Biden Deploys 3,000 Troops To NATO “Eastern Flank” Countries

[xuenchen]

So now all of a sudden we have The Biden Geniuses deciding to actually send 3000 U.S. Troops to Eastern Europe because of …… RUSSIANS !!! roflmao 

But wait, we already have 70,000 Military Personnel in Europe along with who knows how many European NATO Personnel !!!
So what’s the real game here ?

Please tell us Please

 
And watch the Pentagon Press Secretary Kirby in all his little “Oh-So Stern & Serious” phony Attitude roflmao 

 
 

Link-> Biden Deploys 3,000 Troops To NATO 'Eastern Flank' Countries
 
The White House has pulled the trigger on a fresh troop deployment which marks the first amid the still ratcheting Russia-Ukraine crisis, days after President Biden announced he would bolster US forces in East European allied countries. Senior defense officials have confirmed that 3,000 American troops have been ordered to depart to Poland, Romania, and Germany - after last month they were placed on "alert" as part of 'prepare to deploy' status.
 
"Mr. Biden is sending roughly 2,000 troops from Fort Bragg, N.C., to Poland and Germany this week and also repositioning about 1,000 troops that are part of a Germany-based infantry Stryker squadron to Romania, on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s eastern flank closest to Russia, the officials said," according to details in The Wall Street Journal.
 
Pentagon Charade…….roflmao
 
Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby: "The United States will soon move additional forces to Romania, Poland and Germany...These are not permanent moves...These forces are not going to fight in Ukraine. They are going to ensure the robust defense of our NATO allies."

 
 

[727Sky]

Glad to see you posting my friend even if the news sucks !

[Bally002]

Posting upon this thread is outside my normal views.  A bit out of my depth.

I appreciate the US intervention in WWII and salute members of all armed forces from that country during those times preventing the occupation of the Japanese of northern Australia. I certainly do.

If a threat to our soil occurred again I am sure the yanks would intervene and the feeling on the ground here is reciprocal. 

If Aust sent troops to Ukraine I would question the value in that whether ground or air support.  Ukraine isn't our concern.  New Guinea, The Solomons, Tonga, Fiji and to a lesser extent, New Zealand are and each of those countries would defend their respective nations tenaciously and the Pacific is our backyard. 

I say let Europe decide it's own fate.  They have done so politically and economically in the recent past.  Don't do a Napoleon, US.  Defend by all means your geographical and demographic needs locally but not political and personal in Europe.  Sure, NATO,  that is an agreement but for F'sake it's not the be all and could be the end all.  Let Ukraine and Europe decide it's fate.  

In saying that there is the ANZUS treaty.  This assures our nations down-under would receive US assistance in any case.  We appreciate that and would respond in kind however little that assistance is. 

Now, simply put from my thoughts are - US has no need to intervene in another Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan for that matter where a percentage of the locals stabbed you in the back killing a large number of your soldiers.  Ukraine is no different.  Made up of a lot of Russian sympathisers.  Don't send your armed forces into a conflict that will slaughter your men and women for a personal cause no less the casualties on the other sides. 

Russia is playing the politics of "Come in Spinner" and gauging US response.  Don't play the game of "Two up" as you would surely lose.  By all means bet on those who have got your back but in this case it might be "Yeah,,,,Nah."

Meanwhile.

My input, place your trust in those that have "Got yer back" and would not knife it.

Bally

[Ninurta]

My son sent me a CNN article concerned about this development. This is the message I sent back to him:

Yeah, it's significant that is in the "Politics" section at CNN, because it's just political grandstanding meant to push Russia into a war. We already have 70,000 US troops permanently stationed in Europe, not to mention the national armies that live there, so I dunno what he thinks another 3k are gonna do other than send a political message.

He responded with:

I'm just not sure why we are doing anything when NATO hasn't blinked this entire time! I'm starting to think Trump was right about them they're outdated and useless. Ukraine they ain't worried they just want a shit ton of stinger missiles I think they wanna pull an afghan guerilla repulsion

I think all those eastern block countries learned from Crimea being annexed

And I responded to that:

Yup, NATO is useless in this day and age. It was originally formed to counter the Warsaw Pact, and when that collapsed in 1993 or so, there was no further reason for NATO to exist, much less admit members from places like Turkey, which is nowhere near the North Atlantic. Look at Germany - they are allegedly in NATO, yet are trying to block sales of weapons from Poland to the Ukraine. With "friends" and "allies" like Germany and Turkey, do we really need to make any more enemies?

I really think it is a tempest in a teapot. Putin did not get to where he is by being stupid, and I have my doubts that the US can goad him into a war, try though they might... and appear to be doing. Putin, unlike BidenHarris, is aware that you fight wars on your own terms, not your enemy's terms, and I think is unlikely to be pushed beyond the point of no return. No victorious general ever let his enemy set the rules. Every day that goes by, the idea gets stronger with me that it is just a diversion to take attention away from Taiwan and the Chinese.

Putin's "demands" are as unrealistic and ridiculous as the American demands. When demands are unrealistic and ridiculous, there is some other hidden motive they are meant to mask by jerking folks' emotions and causing them to stop thinking.

That makes me wonder what China has promised Russia if they can divert western attention from Taiwan for just long enough.

.

[Ninurta]

Posting upon this thread is outside my normal views.  A bit out of my depth.

I appreciate the US intervention in WWII and salute members of all armed forces from that country during those times preventing the occupation of the Japanese of northern Australia. I certainly do.

If a threat to our soil occurred again I am sure the yanks would intervene and the feeling on the ground here is reciprocal. 

If Aust sent troops to Ukraine I would question the value in that whether ground or air support.  Ukraine isn't our concern.  New Guinea, The Solomons, Tonga, Fiji and to a lesser extent, New Zealand are and each of those countries would defend their respective nations tenaciously and the Pacific is our backyard. 

I say let Europe decide it's own fate.  They have done so politically and economically in the recent past.  Don't do a Napoleon, US.  Defend by all means your geographical and demographic needs locally but not political and personal in Europe.  Sure, NATO,  that is an agreement but for F'sake it's not the be all and could be the end all.  Let Ukraine and Europe decide it's fate.  

In saying that there is the ANZUS treaty.  This assures our nations down-under would receive US assistance in any case.  We appreciate that and would respond in kind however little that assistance is. 

Now, simply put from my thoughts are - US has no need to intervene in another Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan for that matter where a percentage of the locals stabbed you in the back killing a large number of your soldiers.  Ukraine is no different.  Made up of a lot of Russian sympathisers.  Don't send your armed forces into a conflict that will slaughter your men and women for a personal cause no less the casualties on the other sides. 

Russia is playing the politics of "Come in Spinner" and gauging US response.  Don't play the game of "Two up" as you would surely lose.  By all means bet on those who have got your back but in this case it might be "Yeah,,,,Nah."

Meanwhile.

My input, place your trust in those that have "Got yer back" and would not knife it.

Bally

Excellent post, in my opinion, and mirrors my thoughts on the matter.

The Ukraine is not our problem, nor our business. it's not a NATO member, and not in our baliwick. BidenHarris is sending troops to NATO members that border the Ukraine, but not into the Ukraine itself. I personally think he is doing that to Bear-Bait the Russians into a war. if Putin is smart, he won't take that bait.

It does concern me a bit that John Titor said the Russians nuked DC in March, 2015. Now, we are already a ways beyond 2015, but so far a number of his "predictions" have come true, Just a little later than he predicted, and if it's so that we are simply on a slightly different worldline, then it's still a possibility given the current state of affairs.

Now for me, I don't worry so much. I know how to predict and survive the fallout. But if it occurs, then a large number of Americans will simply cease to exist, or be taken out in the following Civil War. But that's all for a potential future, and what we have to handle is the here and now. We can't take predictions to the bank. They may never be.

I'm banking on Putin being smarter than BidenHarris gives him credit for. That's our only hope, really, since the US population by and large are being led around by their noses to whatever conclusion the mainstream media and social media instructs them to arrive at, and that ain't a good thing in the long run if Putin winds up being dumber than I give him credit for. The American proletariat will push for war, because they are being told to. That leaves it up to Putin to "just say no."

I actually met him briefly several years ago, when he was on a security detail on the opposite team from the one I was on. He struck me as a very dangerous man, but not a stupid one. But then dangerous people are seldom stupid. Stupid gets them killed young, and then they ain't dangerous any more. No, I doubt that he remembers me. You only remember them after they get into the spotlight, and I have studiously avoided that. I'm just another face in an endless crowd to him.

.

[Bally002]

Posting upon this thread is outside my normal views.  A bit out of my depth.

I appreciate the US intervention in WWII and salute members of all armed forces from that country during those times preventing the occupation of the Japanese of northern Australia. I certainly do.

If a threat to our soil occurred again I am sure the yanks would intervene and the feeling on the ground here is reciprocal. 

If Aust sent troops to Ukraine I would question the value in that whether ground or air support.  Ukraine isn't our concern.  New Guinea, The Solomons, Tonga, Fiji and to a lesser extent, New Zealand are and each of those countries would defend their respective nations tenaciously and the Pacific is our backyard. 

I say let Europe decide it's own fate.  They have done so politically and economically in the recent past.  Don't do a Napoleon, US.  Defend by all means your geographical and demographic needs locally but not political and personal in Europe.  Sure, NATO,  that is an agreement but for F'sake it's not the be all and could be the end all.  Let Ukraine and Europe decide it's fate.  

In saying that there is the ANZUS treaty.  This assures our nations down-under would receive US assistance in any case.  We appreciate that and would respond in kind however little that assistance is. 

Now, simply put from my thoughts are - US has no need to intervene in another Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan for that matter where a percentage of the locals stabbed you in the back killing a large number of your soldiers.  Ukraine is no different.  Made up of a lot of Russian sympathisers.  Don't send your armed forces into a conflict that will slaughter your men and women for a personal cause no less the casualties on the other sides. 

Russia is playing the politics of "Come in Spinner" and gauging US response.  Don't play the game of "Two up" as you would surely lose.  By all means bet on those who have got your back but in this case it might be "Yeah,,,,Nah."

Meanwhile.

My input, place your trust in those that have "Got yer back" and would not knife it.

Bally

Excellent post, in my opinion, and mirrors my thoughts on the matter.

The Ukraine is not our problem, nor our business. it's not a NATO member, and not in our baliwick. BidenHarris is sending troops to NATO members that border the Ukraine, but not into the Ukraine itself. I personally think he is doing that to Bear-Bait the Russians into a war. if Putin is smart, he won't take that bait.

It does concern me a bit that John Titor said the Russians nuked DC in March, 2015. Now, we are already a ways beyond 2015, but so far a number of his "predictions" have come true, Just a little later than he predicted, and if it's so that we are simply on a slightly different worldline, then it's still a possibility given the current state of affairs.

Now for me, I don't worry so much. I know how to predict and survive the fallout. But if it occurs, then a large number of Americans will simply cease to exist, or be taken out in the following Civil War. But that's all for a potential future, and what we have to handle is the here and now. We can't take predictions to the bank. They may never be.

I'm banking on Putin being smarter than BidenHarris gives him credit for. That's our only hope, really, since the US population by and large are being led around by their noses to whatever conclusion the mainstream media and social media instructs them to arrive at, and that ain't a good thing in the long run if Putin winds up being dumber than I give him credit for. The American proletariat will push for war, because they are being told to. That leaves it up to Putin to "just say no."

I actually met him briefly several years ago, when he was on a security detail on the opposite team from the one I was on. He struck me as a very dangerous man, but not a stupid one. But then dangerous people are seldom stupid. Stupid gets them killed young, and then they ain't dangerous any more. No, I doubt that he remembers me. You only remember them after they get into the spotlight, and I have studiously avoided that. I'm just another face in an endless crowd to him.

.

Thanks for the kind words.

I'll take this juncture to add some thoughts and quote your paragraphs as reference.

Excellent post, in my opinion, and mirrors my thoughts on the matter.


"The Ukraine is not our problem, nor our business. it's not a NATO member, and not in our baliwick. BidenHarris is sending troops to NATO members that border the Ukraine, but not into the Ukraine itself. I personally think he is doing that to Bear-Bait the Russians into a war. if Putin is smart, he won't take that bait."

Ukraine is Ukraine's problem and to a lesser extent European and Russian.  What is Biden shoring up here?  A relationship with a country that, really, is mostly made up of Russians and expat Russians. (same with Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan in ethnicity)  NATO should pull it's head in.  All I wish for the states is to stop treating your troops as cannon fodder for a political ideology that you can't possibly resolve with conflict causing death.

I tend to consider that Putin is baiting Biden with a cavalier "Bring it on" Old Biden has taken the bait and is struggling with the consequences.  What is Biden protecting?  I think the world knows that inclusive of Putin.

"I'm banking on Putin being smarter than Biden/Harris gives him credit for." 

Of course he is smarter.  Presently all he has done is manoeuvre troops.

"He struck me as a very dangerous man, but not a stupid one. But then dangerous people are seldom stupid. Stupid gets them killed young, and then they ain't dangerous any more. "

No more dangerous than other leaders with their finger on the button.  His death would come at a price.  He strikes me as not being stupid enough that he wouldn't cover his arse, but, like Biden, wouldn't cover the rear ends of front lines and evidently your constituents.  I've said it before, "Cannon Fodder."

I said it in a previous text, US should look after the United states interests basically at a Geographical and Demographical level.  Forget Ukraine.  Pull out and save your assets to protect your country and those that are true allies.  The type of allies that won't shoot you in the back while you are assisting foreign troops.

My regards,

Bally.

[F2d5thCav]

To break down the number 3,000.

1,000 are already in Europe.  They are deploying to Romania (a NATO country).

300 are coming from the USA to Germany (a NATO country).

1,700 are coming from the USA to Poland (a NATO country).

The OP's quote of "70,000" is not a reflection of combat troops.  The combat slice of that is probably around 10K or so.

The 3,000 moved to the eastern-tier NATO countries are a tripwire.

In any case, counting troops in today's military environment isn't much of a comparison.  Sadaam had all kinds of troops but couldn't use them because of factors that had nothing to do with quantity of soldiers.

As far as "not our problem".  That doesn't work anymore.  The "problem" can be confronted in Europe, or, later, in the USA itself.  Not the 20th century anymore, folks.  Technology will not allow us to sit this one out.  The ones we could have sat out (like the useless war in Iraq) ... well, the monied interests got us involved anyway.

There will be a war.  Best case is that it stays contained between Ukraine and Russia.  We shall see.

Cheers

[Bally002]

To break down the number 3,000.

1,000 are already in Europe.  They are deploying to Romania (a NATO country).

300 are coming from the USA to Germany (a NATO country).

1,700 are coming from the USA to Poland (a NATO country).

The OP's quote of "70,000" is not a reflection of combat troops.  The combat slice of that is probably around 10K or so.

The 3,000 moved to the eastern-tier NATO countries are a tripwire.

In any case, counting troops in today's military environment isn't much of a comparison.  Sadaam had all kinds of troops but couldn't use them because of factors that had nothing to do with quantity of soldiers.

As far as "not our problem".  That doesn't work anymore.  The "problem" can be confronted in Europe, or, later, in the USA itself.  Not the 20th century anymore, folks.  Technology will not allow us to sit this one out.  The ones we could have sat out (like the useless war in Iraq) ... well, the monied interests got us involved anyway.

There will be a war.  Best case is that it stays contained between Ukraine and Russia.  We shall see.

Cheers

Good post.  I see that US has deployed these troops to Europe.  Has Romania, Poland and Germany or Ukraine for that matter reciprocated in kind to America by sending troops to United States to protect the US. Can't see that ever happening mate.  

Bring your troops and assets home.  You're going to need them there.

Bally

[F2d5thCav]

@"Bally002" 

Hi Bally,

Yeah, it is all very tempting, especially given some of the ass-ery on display by the French and Germans at the moment.

But this situation is much of the USA's making.  We knew damned well the rich western EU countries weren't pulling their weight with NATO.  Only a few countries like UK were.  Yet, the American leadership went along with that.

Why?  Because they figured it gives them more say in what happens.

Anyhow, having been part of NATO this long, if we pull out now, no country anywhere will see any value in a military association with the USA.  One can see it with the Germans getting a bit beat up because of their tepid response re: Ukraine.  If the USA pulls out, it will be 100X worse, and a whole host of -other- problems for the USA will emerge.

Rock and a hard spot.

Best thing USA could have done was, after the Wall fell, tell the European states that the USA would be out of NATO by "date X" and then press on them to get their own capabilities in order.  But we didn't do that.

Like I said, best thing to hope for is that any war doesn't spread, 'cause that could get messy for many people and not just in Europe.

Cheers

[Michigan Swamp Buck]

Don't the Russians have a copy of Hunter's laptop's? I'm sure they have plenty of intell on Biden and his deals in the Ukraine. Why poke the Bear with a little stick?

[ABNARTY]

We have had "advisors" in Ukraine for a while now. Since what, 2015, 2015? Whenever the whole Fiesta kicked off?

This latest bunch is going to NATO nations in the area. Ukraine is not really in NATO. They may have done the secret pinky-shake interoperability thing but that's it.  

If Russia does escalate activity, it will be an extension of what has been in place for a long time now. Joe has already sent his weak-kneed message of "incursion versus invasion" consent on the matter. Germany has done the same via back and forth over some old artillery they don't even own. 

Here is a good assessment on the matter:

[Bally002]

We have had "advisors" in Ukraine for a while now. Since what, 2015, 2015? Whenever the whole Fiesta kicked off?

This latest bunch is going to NATO nations in the area. Ukraine is not really in NATO. They may have done the secret pinky-shake interoperability thing but that's it.  

If Russia does escalate activity, it will be an extension of what has been in place for a long time now. Joe has already sent his weak-kneed message of "incursion versus invasion" consent on the matter. Germany has done the same via back and forth over some old artillery they don't even own. 

Here is a good assessment on the matter:

A fine watch for me.  Educated my mind with the geographies and locations of cities and countries affected by this standoff.  Some Russian Naval assets on the way.  I would like to see those and where they may be stationed. (Navy Geek )

Cheers for the entertainment.

Kind regards.

Bally:)

[F2d5thCav]

@"Bally002" 

The Black Sea Fleet is based at the Sevastopol, Karantinnaya, and Streletskaya Bays in Sevastopol which is also the location of its headquarters, and at Novorossiysk in Krasnodar Kray. The fleet also has various other facilities on the Crimean Peninsula and facilities in Krasnodar Kray.

I would guess the Ukrainian ships are based in Odessa.

Cheers

[Bally002]

@"Bally002" 

The Black Sea Fleet is based at the Sevastopol, Karantinnaya, and Streletskaya Bays in Sevastopol which is also the location of its headquarters, and at Novorossiysk in Krasnodar Kray. The fleet also has various other facilities on the Crimean Peninsula and facilities in Krasnodar Kray.

I would guess the Ukrainian ships are based in Odessa.

Cheers

Thanx mate.  I was trying to capture the Russian ships moving from the Oceans to the  European seas,  Being a ship fool I always look at the schematics and capabilities of certain builds. Subs to my mind are the best.  Being a carrier trained operative I've always had the thought that a sub can sink a carrier.  I am sure they can.

Anyways, There won't be any  red carriers in that region that could threaten.  The fleet I am subscribing to is the units/ships returning through the Mediterranean to the Black Sea.  To me this is risky but coupled with subs a good call.  

I am sure there will be blue subs in the region.  So I ask myself - what is the capability of this fleet and subscribe to analysing same.  

Bit absurd considering tech onboard fleet assets these days.  Kinda like watching a digital Falklands war. 

So in this I have a piqued interest from afar.

I'd hate to be on a naval asset that failed. My problem.

Kind regards,

Bally:)

[guohua]

[Michigan Swamp Buck]

Naked and afraid. The would be Emperor in his no-new clothes.

[Ninurta]

Not all of us agree on the proper course of action here, and that's ok. My opinion is that BidenHarris is taking a bite that he ain't gonna be able to chew in the Ukraine, and that is going to spell a sight more trouble than he counted on.

See, he's trying to project an image of "strength" while simultaneously weakening the US. If Putin calls his bluff, there's going to be more trouble than BidenHarris can handle or overcome. Images do not always reflect ground truth. They are just images, mirages.

BidenHarris is playing with fire while he's having fun with numbers. You cannot weaken a military and expect it to perform to spec.

Putin may end up taking all of Europe while the Emperor parades around naked trying to convince us all he has a new set of duds. The scary thing is that might not be the worst thing that could befall Europe.

.

[Bally002]

Not all of us agree on the proper course of action here, and that's ok. My opinion is that BidenHarris is taking a bite that he ain't gonna be able to chew in the Ukraine, and that is going to spell a sight more trouble than he counted on.

See, he's trying to project an image of "strength" while simultaneously weakening the US. If Putin calls his bluff, there's going to be more trouble than BidenHarris can handle or overcome. Images do not always reflect ground truth. They are just images, mirages.

BidenHarris is playing with fire while he's having fun with numbers. You cannot weaken a military and expect it to perform to spec.

Putin may end up taking all of Europe while the Emperor parades around naked trying to convince us all he has a new set of duds. The scary thing is that might not be the worst thing that could befall Europe.

.

I subscribe to your point of view.  My considerations here are that NATO has too many chiefs and not enough Indians.  Whereas Russia simply holds to one objective supported by one leader and not many,  While NATO scrambles, Russia simply consolidates.

It will fail for NATO.  Such a waste of resources.

My regards,

Bally:)

[F2d5thCav]

@"Bally002" 

Check.  This is why the headcount comparisons are misleading.

In the 1980s, there was a lopsided aerial battle over Lebanon.  Israelis lost one aircraft and IIRC the Syrians lost something like 60.  The Israelis were better trained, but I think the read edge was better electronic warfare assets.

Same will happen to some degree if Russia and Ukraine go at it.  Russians probably have more and better EW assets than Ukraine.  That will render aircraft and missiles a lot less capable than their book specifications indicate.

Mines are another question mark.  Enough mines on the ground may delay the Russian forces long enough for some kind of international reaction to force a cease-fire.  Likewise, naval mines are still a huge PITA for all navies.

People like to focus on numbers or shiny pieces of warfighting equipment, but the decisive bits may not be so obvious.

Cheers

[Bally002]

@"Bally002" 

Check.  This is why the headcount comparisons are misleading.

In the 1980s, there was a lopsided aerial battle over Lebanon.  Israelis lost one aircraft and IIRC the Syrians lost something like 60.  The Israelis were better trained, but I think the read edge was better electronic warfare assets.

Same will happen to some degree if Russia and Ukraine go at it.  Russians probably have more and better EW assets than Ukraine.  That will render aircraft and missiles a lot less capable than their book specifications indicate.

Mines are another question mark.  Enough mines on the ground may delay the Russian forces long enough for some kind of international reaction to force a cease-fire.  Likewise, naval mines are still a huge PITA for all navies.

People like to focus on numbers or shiny pieces of warfighting equipment, but the decisive bits may not be so obvious.

Cheers

True one that.  Also comes to terrain experience and history.  It's all good fighting a desert storm but the climate in this neck of the woods is totally different.  Russians are tenacious on their soil.

That doesn't mean that each country wouldn't defend their own patch to which they are familiar.  Russians will give an inch, size you up, then advance yards regardless of the cost.  There are no rainbow woosies in their forces.  They know cold and pain.


Kind regards,

Bally:)