Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Article is a good example of doublespeak. Nowdays noone says "we plan offense". Everyone says "Our forces will start counter-offense".

Russian army stays in Belarus for years.

Edited by DMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2017 at 1:44 PM, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

For interest and information only. Not political debate, However, if Russia were to occupy Belarus it could be  strategic game changer 

http://belarusdigest.com/story/belarus-centre-russia-nato-wargame-simulation-29037

Russia and Belarus are military allies and have a mutual defense pact. Thus Russia has troops and airbases in Belarus since many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, antaress73 said:

Russia and Belarus are military allies and have a mutual defense pact. Thus Russia has troops and airbases in Belarus since many years.

Yes, but it seems that recently Lukashenko is trying to play a double game, distancing himslef from Russia. He feels threatened after Russian intervention in the Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LUCASWILLEN05,

Much appreciate your sharing this! Russia was none too happy about this computer wargame, and Sputnik News had not just prompt harsh words about the game but its (anything but disinterested; my characterization) corporate sponsors!

https://sputniknews.com/military/201701271050076926-russia-war-scenario-simulation-warsaw/

Also, I wonder who the sim, Hegemon, is named for? One thing for sure, if I were running Belarus and had 1st Guards Tank Army next to my border conducting live fire exercises, I'd be very concerned--it might come visiting and decide to stay! 

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sgt.Squarehead,

Even when the entire recently arrived US ACBT got to Poland, prior to dispersing to 11 countries for training and exercises, that's hardly the same as having the 1st Guards Tank Army doing the equivalent--with full combat loads at hand. Yet Putin's been coming unstuck over a few measly battalions showing the flag in the Baltic. Talk about straining at the gnat! The problem is that we're sending signals and, let's face it, deploying a series of trip wires and (gulp) speed bumps, while Russia is posturing itself to gobble up Belarus, which is part of the former Russian Empire about which he's been both vociferous and adamant regarding its restoration.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it different.....Are you suggesting the Russian border stealthily crept toward the NATO units? 

Now, let's be truthful here.....If Russia triggered a coup in and deployed an Air Assault Battalion to Mexico there might be some equivalence.

The fact is that NATO is marching ever eastwards (breaking its solemn word by doing so too).....Historically that usually doesn't end well.  :mellow:

 

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sgt.Squarehead,

The difference is simple. Neither the US ACBT by itself nor the US and Poland together are going to invade Russia, a suggestion militarily and politically ludicrous from the get. By contrast, 1st Guards Tank Army is a powerful and capable force which can smash many of its neighbors outright. It's the one sitting on another nation's frontier with live ammo loaded. There's also that little matter of what Putin has done with other forces similarly postured, Ukraine being but the most recent.

https://jamestown.org/program/russian-first-guards-tank-army-as-an-instrument-of-hybrid-war-against-baltic-states/

There has already been a considerable discussion of what NATO did or didn't commit to regarding expanding membership eastward. My recollection is that NATO made no formal commitment not to do so, though many seem to think it did. Obviously the expansion of NATO, using Russia's former vassal states to do so, makes Putin vewwy vewwy unhappy, but it is an own goal, a self-inflicted wound born of his own fiery scary words, declaratory policy and actions. Long did the Warsaw Pact nations languish under Russia's draconian rule, and they are absolutely adamant there'll be no repeat. Who can blame them?

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, which bit of Poland is on the North Atlantic coast?  Or Turkey for that matter?  :rolleyes:

NATO is a dinosaur and it should have gone the same way at the end of the Cold-War.....It's continual posturing to maintain its 'purpose' has been a veritable fountain of pointless bloodbaths ever since, from the Balkans to the Middle East.

Do not be trying to lecture me on morality.  :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The fact is that NATO is marching ever eastwards (breaking its solemn word by doing so too).....Historically that usually doesn't end well.

Very true, seeing as how NATO has been ruthlessly conquesting its way closer to the Russian border, consuming country after country --- wait, what? NATO membership is voluntary? And after the fall of the Soviet Union many states eagerly sought membership with NATO? Nations are still requesting memberships with NATO? Oh, that kinda puts a dent in my "NATO is literally Hitler" philosophy...

Seriously this attack on NATO is absurd. They are not 'marching' anywhere, especially considering the only nation in NATO that maintains a fully capable military is the US. All other nations (except Poland) don't even bother to meet military spending requirements. And the tired line of NATO "promising" not to go east after the fall of the Soviet Union is a myth. No such promise was ever made, its not in writing anywhere. Show me the official NATO document saying "NATO can't go farther East than here" decree. Spoiler alert, it doesn't exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

And the tired line of NATO "promising" not to go east after the fall of the Soviet Union is a myth. No such promise was ever made, its not in writing anywhere. Show me the official NATO document saying "NATO can't go farther East than here" decree. Spoiler alert, it doesn't exist. 

Hit the nail on the head! 

This, coming from someone who actually had heard and believed the promise line!  When I brought it up last time here I got a right serving of information to the contrary and I searched where it came from.  The entire basis of this myth comes from something the BRD foreign minister said at the time, supposedly after meeting with the American diplomat to Germany.  It's all really wishy-washy and to think that anyone would take the private word of a German minister as gospel on NATO strategy for the next two decades is a little extreme.

So yes, someone from a NATO country did say that it wouldn't expand past Germany.  But that was never official NATO statement or policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

 All other nations (except Poland) don't even bother to meet military spending requirements.

Not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kuri said:

 

5 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

 All other nations (except Poland) don't even bother to meet military spending requirements.

Not true.

 

IICptMillerII,

kuri is correct. There are some, precious few, NATO members who have met their 2% of GDP defense spending commitments. Unsurprisingly, a few of the ones who did are countries worried about the Bear! Poland and Estonia, with Lithuania and Latvia ramping up their defense budgets to join them. Britain barely made the cut, and was outperformed by sick man of Europe Greece, astounding as that may seem. Germany, Italy and Spain are all in the should be deeply embarrassing 1% range. Article below is from February 2017, with info current as of end of 2016.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys you are confusing something here. Let me help you out

When some country voluntarily joins NATO (for which it has to jump through dozens of hoops), so not to get strangled by the "brotherly love" of Russia - it's EVIL

When Russia invades the country that has not joined NATO and starts raping and murdering people there - it's GOOD.

The fact that after each extension of the "helping hand" of Russia more and more countries run into NATO screaming - should be ignored.

 

Hopefully things are now clear, you members of silly NATO countries that for some reason do not like russian 2000lb humanitarian aid.

Edited by kraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Neither the US ACBT by itself nor the US and Poland together are going to invade Russia, a suggestion militarily and politically ludicrous from the get.

Sure! They will just react to agressive Russian plans to invade Baltic states and Poland. (Plans exist because they exist, is is obvious) As it is stupid to sit and wait 1-st Guard army to attack first, it is better to get them by surprise! And if mysterious Russian sniper kill U.S. soldier near the border, things will become simple and clear. Oh, that snipers in Baltia... They use to kill peacefull demonstrants and KGB officers from the same rifle.

And public opinion is ready for that, as you see:

Just now, kraze said:

Russia invades the country that has not joined NATO and starts raping and murdering people there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia has always been sensitive to the point of paranoia about foreign invasions. And not entirely without reason; Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1941 provide large and dramatic examples. There are other, earlier examples as well. Unfortunately, their response to this sensitivity has been to habitually occupy by force their immediate neighbors in order to gain buffer zones in which to combat an enemy before he can reach Russia proper. Naturally, the prior inhabitants of those regions resent said occupation. All in all, it is a nasty, difficult situation. It will take a lot of patient and astute diplomacy before those tensions subside and true peace will dominate relations. And at the moment, I'm not seeing a lot of diplomacy that is either patient or astute.

:(

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-17/melania-trump-s-slovenia-would-pick-russian-over-u-s-protection

Four NATO Nations Would Pick Russia to Defend Them If Threatened: Poll

 

This is how 'volunteers' join NATO:

1. Liberal government with strong ties to NATO countries enforces membership without country -wide referendum.

2. Government loses elections (from various reasons)

3. Country is a NATO member whose citizens choose 'Pick Russia to Defend Them If Threatened' during the poll.

W won't even start what kind of disaster it is for NATO integrity or safety procedures.

4 hours ago, kraze said:

When Russia invades the country that has not joined NATO and starts raping and murdering people there - it's GOOD.

Serious accusation concerning every second Russia related news in US mainstream media has 'undisclosed' or 'trusted sources in US Defence Department' origin. That said - if you combine those exact words with words 'Iraq' or 'US' you will find plenty of stuff over internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ashez said:

Country is a NATO member whose citizens choose 'Pick Russia to Defend Them If Threatened' during the poll.

Threatened by whom? NATO was originally formed to protect member nations from Soviet aggression. Since the breakup of the USSR its mission has lost that original focus and become more a generalized one of opposing any illegal aggression as we saw in the former Yugoslavia.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, folkieredux said:

Ashez, Why do use such an insulting profile picture on a forum like this? It's childish and offensive

With all respect, I meant no offence. This thought provoking  idea behind the picture was counterbalance to other profile pictures I saw here freely mocking the head of other country. And hearing some politicians and journalists I know where it is coming from. If Putin deserves  a place at someone's avatar so certainly Obama does - means employed by both were a bit different but they strived to achieve similar results-enforce their will on weaker countries and project power. Both of them are responsible or co-responsible for thousands dead and several hundred thousand displaced. It is a shame only president of one country got all the attention.

That said, if you feel personally offended I can remove that picture for now.

Edited by Ashez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Threatened by whom? NATO was originally formed to protect member nations from Soviet aggression. Since the breakup of the USSR its mission has lost that original focus and become more a generalized one of opposing any illegal aggression as we saw in the former Yugoslavia.

Michael

I'd go easy there Michael.....You may not have caught up with recent events, but the transcript of the verdict in the Radovan Karadic trial proves that the NATO war on the former Yugoslavia was once again based on lies:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/01/the-exoneration-of-milosevic-the-ictys-surprise-ruling/

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D. CONCLUSION

6070. Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, in particular given the scope and scale of the

serious crimes for which the Accused was found responsible and his central involvement in the

commission of these crimes, the Chamber decides that the imposition of a single sentence of

40 years is warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2017 at 11:36 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The fact is that NATO is marching ever eastwards (breaking its solemn word by doing so too)

 

 

Uh no, that has been proven patently false including by the likes of Gorbachev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ashez said:

With all respect, I meant no offence. This thought provoking  idea behind the picture was counterbalance to other profile pictures I saw here freely mocking the head of other country. And hearing some politicians and journalists I know where it is coming from. If Putin deserves  a place at someone's avatar so certainly Obama does

That said, if you feel personally offended I can remove that picture for now.

My avatar is Alfred e Neumann, any resemblance to czar Putin is purely coincidental.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...