in formation. As the aircraft flew towards Ft Irwin you started seeing little dots exiting the aircraft then the white parachutes opened up. Had to be a couple thousand parachutes considering a C-141 cold carry 120 paratroops each. Using airborne troops as an assault force, they are to light and it always turns into being to bloody. But as a blocking force on the battlefield, I wouldn't rule it out. Anyways the next day I was in Needles and picked up the "Desert Sun" and they reported that it was a large scale exercise taking place at Ft Irwin. The C-141's were out of Norton AFB and they deposited the troops of the 82 Airborne over Ft. Irwin.
That may well have been one of the Gallant Eagle exercises. Gallant Eagle was the name for many years for the Summer Drill for the California National Guard. But I think the name was dumped in the mid-1980's after the 1982 Gallant Eagle operation. In short, they dropped the airborne when there was negligible high altitude winds, but strong ground winds. And 4 paratroopers were killed, and over a dozen injured. One was even killed when he was blown by 25 MPH winds into a garbage dumpster. Airborne may be great for small insertions. But for landing Battalions, Regiments and Divisions it is a horrible waste of assets. No heavy equipment, no artillery, not even any way to pull out if things go upside-down on them. And they are all nice pretty targets their entire way down (while it is illegal to shoot parachutists from a downed airplane, it is perfectly legal to shoot attacking paratroopers in the air). It is even worse of a doctrine then Amphibious Assaults. At least Marines can get back in the Mike Boats. No way in hell Airborne is getting back into their airplanes.
*Shrug.* I imagine it depends on the situation. During the first Gulf War, the 101st Airborne air-assaulted deep into Iraq to set up and guard a refueling point for our tanks (look up "FOB Cobra"). It was helicopters, not parachuting, but same basic deal: light infantry without heavy equipment or artillery. While there, an Iraqi Guard division road-marched right into their perimeter. Result: the Guard division panicked at finding U.S. troops in such an unexpected place. The lead elements tried to retreat, causing a godawful mess with the remainder of the division coming up behind them. They eventually pulled back in confusion. The 101st held the refueling point until the tanks arrived. The story is from last year. As for the OP, does s/he realize that steerable parachutes have been around for years? I have no doubt that the Russian commandos are well trained, but this is not hi-tech stuff.
As I said, smaller operations. And Air Assault is via helicopter not parachute. I did not say such operations are not of military value. But the concept of dropping entire Regiments and Divisions via parachute is an obsolete concept. Operation Market Garden proved that all to well. Actually, it is from the other day. The date on the article is 18 February 2016 9:29
Market Garden just proved that you can draw up a screwed-up airborne assault just like you can draw up a bad military plan of any sort. The major problem with Market Garden was that the ground forces were basically on a one-tank front, pushing up a narrow corridor to link up with the towns/bridges captured by the paratroopers. Not to mention the unexpected presence of an SS Panzer division. And even then it came close to succeeding. Further, it seems kind of weird to claim that airborne assaults were all great during D-Day, but obsolete less than a year later. Especially when the largest airborne drop in history, Operation Varsity, was conducted in 1945, and was successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Varsity Or consider the German experience. Germans launched a hasty airborne assault on Crete. It was successful, but costly, and Hitler came to the same conclusion you do: they never mounted another major airborne operation again; their paratroopers simply became elite infantry. But four years later we carried out massive, successful airdrops in France and Germany. We did a couple of brigade-sized jumps in Korea, which were successful as well. And we dropped 4,000 parachutists during our invasion of Panama. The lesson, I think, is that conducting airborne operations is not easy. You have to use paratroopers properly, and it takes organizational and operational expertise to do so -- not to mention complete air superiority. The original article is from last year, with the drop taking place on April 8, 2015. http://thesentinel.ca/russian-paratroopers-to-jump-on-arctic-ice-floe/
There are two ways to evade enemy air defenses: drop really low (below 250-500 feet) to evade radar detection or very high to evade enemy small arms and missiles if its no longer possible to surprise. T-10 series parachutes are not reliable under 500 feet.
