NATO Looks To Station Thousands Of Troops On Border With Russia

Tyler Durden's picture

Russia’s dramatic intervention in Syria has served to push the conflict in Ukraine (a country that is now partially governed by Star Wars characters) to the back of the world’s collective mind. After all, separatists exchanging fire with government forces and/or far-right “volunteer” battalions every couple of days against a dreary backdrop of rundown Eastern European towns isn’t nearly as exciting as Sukhois dropping bombs on sword-waving desert bandits and so, Ukraine’s crisis has gradually receded into the background.

That said, it’s important to remember that one of the principal reasons for deteriorating relations between Moscow and the West is the conflict in Ukraine. 

Indeed, Russian “aggression” in the region has triggered a series of snap drills on NATO’s part, the most amusing of which involved a set of war games centered around the capture of a fictional Ukrainian separatist leader called “Birdman” who lived in a shack in the forest. But all humor aside, NATO has also moved to beef up its capabilities near Russia’s border, as the US prepares to place heavy weapons in Poland and the Pentagon runs simulations to determine who would win a Balkan battle.

Now, with tensions running higher than ever thanks to the escalating situation in the Mid-East, NATO is set to bolster its Eastern flank to guard against what the West imagines is an imminent Russian invasion. Here’s WSJ with more:

NATO countries are discussing increasing the number of troops stationed in members bordering Russia and putting them under formal alliance command, part of a new effort to deter aggression from Moscow, according to diplomats and military officers.

 

Under one plan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would have a battalion in Poland and each of the three Baltic states—roughly 800 to 1,000 soldiers in each unit. A more modest version would have a single NATO battalion in the area.

While that sounds great to Washington’s war hawks, the Germans aren’t entirely sure that casting The Kremlin as the real world equivalent of the Death Star is a particularly sound idea when it comes to effective long-term foreign policy objectives:

While the U.S. and other allies are supportive, German officials in particular have expressed reservations, telling the allies in private discussions that they don’t want to treat Moscow as a permanent enemy or lock it out of Europe, despite the frictions over Ukraine and other provocations.

 

NATO officials say Berlin is unlikely to back the biggest deployment, but could support the more modest increase.

Of course even a “modest increase” will likely be viewed by Moscow as yet another escalation: 

Some allies argue even a small buildup could have the unintended consequence of making a conflict with Russia more likely if mishaps or miscalculations by Mr. Putin accidentally trigger a wider clash.

Yes, “miscalculations by Mr. Putin.” Like the kind of “miscalculations” that can occur when a world leader sees enemy troops massing at his/her borders for no reason whatsoever. 

But WSJ wants you to know that this isn’t an offensive move. Much like calls for regular warship patrols near China’s islands in the South Pacific, this is all about “deterrence”: 

Senior allied officials say there is a growing agreement that more needs to be done to show Russia that NATO is committed to defend its territory. “There is a sense if we are going to have a long-term defense and deterrence strategy we need to discuss what more we need to do beyond our readiness action plan,” said Alexander Vershbow, the NATO deputy secretary-general.

And because the best defense is everywhere and always a good offense, multiple countries are ready to put troops under NATO command: 

U.S. officials have said they are willing put the 150 U.S. soldiers currently in each of the Baltic states and in Poland under NATO command, and are open to rotating in additional troops from the U.S.

 

The plan would also require other countries that have deployed troops there to agree to a NATO command. The U.K. has about 150 troops there and Germany is deploying up to 200 soldiers.

 

Senior NATO officials say they believe they will be able to get troop contributions from member nations now, as more come to the conclusion that they face a long-term strategic competition with Russia. “The prospects are good that allies will contribute their fair share,” said a NATO official.

In a sure sign that this is in fact just another example of NATO sabre rattling and, at the risk of employing hyperbole, "warmongering", US defense officials swear they're not "picking a fight" (remember, the surest sign that something is probably true is when the official denials start to roll in): 

“We are not picking a fight; we aren’t trying to provoke him,” said a senior U.S. defense official.

We'll leave you with the following comments from The Kremlin's ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko: 

“NATO military planning generates confrontational approaches to security issues that in our view should belong to the past. The creeping increase in NATO’s military presence on our frontiers [is] testing [our] patience."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
molecool's picture

800 soldiers - that's nothing

Dr. Engali's picture

Tell that to their families.

Latina Lover's picture

I have a better suggestion.

Why don't you pick up your M-4, backpack and lead by example?  Go to the front and show them cowardly Russki's that Amerika means business. FOX TV will get your back.

Only those who have never seen 'action' would make such dumb ass statements.

Payne's picture

Not understanding the exchange of words.  800 troops is nothing,  similar to US crossing 12 mile boundary with Missile Frigate/Destroyer,

all for show.  Really bad drama.

Joe Trader's picture

Zero Hedge never writes these types of articles when Russia stationed S-300s in Belarus, or when it stationed mobile nuclear iskander missile launchers in kalingrad. How many times did russia threaten first strike nuclear attacks on countless countries in the past year?

847328_3527's picture

why not tation them on the borders of Austria and Germany and protect those countries's borders from a bigger threat then Russia?

Max Steel's picture

Welcome muritard. Play these propaganda games with idiots like you .Firstly Kaliningrad is Russian territory so they can do whatever they want Why Poland and Romania has stationed US defense missile shields ? Poland and Romania are not US territories got your answer why Belarus placed S-300 in its territory. Keep poking and face the consequences empire of chaos apologists.

Joe Trader's picture

Oh, so you firmly believe that weaker countries that Russia threatens have no right to form military alliances to defend themselves.

Baby Bladeface's picture
Baby Bladeface (not verified) Joe Trader Oct 29, 2015 12:09 PM

You youngster is trivial dunce. You didn't talk about it? Well, look smart uncle. You're a dunce.

Latina Lover's picture

Other than trolling Joe T, what makes you think Russia, unlike Amerika, is threatening 'weaker' countries?  What do the Baltics or the Ukraine have to offer, that Russia needs? More real estate??

How many countries has the USSA invaded?

Let me refresh your memory:

 

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Bosnia 1995

Iran 1998

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999

Afghanistan 2001

Libya 2011

Max Steel's picture

Troll you jist debunked your own crap. So Belarus has no right to defend itself from your retarded bloated colossus terrorist organization. NATO purpose is long gone and it should be disbanded. Bombing and killing Iraqis, Libyans etc just for their vested interests. West has been morally hacked. But you thick empire apologists cant fathom it. No issues, we'll see how long Empire can drag itself as a unipolar hegemoic retard on Earth. 

SoDamnMad's picture

Defense shields are different than offensive ballistic missiles.  One is used for knocking down attacking missiles while the other, 9K720 Iskander, can blow up cities, airports, harbor facilities,  big STUFF.

Latina Lover's picture

Yeah, the same Defense shield was supposedly set up to protect against Iran, LOL> 

The moronic NeoCons were planning a first strike against Russia, then using the so called shield to shoot down a russian counterattack. Their plan was to go into their hidey holes while useful idiots like yourself burn up in a nuclear holocaust.

I love America, but I hate what it has become, especially in the last 14 years!

Max Steel's picture

Lolthanks for showing your ignorance i wrote it down as a justification to his trolling remark of Why Belarus has stationed S-300s? DamnRetard cant you read Kaliningrad is Russian territory and they can put any offensive weapons in any amount. If you snobs jave a problem then do onething go dismantle your nukes from California base etc and wherever they are because they are offensive weapons and can destroy human life's.Apologists are bunch of fucking sooks.

 

 

Ouagadoudou's picture

Yes Joe, how many times exactly ?

Question Reality's picture

You would hear about Russia moving missiles to Kalingrad just as much as the US moving missiles to Alaska.

 

So unless part of eastern europe is suddenly a US state, then there is a huge difference between stationing troops and weapons in one's own territory, and stationing ones troops and weapons thousands of miles away from ones country.

Joe Trader's picture

And there was also no foul cry when Russia massed its troops on Ukraine's borders - there's so much hypocrisy on this website.

Motasaurus's picture

How dare Russia station its troops inside it's own country! Their actions are so much worse than the USA putting their troops in a foriegn country that is right on the border with Russia, after promising in 1990 to never do such a thing as a way to avoid total nuclear war and seal the (mostly) peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union! 

Stupid Russians! Stupid ZH for not being more pro-US in Eastern Europe!  

Latina Lover's picture

The USSA controlled Kiev puppets claim a russian invasion every other day.  Just google 'Russia invades Ukraine' and start laughing.

As we can see in Syria, if Russia really wanted to invade the Ukraine, Putin would be eating Lunch in Kiev, and Dinner in Lvov.   But why would Russia want to occupy a beyond bankrupt country full of entitled crazies, demanding 40, 50 60+ billion dollars?  Better to stick the bill to the EU.

With Russia showing its ability to smash the USSA ISIS puppets with a small air force, at least we will no longer have to listen to porkyschenko claiming he will retake Crimea.

 

 

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/poroshenko-ukraine-will-retake-...

Joe Trader's picture

Likewise motosaurus - how dare NATO station troops in an allied country. There's no difference, so what that 3 paid russian trolls upvoted you 15 times.

You guys whine about countries defending themselves against Russia, but make up excuses for Russia to do the same thing.

Latina Lover's picture

Just imagine if Russia stationed troops in Canada, on the US border.  What do you think the USSA reaction would be?  Hint: Cuban Missile Crisis.

NATO is an offensive military alliance controlled by Amerika. Fortunately, Putin showed Russia's teeth when 26 undetectable cruise missiles were fired 1800 Kilometres into Syria, a range that covers the entire Persian Gulf.  Notice how the Theodore Roosevelt Aircraft carrier suddenly left the Persian Gulf for maintenance?

 

Roosevelt was the 26th pres. of the US, so 26 missiles launched is proof that Putin has a sense of humor. But I'll bet they are not laughing in Washington.

 

researchfix's picture

"With Russia showing its ability to smash the USSA ISIS puppets with a small air force, at least we will no longer have to listen to porkyschenko claiming he will retake Crimea."

Wish you were right. But he will continue. Next talk will be about secret weapons and wonderweapons.

Thats the way when you put lie on lie.

Max Steel's picture

Your retardness and stupidity does not equate to ZH hypocrisy. So a country cant station its troop on its own territory boundering a country where US led putsch regime overthrew a legitimate govt causing crisis .

 

 

Why US troops are present in Europe? Thats not your border. Neither South Korea is US border and neither Central africa is american territory nor Middle East and let alone your occupied islands. 

 

Get yourself educated first before expressing your empty brain.

joe6px's picture

Those pesky Russians keep putting their borders right next to our military installations! How dare they!?

Question Reality's picture

Perhaps a geography lesson would help you. Ukraine borders Russia, and Russia stationing troops on their border is VASTLY different than the US or other countries stationing troops thousands of miles from their border.

researchfix's picture

Stay cool, they aren´t there anymore. The 7 Russian tanks are now in Syria.

Volkodav's picture

never happened

just understand that

 

9D382a4-114dk19's picture
9D382a4-114dk19 (not verified) Latina Lover Oct 29, 2015 11:07 AM

Hey hypocrite, your various diatribes against the United States - you routinely tell us it's a piece of shit, sorry excuse for a country- are undercut by the fact that you continue to remain here.

If America's such a lost cause, why bother to stick around?

Bay of Pigs's picture

Stuck in the 1950's and 1960's are you? "Better dead than red"? Lets go to Korea and Vietnam and stop those commies!

Are you also supportive of the shredding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and defending of the NSA/CIA/DHS and Patriot Act too?

Give your head a shake.

hungarianboy's picture

Don't worry, soon it will be 0 since Poland just had an election and guess who won? Certainly not the friends of US. So i wouldn't be surprised if it will be 0 after all. Most of eastern europeans have had enough of US so go figure.

Utah_Get_Me_2's picture

Apparently you are unaware of Dr. Engali and his work. Who are you again molecool? One of the surest signs of troll is the use of 'tard' or 'tart'.

spellbound's picture

Not true! I can say that molecool is a fucktard and that would be an appropriate use of the term...and I'm not a troll...otherwise, you're ABSOLUTELY correct about molecool

NeedleDickTheBugFucker's picture

molecool = disinformation agent of the Deep State that has been waiting for instructions for the past 6 years, 15 weeks.

Ghordius's picture

molecool uses a symbol as avatar that hints to some... europeaness, and last year he posted quite a lot of comments. just saying

NeedleDickTheBugFucker's picture

I stand corrected Ghordius.  I've been around for awhile and recognize most of the frequent posters.  For some reason, molecool flew under my radar screen, but I'm guessing it didn't cost me anything.

Question Reality's picture

If their families were truly concerned, they'd talk them out of being imperialist meat shields.

Bloppy's picture

Why have wars when we can print money? Printing solves everything.

 

 

 

 

Under fire over debate moderation, creepy John Harwood plays victim

CNBC / NYT reporter posts sympathy ploy, retweets Rubio, Carson attacks

http://tinyurl.com/nzottth

jaap's picture

Since there is so much cash available, let us spend it on those non productive things

Herodotus's picture

Putin should make a state visit to Mexico.

Tyrone Shoelaces's picture

Maybe we could get him to put Russian troops in Mexico to help secure the border!

Dr. Engali's picture

Have to give the people a boogie man in order to keep the spice flowing to the MIC.

Flagit's picture

 

+1 for the Dune reference.