Fucking hell! Shit is about to get REAL: NATO assembles one of the largest troops

[Devilius]

According to Reuters, it was reported that Italy, France, Denmark and other European states are expected to join the NATO military divisions that will be led by the United States along Russia’s border.

On Wednesday, Britain announced it is sending hundreds of soldiers and hardware to Russia’s borders as part of a huge military deployment.

A total of 800 troops, drones and tanks are moving to Estonia as part of the biggest military build-up of NATO troops on Russia’s borders since the Cold War.

In addition to the forces allocated for his specific operation, NATO has an army of over 40,000 ready to be called up to fight at any time.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN12P31W

 

[Hard_Rom]

Which is just a token display. The Russkies could roll over them in two days. The only real threat that stops the Russians is the nuclear deterrent one. The Baltic states and the Ukraine would fall in the matter of a week if Russia attacked.

With Poland no longer a Warsaw Pact nation, perhaps the Russian army could be stopped before it reached Germany. Russia has more main battle tanks than the rest of the world combined. They are totally geared for a land war in Europe.

Their weakness at sea means that air supply corridors and convoys will be somewhat safe to hurriedly get US forces to Europe. But even then losses will occur.

Conceivable that if a regime change in the US weakened NATO enough, the Russians would find an excuse to retake the Baltic states and annex eastern Ukraine.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Looked for confirmation. Mentions of Putin's decisions to be uncooperative and refusing to adhere to agreements.

26/10/ 2016

NATO ministers are reportedly discussing the details of sending multinational battalions of up to 1,000 soldiers each to four Eastern European countries – Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, starting in 2017. The formal decision to station troops in these countries of the former Soviet Block was made at the NATO summit in Warsaw in July, 2016. After Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea peninsula and increased its military presence near NATO borders, Eastern European countries asked the alliance for a military presence. Germany is supposed to take the lead of the battalion in Lithuania and will be sending up to 500 soldiers.

http://www.dw.com/en/natos-vershbow-on-alliance-troops-in-eastern-europe-we-had-no-choice/a-36163802

27/10/2016

Britain will send warplanes, tanks and troops to Romania and Estonia as part of the biggest military build-up on Russia’s borders since the Cold War.

For the first time, RAF Typhoon fighters will be stationed at a Romanian airbase near the Black Sea next year. Challenger 2 tanks, drones and 800 troops will also be deployed to Estonia from May, contributing to a 4,000-strong Nato force that will straddle the Baltic states and Poland along the alliance’s border with Russia.


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...russia-s-borders-amid-nato-build-up-mr78tshrd

Bits of information from UK.news sites.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Which is just a token display. The Russkies could roll over them in two days. The only real threat that stops the Russians is the nuclear deterrent one. The Baltic states and the Ukraine would fall in the matter of a week if Russia attacked.

With Poland no longer a Warsaw Pact nation, perhaps the Russian army could be stopped before it reached Germany. Russia has more main battle tanks than the rest of the world combined. They are totally geared for a land war in Europe.

Their weakness at sea means that air supply corridors and convoys will be somewhat safe to hurriedly get US forces to Europe. But even then losses will occur.

Conceivable that if a regime change in the US weakened NATO enough, the Russians would find an excuse to retake the Baltic states and annex eastern Ukraine.

Strange that you like using periods here but in your srp, you are allergic to them. Your last entry could be edited to make it flow better. I would use 'her' instead of wife in the first sentence. This makes more of an impact when he speaks and says it. Also I would take out the second Anna and use her or create 2 sentences. That one is on the verge of becoming a run-on as well. Finally, the evil, cold, frigid, look how evil I am grin in an otherwise handsome face. Yawn. Show how evil he is when he is beating her. Encouraged by her cries of pain, the skin quickly moving from pink to raised welts, a splash of blood as her thigh begins to split. Her arms fall, unable to take another lash. He suddenly realizes she has stopped screaming and he unfolds his blood stained belt, dropping it on the floor.

Just some examples of how to show he is evil instead of telling us. It's a more engaging experience for the reader.

 

[sr71plt]

Ummmm. Were you thinking of another thread?

 

[1sickbastard]

Which is just a token display. The Russkies could roll over them in two days. The only real threat that stops the Russians is the nuclear deterrent one. The Baltic states and the Ukraine would fall in the matter of a week if Russia attacked.

With Poland no longer a Warsaw Pact nation, perhaps the Russian army could be stopped before it reached Germany. Russia has more main battle tanks than the rest of the world combined. They are totally geared for a land war in Europe.

Their weakness at sea means that air supply corridors and convoys will be somewhat safe to hurriedly get US forces to Europe. But even then losses will occur.

Conceivable that if a regime change in the US weakened NATO enough, the Russians would find an excuse to retake the Baltic states and annex eastern Ukraine.

You may be overestimating Russia's capabilities. It would take a very significant proportion of that capability to overrun and annex the eastern Ukraine. Remember that tiff Russia had a few years back with Chechnya? That took several major campaigns to pacify the area. The Ukraine is a much larger area with a far larger population which already doesn't think too kindly of their northern neighbors.

I'm not too sure they'd have the ability to do that AND overrun the Baltics, as well as continue their military adventures in Syria.
According to the numbers I could find, Russian has just over 770k active duty personal, which includes all branches of the military in all their military districts. I figure about 120K in the Southern Military District and maybe 70k in the Western Military district, which would include air, armor, mechanized infantry, infantry, special forces and logistics/supply units, but not naval units.
While the number isn't anything to sneer at, one has to keep in mind that the Russians won't be fighting on their home turf, which means hostile populations, which means large numbers of troops have to be left to guard supply lines and attempt to pacify the local populations.

Then one has to remember the central European nations don't particularly like the Russians, and have taken their own defensive initiatives (look up Visegrad Battlegroup), as well as the fact that Russia and Turkey have had a very long history of mutual antagonism.

Putin is sabre rattling, trying to scare the West and particularly the US. He may be a lot of things, but stupid ain't one of them. In a general, all out conflict, particularly if Russia is the instigator, he's going to be in a very, very difficult position.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which is just a token display. The Russkies could roll over them in two days.

What did you base that tactical assessment on?

 

[CharlieB4]

What did you base that tactical assessment on?

That the European contingent would hitch up their skirts and run for the hills at the slightest sign of trouble.

They have no stomach to take on the country they rely on so much for energy. Putin could bend Merkel over his desk and have his way with her and it wouldn't cause a ripple... except in her arse cheeks.

His recent posturing is more about shoring up his domestic support base eroded by internal conflicts with troublesome seperatists and the oil price drop fucking his economy.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Strange that you like using periods here but in your srp, you are allergic to them. Your last entry could be edited to make it flow better. I would use 'her' instead of wife in the first sentence. This makes more of an impact when he speaks and says it. Also I would take out the second Anna and use her or create 2 sentences. That one is on the verge of becoming a run-on as well. Finally, the evil, cold, frigid, look how evil I am grin in an otherwise handsome face. Yawn. Show how evil he is when he is beating her. Encouraged by her cries of pain, the skin quickly moving from pink to raised welts, a splash of blood as her thigh begins to split. Her arms fall, unable to take another lash. He suddenly realizes she has stopped screaming and he unfolds his blood stained belt, dropping it on the floor.

Just some examples of how to show he is evil instead of telling us. It's a more engaging experience for the reader.

Never had a comment/criticism on my SRP posts before. Thank you.

I will have a look and maybe see about an edit.

Went with the grammatical edits. Don't want to get ahead of co-writer in description of beating. They may want to up and run.

Posting in GB and Politics board, I don't pay much attention to grammar. Not like anything important is being said typically.

But thanks again for the criticism.

 

[Hypoxia]

A few thousand troops moved to a half-dozen countries is not exactly a huge military buildup.

Hey, let's try some paranoia. Suppose Putin has decided to *really* skew the USA election by unleashing a sleeper virus targeting power grids, causing election-day blackouts in (D) states to aid his puppy Tromp. In the ensuing chaos, could he make some substantial aggressive move(s)?

 

[underguy1]

You may be overestimating Russia's capabilities. It would take a very significant proportion of that capability to overrun and annex the eastern Ukraine. Remember that tiff Russia had a few years back with Chechnya? That took several major campaigns to pacify the area. The Ukraine is a much larger area with a far larger population which already doesn't think too kindly of their northern neighbors.

I'm not too sure they'd have the ability to do that AND overrun the Baltics, as well as continue their military adventures in Syria.
According to the numbers I could find, Russian has just over 770k active duty personal, which includes all branches of the military in all their military districts. I figure about 120K in the Southern Military District and maybe 70k in the Western Military district, which would include air, armor, mechanized infantry, infantry, special forces and logistics/supply units, but not naval units.
While the number isn't anything to sneer at, one has to keep in mind that the Russians won't be fighting on their home turf, which means hostile populations, which means large numbers of troops have to be left to guard supply lines and attempt to pacify the local populations.

Then one has to remember the central European nations don't particularly like the Russians, and have taken their own defensive initiatives (look up Visegrad Battlegroup), as well as the fact that Russia and Turkey have had a very long history of mutual antagonism.

Putin is sabre rattling, trying to scare the West and particularly the US. He may be a lot of things, but stupid ain't one of them. In a general, all out conflict, particularly if Russia is the instigator, he's going to be in a very, very difficult position.

What perverse 'logic' you demonstrate. It is NATO putting troops on Russia's borders but you interpret that as Putin sabre rattling.

You're a credulous buffoon.

 

[1sickbastard]

What perverse 'logic' you demonstrate. It is NATO putting troops on Russia's borders but you interpret that as Putin sabre rattling.

You're a credulous buffoon.

You're a knee-jerking idiot without a clue about geopolitical realities because you're so wrapped in your rhetoric your world is a stark black and white with zero shades of grey, much less anything approaching color.

If you think my assessment is wrong, have the fucking balls to pony up specifics as to WHY you think my assessment is wrong.

Of course, that would mean having to take an actual position and being willing to defend it as opposed to bullshit sniping without saying anything besides "You're wrong", "you're stupid", or, "that's just western propaganda."

At this point, you are literally more of a joke, just as predictable and far less interesting than busybody, or neverendingme.

To be fair, that's actually quite an achievement, so well done.

So, you wanna list specifics about why I'm wrong, or are you just gonna retreat to your usual bullshit?

 

[underguy1]

You're a knee-jerking idiot without a clue about geopolitical realities because you're so wrapped in your rhetoric your world is a stark black and white with zero shades of grey, much less anything approaching color.

If you think my assessment is wrong, have the fucking balls to pony up specifics as to WHY you think my assessment is wrong.

Of course, that would mean having to take an actual position and being willing to defend it as opposed to bullshit sniping without saying anything besides "You're wrong", "you're stupid", or, "that's just western propaganda."

At this point, you are literally more of a joke, just as predictable and far less interesting than busybody, or neverendingme.

To be fair, that's actually quite an achievement, so well done.

So, you wanna list specifics about why I'm wrong, or are you just gonna retreat to your usual bullshit?

I've told you why you're wrong.

You've launched into ad hominem yet again because your logic is indefensible.

 

[1sickbastard]

I've told you why you're wrong.

You've launched into ad hominem yet again because your logic is indefensible.

No, you blamed troop build-ups on NATO without any substantiation on how a several hundreds of NATO troops on the Russian/Belorus frontiers is anything like an existential threat to a nation of 145 million people with a land and air force strength in their western and southern military districts, which amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of 300k.

What I did was call you out on your mealy-mouthed bullshit.

Now, you want to debate actual geopolitical imperatives among the various state actors and the actual military capabilities involved or are you going to retreat yet more unsubstantiated claims about someone else's reasoning.

If my logic is indefensible, feel free to attack it.

So far you done sweet fuck-all except mistake fallacy for rebuttal.

Direct question, buckwheat;
What is wrong with the facts I presented and why is my reasoning "indefensible"

BTW, "NATO did it first," is not a rebuttal unless you can state what the depth and strength of the NATO build-up is and how/why such would be a credible threat to Russian interests.

Of course, you'd first have to have a clue as to what Russia's interests are, not to mention being able to state those interests clearly.

 

[underguy1]

No, you blamed troop build-ups on NATO without any substantiation on how a several hundreds of NATO troops on the Russian/Belorus frontiers is anything like an existential threat to a nation of 145 million people with a land and air force strength in their western and southern military districts, which amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of 300k.

What I did was call you out on your mealy-mouthed bullshit.

Now, you want to debate actual geopolitical imperatives among the various state actors and the actual military capabilities involved or are you going to retreat yet more unsubstantiated claims about someone else's reasoning.

If my logic is indefensible, feel free to attack it.

So far you done sweet fuck-all except mistake fallacy for rebuttal.

Direct question, buckwheat;
What is wrong with the facts I presented and why is my reasoning "indefensible"

BTW, "NATO did it first," is not a rebuttal unless you can state what the depth and strength of the NATO build-up is and how/why such would be a credible threat to Russian interests.

Of course, you'd first have to have a clue as to what Russia's interests are, not to mention being able to state those interests clearly.

What a load of tosh.

You made an assertion that I challenged for its absurdity. You have failed to defend it and now you're just spinning bullshit to dodge.

You've accused President Putin of sabre rattling when it is NATO making all the hostile moves.

So back up the statement.

You're just repeating the talking heads on the prole feed you get as news in the USA.

 

[1sickbastard]

What a load of tosh.

You made an assertion that I challenged for its absurdity. You have failed to defend it and now you're just spinning bullshit to dodge.

You've accused President Putin of sabre rattling when it is NATO making all the hostile moves.

So back up the statement.

You're just repeating the talking heads on the prole feed you get as news in the USA.

No, I listed troop strengths and why I thought Putin was making a show of a threat without making an actual threat.

You countered with

It is NATO putting troops on Russia's borders but you interpret that as Putin sabre rattling.

Did you list any NATO troop strengths?
No.
Did you give the quantities or positions of the troops positioned?
No.
Do you make any sort of analysis of why/how NATO's troops could be any sort of a threat to Russia?
No.
Did you address any of the politics, either internal to Russia or between the various NATO nations involved?
No.
Did you state why NATO repositioning a few hundred troops is any sort of creadible threat, much less existential threat, to Russia?
No.

Put up or shut up time.
Make a credible argument and I'll be happy to have a conversation.

 

[underguy1]

No, I listed troop strengths and why I thought Putin was making a show of a threat without making an actual threat.

You countered with
Did you list any NATO troop strengths?
No.
Did you give the quantities or positions of the troops positioned?
No.
Do you make any sort of analysis of why/how NATO's troops could be any sort of a threat to Russia?
No.
Did you address any of the politics, either internal to Russia or between the various NATO nations involved?
No.
Did you state why NATO repositioning a few hundred troops is any sort of creadible threat, much less existential threat, to Russia?
No.

Put up or shut up time.
Make a credible argument and I'll be happy to have a conversation.

In other words, you can't substantiate your absurd assertion of sabre rattling and my self evident statement pointing out your irrationality stands.

You don't have conversations by dictating the terms, Mr Team America.

Stop the authoritarian bullshit and I'll converse with you. But I don't think you can. You're too far gone in the racist American exceptionalist conditioning you suffer.

 

[1sickbastard]

In other words, you can't substantiate your absurd assertion of sabre rattling and my self evident statement pointing out your irrationality stands.

You don't have conversations by dictating the terms, Mr Team America.

Stop the authoritarian bullshit and I'll converse with you. But I don't think you can. You're too far gone in the racist American exceptionalist conditioning you suffer.

By "dictating the terms" you mean "being able to back up your point or be called out on your bullshit"?

In other words you don't have jack shit to say, don't know the subject well enough to make a cogent argument and have nothing of any value to add.

If you want to explain how Russian is going to be threatened by NATO troops in eastern Europe, lets break it down by nation:

Estonia:
6000 peacetime.
VDF 15000
High Readiness 21,000
Source: Estonian Defense Forces Website :http://www.mil.ee/en/defence-forces
Active frontline personel 3500 (source: Global Firepower)

Latvia
6600 active duty
11000 reserves
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/lv.htm

Lithuania
16000 active duty
4000 reserve
Source; Lithuanian Ministry of Defence; http://kam.lt/lt/personalo_politika_512/skaiciai_ir_faktai_537.html
source; Global Firepower; http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=lithuania

Poland (the non Russian heavyweight in Central Europe_
120,000 active duty
500,000 reserve
Source; Global Firepower: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=poland

Slovakia
16000 active duty
5000 reserve
Source; European Defense Information: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edcountries/countryslovakia.htm

Hungary
20000 Active frontline personal
52000 reserve
Source; Global Firepower: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=hungary

Ukraine

160000 active frontline personal
1000000 reserve
Source; Global Firepower: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=hungary

NATO sent four (4) Battalions to the Russian frontier. A NATO battalion is anywhere from 300 to 800 troops. That means at most, and I'll be generous and grant the battalions were reinforced, that 4000 troops were sent.

Now, lets do the math, shall we?

I estimated that Russia's Western and Southern Military Districts had a combined total of about 190,000 land troops.

But lets not forget Russian ally, Belarus, which had a active duty troop strength of 65000
Source; Global Firepower; http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=belarus

That brings up a Russian Defense strength to 255000

The combined total of NATO troops is 348,000

That's a ratio of 1.36 of Russian/Belarus defenders to a combined potential NATO land attack, or, conversely, a 0.73 ratio of NATO defenders to a combined Russia Belarus attack into Central Europe, or a 0.55 ratio if Russia doesn't have Belarus troops.

Now, I know political demagoguery doesn't allow for reality, but no military commander in his/her right mind would plan an attack with those sorts of troop strengths over a potential front line that extends from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.

For a bit of historical comparison, Nazi Germany launched Barbarosa with nearly 3 million troops, hundreds of aircraft and thousands of tanks and couldn't beat the Soviets, and the fucking Nazi's had willing support from the Baltics and the Ukrainians (at least until the slavs found out just how shitty the Nazi's were). There's just way to much ground to cover, especially ground that's going to be inhabited by a hostile population.

So, yeah, I said sabre rattling and meant it. Russian has the capability to overrun the Baltics, which are susceptible to NATO airpower, not to mention USN Airpower, which would put the Russians in a shit position internationally. But Putin, unlike you, isn't an idiot.

The Russians just don't have the force to overrun Poland or the Ukraine, which would also put Putin in a shit position.

NATO doesn't have anything even close to the capability to do anything except get it's collective ass handed to it if NATO was going to attack the Russians, and anyone with half a clue know it.

Notice, I haven't even addressed the relative quality of the respective military forces.

Now, did you want to produce some actual numbers or are you going to retreat into your tired old bullshit again?

 

[MichaelinChina]

By "dictating the terms" you mean "being able to back up your point or be called out on your bullshit"?
....

tired old bullshit again?

Has Trump got your number? He sure could use you!

 

[1sickbastard]

Has Trump got your number? He sure could use you!

Feel free to pass my number along.

He can have my "help" (if you want to call it that) if he pays in advance.
In cash.
And, of course, signs an ironclad contract indemnifying me from any and all lawsuits from him or any one associated with him.

Seven figures, minimum.

Pretty sure that's a call I'll never get.

Gee, guess I'll just have to live my live without the guy who wears a merkin on his head.

 

[underguy1]

By "dictating the terms" you mean "being able to back up your point or be called out on your bullshit"?

I made a point and you have found yourself unable to refute it or to back up your assertion.

The rest is obfuscation.

You're a busted flush, Mr Team America.

 

[underguy1]

Y

Putin is sabre rattling, trying to scare the West and particularly the US.

What perverse 'logic' you demonstrate. It is NATO putting troops on Russia's borders but you interpret that as Putin sabre rattling.

You're a credulous buffoon.

No, I listed troop strengths and why I thought Putin was making a show of a threat without making an actual threat.

Idiotic.

 

[underguy1]

I'm a geopolitical genius.

Any comment?


Imagine two cities.

Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people.

But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant mention of civilian casualties.

In the second city – in another country nearby – almost exactly the same is happening. Government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics.

The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by “us” – by the United States and Britain. They even have a media centre that is funded by Britain and America.

Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys, condemned for assaulting and bombing the city – which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city.


From:

Inside the Invisible Government: War, Propaganda, Clinton & Trump
by JOHN PILGER

 

[underguy1]

Ukraine is another media triumph. Respectable liberal newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, and mainstream broadcasters such as the BBC, NBC, CBS, CNN have played a critical role in conditioning their viewers to accept a new and dangerous cold war.

All have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia when, in fact, the coup in Ukraine in 2014 was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato.

This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington’s military intimidation of Russia is not news; it is suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war. Once again, the Ruskies are coming to get us, led by another Stalin, whom The Economist depicts as the devil.

The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The fascists who engineered the coup in Kiev are the same breed that backed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Of all the scares about the rise of fascist anti-Semitism in Europe, no leader ever mentions the fascists in Ukraine – except Vladimir Putin, but he does not count.