Lithuania to Buy Stinger Missiles for Armed Forces

VILNIUS -- NATO aspirant Lithuania has decided to purchase anti-aircraft missile 'Stinger' systems from the United States, a top military officials said Tuesday.

"We have made a decision to buy Stingers for our military forces, but all the details still have to be set out," Lithuania's Defense Minister Linas Linkevcius told AFP.

He refused to comment on the number of Stinger systems to be bought or the cost of the contract.

"I can only say that we have chosen the system, which we needed and which opens the gates for training under NATO standards," added Linkevicius.

The minister also refused to comment on the choice made between the Stingers and French-made Mistral missiles.

"The final outcome should not be considered as a defeat of some company and a victory of other," Linkevicius said.

Jonas Kronkaitis, chief of the Lithuanian Army said that the contract for the Stinger purchase should be signed this year.

Last December Lithuania signed the agreement with the United States on the purchase of Javelin medium range anti-tank missiles for 9 million dollars (euros). Under the contract Javelins should reach Lithuania by 2004.

Lithuania is seen as one of the best prepared candidates for NATO membership and hopes to receive an invitation to join NATO during next alliance's summit in November 2002 in Prague.

Someone please tell me what the purpose of NATO is today! With the Warsaw pact gone, and Russia seeming to be well on its way to becoming a full Nato member (right now it is a quasi-member), what then is NATO for?

Actually the more i delve into this question the more i see NATO becoming another UN .....in essence a vestigial organization that just chews up US resources and commitment.

Have they updated their objectives? What is their intended purpose in todays geo-political matrix, in that what is the big 'threat' that took over the space left by the Warsaw pact? Have they yet managed to remove their redundancy, and their yards of red tape due to European generals trying to stay relevant (actually that is a rhetorical question since based on NATO activities in Bosnia the answer is simply No since it seems NATO generals could not even decide how many tanks they blew up, and discovered to their chagrin that most of the 'destroyed' tanks were actually cardboard replicas meant to deceive sensors).

I may be wrong, but NATO today seems like a waste of US resources. It is an entity that was created to protect the free world from a formidable enemy ...but today some of the very countries that comprised that enemy are now members of NATO, and others are trying to join (including the uber badboy of yesteryear Russia, which is already a quasi-member). Now, if NATO could be directed toward fending off a future Chinese threat (which according to estimates should achieve super-power status around 25 years from now all things remaining normal) then it might be relevant. However one thing about most Europeans is they nigh never involve themselves in situations that do not affect them directly.

Anyways i await your feedback.

Do you honestly believe that the late 1980s - early 1990s "settlement," which reputedly superceded the Yalta Agreements, will keep Europe calm and peaceful for all eternity? (Of course, this assumes that the most recent "settlement" is in pact bona fide and reflective of a kinder and gentler, and, ostensibly, Europhile Russia... we could debate that one until the cows come home... I'll save that for another thread and another day...). So, if we assume that indeed, war will once again come to Europe (as it always inevitably does, and, with a vengance, the way it always does after a long period of relative calm...) then who would we imagine the combatants to be? Would it be Germany against everyone else? Would Germany and Russia form an Axis (and this time keep it?). So if I were Lithuania, and aware of my history (which they most assuredly are) I would do whatever I could to be prepared just in case the Kremlin wanted to secure a corridor to Kaliningrad. Think it can't happen?

Central Asia and Afghanistan?

Nato's being kept on the shelf for as and when needed. Until the US and Russia sign a comprehensive agreement, Nato will survive in its present form. If/when Russian joins NAto, it'll be transformed into something else, an instrument for worldwide order focused more on the ME than anywhere else. And incidentally, a huge counterbalance to China. Two cents.

"Lithuania is armying to fight what?"

Probably getting ready for the next time Germany decides it needs Lebensraum. Or perhaps the aquisition of German Leopard tanks by the Poles has them a bit nervous. I say give them the missles. Stingers aren't all that special these days - lots of Russian and European knock-offs to go around (and those are the ones the terrorists are mostly likely to use).

"Someone please tell me what the purpose of NATO is today!"

It has none. But it could have if properly led by the U.S. With all of Europe and now Russia aiming to become a "greater" NATO, It needs a new mission. The only available one is the war against Radical Islam.

With the exception of Turkey, all of the current NATO countries are largely Christian (of one type or other), in their make-up. If it's new mission doesn't embrace the war on Terrorism, it will eventually break-up or become the proxy military arm of the UN.

The attack in Moscow should be seen as a wake-up call to the Russians and Europeans alike.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.