NATO Chief: US Troops May Be Sent to Eastern Europe

[twomp]

NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Philip Breedlove continued to play up the idea of an imminent Russian invasion of eastern Europe, saying the alliance is preparing “countermoves” in the region that may include US ground troops deploying.

Gen. Breedlove said the plan right now is for a buildup of land, air, and naval assets in the region to “build assurance for our easternmost allies,” and that it would mean troops from several nations, including potentially the US, heading to “front-line states.”

Breedlove’s comments at the conference centered around commercial satellite photos of Russian military bases in the westernmost portion of the country, which he presented as proof Russia has troops “ready to go” in the area.

He went on to say that Russia’s assets include “fixed and rotary wing aircraft,” unsurprising since a major Russian air force base is in the area near the Ukrainian border.

http://news.antiwar.com/2014/04/09/nato-chief-us-troops-may-be-sent-to-eastern-europe/

 

[osan]

http://news.antiwar.com/2014/04/09/nato-chief-us-troops-may-be-sent-to-eastern-europe/

Unless NATO breaks out the nukes, there is no friggin' way they will be able to prevail over Russia.

Whereas the west will be hobbled with "rules of engagement", the Russians will suffer no such fettering of their prerogatives. I doubt Russia would move beyond the previous satellite borders, but you never know.

The only good I can see coming of this would be the shelling and eventual reduction of London to a smoldering heap of rubble, which would be a godsend. The British government is the single most evil non-latent entity on the planet.

Given the current arrangements, tensions, and so forth, the prospect of a nuclear exchange is not quite out of the question. Would anyone start it intentionally? Perhaps not, but shit can go sideways in a hurry. Consider Hitler and his squadron of fellow buffoons: had they come up with the bomb, say, a week prior to capitulation, does anyone doubt that they would have irradiated the entire European continent? If I'm toast, I will bring as many of you bastards with me as I am able. Looking at this from the standpoint of one in such a position, the attitude makes ample sense even if the rest of the world stands in stark and violent disagreement. If, for example, France were about to fall to Russian forces, would they stay their nukes in the face of possible annihilation? More pointedly, would Russia stay their nukes in the unlikely event NATO found itself on Moscow's doorstep. Were I in their position, I'd say screw it and let the birds fly. Nations like Russia do not capitulate so long as they have the means of striking with effect.

Dangerous talk, all this. Creep in the standards of perception appear to have possibly put world "leaders" right at the edge of sanity. Hope I'm way wrong on this one.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

I'm quite surprised by the vociferous republic of Moldova... the people there don't want anything to do with NATO or the EU.

Well, I see the eastern Ukraine oblasts will eventually join Russia as autonomous republics just like Osettia(s) and Abkhzia. We'll have to wait to see how much bloodshed the NATO/OTAN and the EU want to expel.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What a great idea! Let's go into debt, print some money, and get rid of those pesky unemployed young Americans all at the same time!

 

[Pericles]

Unless NATO breaks out the nukes, there is no friggin' way they will be able to prevail over Russia.

Whereas the west will be hobbled with "rules of engagement", the Russians will suffer no such fettering of their prerogatives. I doubt Russia would move beyond the previous satellite borders, but you never know.

The only good I can see coming of this would be the shelling and eventual reduction of London to a smoldering heap of rubble, which would be a godsend. The British government is the single most evil non-latent entity on the planet.

Given the current arrangements, tensions, and so forth, the prospect of a nuclear exchange is not quite out of the question. Would anyone start it intentionally? Perhaps not, but shit can go sideways in a hurry. Consider Hitler and his squadron of fellow buffoons: had they come up with the bomb, say, a week prior to capitulation, does anyone doubt that they would have irradiated the entire European continent? If I'm toast, I will bring as many of you bastards with me as I am able. Looking at this from the standpoint of one in such a position, the attitude makes ample sense even if the rest of the world stands in stark and violent disagreement. If, for example, France were about to fall to Russian forces, would they stay their nukes in the face of possible annihilation? More pointedly, would Russia stay their nukes in the unlikely event NATO found itself on Moscow's doorstep. Were I in their position, I'd say screw it and let the birds fly. Nations like Russia do not capitulate so long as they have the means of striking with effect.

Dangerous talk, all this. Creep in the standards of perception appear to have possibly put world "leaders" right at the edge of sanity. Hope I'm way wrong on this one.

We are re living the 1930s.