On Wednesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the alliance’s military commanders will draw up plans for new battlegroup deployments in Eastern Europe as part of the effort to build up forces near Russia.
The plans were agreed on during a meeting of NATO’s defense ministers in Brussels that was attended by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. The ministers discussed how to increase NATO’s presence in countries closest to Russia and the Black Sea.
“Ministers decided to develop options to further strengthen NATO’s deterrence and defense, including to consider establishing new NATO battlegroups in central and eastern and southeastern Europe,” Stoltenberg said.
Amid the tensions around Ukraine, the US has deployed about 5,000 troops to Poland and Romania. Stoltenberg didn’t specify where more NATO battlegroups could go, but Romania, a Black Sea nation, is a likely candidate.
In a joint statement, the NATO defense ministers said Russia’s recent actions “pose a serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security” and require a greater NATO presence in the region.
“As a consequence and to ensure the defense of all Allies, we are deploying additional land forces in the eastern part of the Alliance, as well as additional maritime and air assets, as announced by Allies, and have increased the readiness of our forces,” the ministers said.
The US and Russia are currently engaged in negotiations over security proposals put forward by Moscow. One of Russia’s primary objectives is putting an end to NATO’s eastward expansion, so Wednesday’s announcements will likely escalate tensions.
Moscow announced Tuesday that it is pulling back some troops that were near the Ukrainian border. But Stoltenberg doesn’t believe it’s a significant change in Russia’s military posture. “They have always moved forces back and forth, so just that we see movement of forces, that doesn’t confirm a real withdrawal,” he said.
“They’re lying. They’re not withdrawing from their own land.” (sarcasm) “The ministers discussed how to increase NATO’s presence in countries closest to Russia and the Black Sea.” Is that what you expect from NATO after peace negotiations? Do you see anything that can be done to prevent WWIII?
Yes, there iis a way. At some point the polite dance stops. And US comes to realize its vulnerabilities. Will be made realize its vulnerabilities, if needed. There is no need for a shooting war, as numerous tiny strings can tie down Gulliver.
It seems that IS has decided that the Eastern Europeans can be made useful — to get one limited shooting war in Europe, have the Slavuc untermencmschen fight each other, and US can get frightened Europe firmly under its control.
So far, major European countries are still — nervously — playing along. What else is left for them? There is a lifeline being offered in April. EU is finally meeting with China on that long delayed trade pact, signed and mothballed at once.
It will be critical for Europe — if there is still such a thing — to grab it, latch unto it, as if its life depended on it. Because it does.
Even Poland, whose policies are really managed by Vatican — must realize what is at stake. To become again the voluntary battleground between East and West, or to become a trade and infrastructure bridge? This time East represents not just Russia, but the entire Asia, with China already the engine of global economy,
There is really no need for EU unity, as there will be none. EU parliament has been stuffed with liberal Russia war drummers, that equally despise Chinese for having the temerity of refusing the most magnanimous offer of beeing West -patronized manuacturing region.
Without EU unity it is really up to Germany and Crance, Italy and Spain — to deciide how to advance their economic interests. But they can do it only if Eurasian continent is at peace, and that csn be achieved by Poland being part of the solution not problem, and Russia open for trade and safe continental traffic.
The Eurasian landmass is not only best connected by land — avoiding oceans and “freedom of navigation” games — it is faster, and energy self-sufficient.
Battle groups anyone?
Well,… yes?! And “no”….
The “Be afraid, be very afraid” factory is back up to full speed. Cui bono? The Biden team (WestExec) gets another congress, and improved chance of another term. The WestExec clients, presently losing much of the mid-East market, are getting a NATO sales surge. The LNG industry can still have hope of a prospective European market. And it advances the Neocon programme of global hegemony (the Neo Thousand Yr Reich) by, at a minimum, prying Europe a degree farther from Russia.
They could, however, actually cause the invasion they’ve been fictionalizing, … but, hey, it’s only Ukros, eh?
“Ministers decided to develop options to further strengthen NATO’s deterrence and defense, including to consider establishing new NATO battlegroups in central and eastern and southeastern Europe,” Stoltenberg said.
A little gasoline on the fire can’t hurt.
WRU:
You are so optimistic!-donna
In other words, Russian troops arrived for drills, then they drilled, then they left to go back to their permanent barracks, and a new batch of troops come in for drills. This is what armies do. What matters is where the barracks are – and Russia has five military districts, one of which is next door to Ukraine. Tough shit, Ukraine. You put your country next to Russian military bases. As someone here said, IIRC, poor Mexico – they put their country next to Fort Hood.
As for stationing more “battle groups” in Eastern Europe, all this just ticks off Russia even more and makes it clear to them that they have zero chance of getting any agreement about their three core demands.
Let’s be clear. The US would need to send 500,000 troops to Europe to be able to cause a serious problem for Russia – and maybe not even then, if said troops didn’t have equivalent military hardware – which they don’t. The US would need to send literally hundreds of aircraft and ships to the Med, as well. In other words, forget pivoting to China because the US won’t have the resources.
And here’s what will happen: Russia won’t allow that. They’re not stupid, they know what a military build up of that size means. They will strike first – and rightly so. Every EU airfield and port will be eliminated. Every US ship approaching Europe will be sunk. They’re not going to allow themselves to be “slow boiled” like some frog.
In reality, the US is going to do one of two things: send a few thousand more troops just to intensify their control of the EU, none of which will bother Russia in military terms (as opposed to geopolitical terms), or 2) they will send extremely large numbers of troops in which case we’re talking about WWIII.
If the US does 1), Russia will do whatever is necessary to counter the moves if they deem them significant. If the US does 2), Russia will destroy the threat.
Of course, the real purpose of all this is just to jack up the Pentagon budget and insure the US economy continues to make money for the military-industrial complex, as well as sucking money out of the EU as well.
“poor Mexico – they put their country next to Fort Hood.”
A better analogy would be Iran having the balls to put their country in the middle of all those US bases. At least more appropriate for the times were in.
Yeah, but that analogy has been done to death – as has the same version for Russia. Besides, the point was putting a country next to the *home* bases of another country, not its foreign bases.
I should have paid more attention. You are correct. But those tired analogies should continue.
“pose a serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security”
But NATO keeps doing it. Notice the terminology with the mission creep? Euro-Atlantic? Same as the INDO-PAC conglomeration.
“Eastern flank”