Bulgaria does not see the need for more NATO troops to be deployed to its territory, the Bulgarian defense minister said on Tuesday.
Over the weekend, German media reported that NATO’s top commander discussed the possibility of sending more troops to Bulgaria and Romania to counter Russia. Bulgarian Defense Minister Stefan Yanev confirmed that the talks happened but said such a move could escalate tensions in the region.
“My position is that such a debate, respectively an approach, has the potential to lead to an undesirable increase of tensions in the region,” Yenev wrote on Facebook. “In this sense, I do not believe that there are the necessary circumstances that can justify a decision related to the deployment of additional troops on our territory.”
The potential plan to move more troops to Bulgaria and Romania would extend NATO’s “Enhanced Forward Presence,” under which battlegroups are deployed to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. While Bulgaria is hesitant about the plan, Romanian leaders have recently called for the US to expand its presence in the region.
In November, Romanian Foreign Minister Bogdan Aurescu spoke at the Atlantic Council and said he asked Secretary of State Antony Blinken if the US would be sending more troops to Romania.
Romania doesn’t border Russia, but it does have a coast on the Black Sea, an area where the US and NATO have stepped up their presence. The US is funding a $152 million construction project at the former Soviet base in Camp Turzi, Romania, that will expand NATO’s capabilities in the Black Sea.
Romania better be careful or they could end up regretting NATO being on their territory. Russia controls the Black Sea.
And Bulgaria better about refusing an ‘offer’ from Washington.
Why more NATO troops for countries which are not threatened by Putin? Because Romania and Bulgaria have Black Sea coasts.
Whole thing is a farce. Unless the US and NATO are prepared to put 500,000 troops on Russia’s borders, a handful of “Enhanced Forward Presence” isn’t going to matter in the military balance. And if the US and NATO did that, Russia would strike first – and rightly so.
The purpose of “Enhanced Forward Pressure” is presumably to serve as a tripwire to justify a war if it’s attacked or even endangered.
A tripwire that ends up dead in 24 hours – just like the troops in South Korea. In the case of North Korea, which, however unlikely, might want to attack South Korea, it might make some sense. In eastern Europe it makes no sense since Russia has no intention of unilaterally attacking Europe absent a major provocation.
Besides, as a member of NATO under Chapter 5, the US is already committed to respond in that situation. Putting those forces there is intended as a threat to Russia, nothing more. And since they’re essentially useless, again, it’s a farce for public consumption. There might also be reasons of influencing the EU to stay America’s poodles and keep buying US military gear.
The whole purpose of a tripwire is to end up dead.
“it makes no sense since Russia has no intention of unilaterally attacking Europe absent a major provocation.”
That’s why a tripwire makes the most sense. The provocation would be minimized or even denied. It would be all about the tripwire. Ever heard of a little place called “Pearl Harbor?”
No one knows what number it would take to march on Moscow, but you are correct that it is not enough. I doubt NATO could ever field enough.
Russia historically has a policy of following retreating armies all the way home. So, if you fight Russia, someone’s capital city likely have enemy tanks rolling down the streets when it is over. It probably won’t be Moscow.
Hitler had over 3 million highly trained and disciplined troops and a massive technological advantage and still lost.
Even without Russia’s nuclear weapons, I see no way NATO could take on Russia since Russia now has superior technology in many areas and certainly has superior troops.