Print
Type: Articles
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article
Alexander Yermakov

Research Fellow at the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations under the Russian Academy of Sciences, RIAC expert

While Russian armoured vehicles were parading on Red Square, people in one of the former Soviet Union republics were getting ready to give them a hearty welcome. With missiles. The Hunter 2016 military exercises by the Lithuanian armed forces kicked off on May 9 this year.

While Russian armoured vehicles were parading on Red Square, people in one of the former Soviet Union republics were getting ready to give them a hearty welcome. With missiles.

The Hunter 2016 military exercises by the Lithuanian armed forces kicked off on May 9 this year. This is hardly a coincidence, as last year’s exercises took place in September–October. Having an anti-tank exercise take place on a holiday that the Baltic States perceive somewhat differently to Russia could be viewed as a sort of defiance in the face of Moscow. On the other hand, this challenge remained almost unnoticed, even by the media, amidst the holiday fever.

Still, the Hunter 2016 exercise is worthy of note. First of all, it is interesting in terms of its narrow focus: a sort of Continuing Professional Development course for anti-tank systems operators in the materially poor Baltic States, which cannot afford frequent firing practice, especially with fairly expensive anti-tank missile systems (ATMS). Besides, the exercise gives them a chance to take a closer look at, and get some basic skills in operating the ATMS used by NATO states that are not in service in their own armed forces, which is a potential benefit in international operations. The U.S. military personnel have traditionally attended the exercise, and even though it is known as a joint exercise, they clearly act as instructors.

EPA/ADAM WARZAWA/Vostock Photo
Viktor Katona:
A Manifesto for Eastern European Atlanticism

Second, the scale of the exercise this year is significantly greater than before. The number of military personnel that took part in the exercise in 2012 was “over 200”. In 2015, that number had increased to over 350 (with the Latvian armed forces joining in). This year, over 1200 personnel were involved – in addition to Latvian and U.S. troops, representatives of the armed forces of Poland, Canada and Germany were also in attendance (the last two probably having the same mission as the Americans). Separate mention was made to the participation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces delegation to “share experience” and thus enable similar exercises to be organized in Ukraine in the future.

The complexity of the exercise has also grown. During the drills, troops from the Eastern Europe states had the chance to participate in real-life firing practice and get a closer look at the weapons (not just U.S. weapons this time), just like in past years. Additionally, they were also able to attend training in such areas as small group tactics and artillery interoperability.

The Baltic region continues to build up its military strength, apparently against Russia. The Russian people, as well as the expert community tend to perceive these border-state armies with nothing but sarcasm [1], but we must not ignore the fact that their senior allies are laboriously turning them from completely forsaken technically state-backed institutions into compact, “light” and mobile tactical organizations for semi-guerrilla warfare missions. They are becoming a sort of “buffer” between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia, which may be tasked to obstruct and slow down the progress of forces sent to help the exclave as best as they can.

Meanwhile, potentially alarming news arrived from across the Baltic Sea. An opinion poll in Sweden showed that for the first time ever, more people supported accession to NATO than opposed it, with 38 per cent compared to 31 per cent, respectively. Two years ago, the number was 31 per cent versus to 37 percent; in 1994, only 15 per cent favoured accession, while 48 per cent opposed it...

1. Incidents like the one where two Lithuanian soldiers were injured while shooting a Carl Gustav launcher on the second day of the exercise do little to change such perceptions (link in Russian).

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students