UK To Stockpile Tanks, Heavy Equipment Close To Russia's Border

Tyler Durden's picture

Following the May 12 launch of "Aegis Ashore", the operational name of Washington's European missile defense system based in Romania, which overnight swept away the tentative European nuclear arms race balance of power as it removed a Russian "first strike threat" thereby pressuring Russia to implement further nuclear offensive and defensive measures, Putin was livid, and as we reported yesterday, during his press conference with Greek PM Tsipras, the Russian president explicitly warned Poland and Romania that they are now in Russian first-strike crosshairs, and that Russia's most likely response would be the deployment of SS-26 nuclear-capable tactical missiles.

"If yesterday in those areas of Romania people simply did not know what it means to be in the cross-hairs, then today we will be forced to carry out certain measures to ensure our security," Putin told a joint news conference in Athens with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. "It will be the same case with Poland," he said.

"We have the capability to respond. The whole world saw what our medium-range sea-based missiles are capable of [in Syria]. But we violate no agreements. And our ground-based Iskander missiles have also proven themselves as superb,” continued Putin.

But what was most troubling, was Putin's implicit warning that should NATO continue to escalate, and push ever more troops into countries neighboring Russia, the Kremlin would be unable to prevent a likewise escalatory response: "We've been repeating like a mantra that we will be forced to respond... Nobody wants to hear us. Nobody wants to conduct negotiations with us."

And then, as if on cue, NATO made it even more explicit that its primary prerogative remains to provoke Russia into an offensive move, when over the weekend the Times reported that the British military may soon start stockpiling tanks and other heavy equipment in Eastern Europe as part of NATO's military beef up close to Russia's border. The decision may come at the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw in July.

Stock photo: British soldiers aboard tanks

Citing a threat to the Baltic States and Poland, the North-Atlantic alliance plans to deploy as many as 4,000 additional troops in those countries according to RT. The initial plan was for the US to provide half, with Germany and the UK shouldering the rest of the cost. However, last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Washington would only provide one 1,000-strong battalion and wanted the European members of the alliance to spend more on their own defense. To be sure, if Trump wins, NATO will be in even bigger dire straits as the real estate mogul has made it clear he wants to strip US contributions to NATO to a bare minimum, which would in turn force Europe to step up its own support of an organization whose sole purpose has always been deterring first the USSR and now Russia.

Britain's plan, however, remains the same. It will provide an armored battle group, which usually consists of about 1,000 troops, backed by tanks and artillery, to be deployed in the Baltic, the Times reported. Britain's other plans under consideration are to stockpile tanks and other military hardware across Eastern Europe and ramp up air defenses, the newspaper said.

As repeatedly documented on this website, Russia considers NATO's new deployments a hostile move and says they violate the spirit of the agreement the alliance signed with Moscow in 1994. NATO pledged not to deploy 'significant forces' in Eastern Europe on a permanent basis. However, it has been circumventing its pledge by rotating troops, as is the case with the four planned battalions, and debating the meaning of the word 'significant' in the deal, which was not legally defined.

The alliance claims that its military buildup at the Russian border is needed to counter Russian aggression. It justified the stance using the Ukrainian crisis, during which its region Crimea opposed a coup-imposed government in Kiev and voted in a referendum to break up from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

Moscow in turn, has said it used its military, which was stationed in Crimea under a treaty with Ukraine, to prevent violence during the transition period whlie accusing western powers, and especially the US State Department, of being behind the Ukraine presidential coup in early 2014. Kiev's foreign sponsors say the move was an annexation through military force rather than an exercise in self-determination.

The three Baltic nations, which were parts of the Soviet Union, and Poland are the most vocal European proponents of escalating the tension between NATO and Russia. Hosting additional troops gives those countries a boost to their local economies, but also makes them a target for Russian military planners, who respond to the extra military presence there.

Moscow insists that it poses no military threat to any NATO member and accuses the alliance of warmongering aimed at justifying greater military spending by European nations. Meanwhile, NATO is doing the same to Russia.

Whatever the cause, neither defensive (and increasingly offensive) block is even remotely considering to pause the escalation and build up of armed forces - and soon nuclear weapons - and certainly does not want to appear weak and relent. Which means the suddenly military, and now nuclear, escalation will be a daily fact of life, just as dramatic political winds of change blow across Europe and threaten to topple an establishment that had been comfortably in power for decades.

All of which makes for a potent cocktail for rising geopolitical volatility and thus, in the centrally-planned new paranormal, new all time highs in the stock "market."

Comment viewing options

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

Hey, stop this shit and go count your money again, please.

HowdyDoody's picture

Moving them closer to the Russian border is a generous thing to do. It will make it so much easier for Russia to trash the majority of the UK's ground forces.


Citxmech's picture

It our prevocations are at the behest of the MIC, it seems that these decision-makers are the real Commanders-in-Chief and generals - making them legitimate first targets in any conflict, right? 

Fuck M.A.D. if it doesn't include the "War Pigs."  If they pay as any war's first casualties and maybe that'll make a difference...

COSMOS's picture

This is also because they want to make sure the rest of Ukraine does not slip from their grasp.  Make no mistake the EU and NATO are an empire stretching its borders.

Blankone's picture

This is about taking control of countries close to Russia.  For many potential reasons.  Just some speculations:

To provide cover for groups of covert antagonist to enter Russia, attack and slip back across the border and be safe from Russia pursuing even with planes.

To take down any nationalistic groups in that country who resist the domination of their country and to  supply a military force for the puppet leaders who are put in place with corrupt elections.

To restrict movement of Russia's trade through those countries by activating these resources on the transportation routes.

Crushing any color counter movements sponsored by Russia.

Enforcing the dictates of their future puppet leaders that allow the outside agents/elite to rape the resources of these countries and the siphon off the citizens taxes to the outside powers and bankers. 

To be activated to subdue the nationalistic movements, which have already made a bit of noise, when they resist having refugees from the arab countries moved into them.

Most of these countries are to be second or third tier countries.  Countries like Sweden are being taken over through less militaryistic means.

Jubal Early's picture

All those Baltic countries have significant Russian minorities.  Once Zato has their troops and equipment stationed they will start persecuting the Russian minorities.  Then it will be Ukraine 2.

HowdyDoody's picture

The Baltics have really shot themselves in the foot. They have trashed their economies and sought to buy extremely expensive LNG rather than cheaper Gazprom gas. Still, the leaders are OK. They have been bought by the US and can look forward to a wealthy retirement, unlike their increasingly impoverished citizens.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.


henrietta's picture

Natural gas prices paid by Baltic nations up until that LNG terminal in Lithuania were THE HIGHEST in Europe.  Russia has played games with supply of oil in the past for example, Gazprom shutting supply to Baltic countries is a legit concern we have.  So any alternative to Gazprom is welcome.  

Gas is no longer strategic in any way.  Estonia uses almost no gas in electricity generation, Latvia and Lithuania can also resort to imports from Norpool, because all three countres are now hardwired into that market.  Gas is also losing out to biomass in district heating.  So as far as I am concerned, Putin may turn off gas, no one here cares.

henrietta's picture

No one is persecuting Russian minorities in the Baltic countries.  Read more propaganda by Putin.  Those alleged "Russian" minorities are not 100% ethnic Russian, either.  Lots of Ukrainians, Belorussians and others nations in thre FSU that were occupied by Stalin.

Ghordius's picture

"This is also because they want to make sure the rest of Ukraine does not slip from their grasp.  Make no mistake the EU and NATO are an empire stretching its borders."

cute. meanwhile, the "grasp" of another empire is a brotherly embrace, bestowing kisses, of course

the partisanship of your statement is top-notch. one side wears black hats, the other wears white hats. period

it's two MICs trying to sell moar weapons. one of them is preaching since years that we in europe ought to buy moar weapons, the other is rebuilding it's former global base

"defenseless!!", the rallying cry

Haus-Targaryen's picture

"preaching for years ..."

I don't think this is predominately a MIC stimulus package from a Russian point of view.  I think this is more of less of a the beginning of a existential fight which Eastern & Northern & Southern Europe has surrendered to years ago. 

Ghordius's picture

you don't think so? then read about how much Russia has re-modernized it's weapon production

you are hinting to great cultural and political conflicts. imho they get in the way when you look at geopolitics, raw and bare

notice the recent articles about Russian hardware. notice the recent comments on Russian hardware

if you are looking for a great existential fight, everything looks like a great existential fight. meanwhile, Russians don't believe that The End Is Near, That Christ Wants You To Defend Israel, and that The Last War Will Involve Israel. That's all stuff in which only some believe in, mostly in a country that makes for 5% of the world's population

OT: have you found out the relationship between identities in your surroundings?

Haus-Targaryen's picture

This has nothing to do with the End of Days set out in Revelation ... this has to do with;

1) The Anglo-American empire attempting to consolidate its own power by eliminating those that could challenge it.  

2) The only large states which might or might not be on board are China, Russia & perhaps India.  Still to be determined re; the Indians.

Most I asked identified with some form of "European." Some identified as German, while others identified as neither and choose Bavarian.  

Ghordius's picture

1) Anglo-American? And what about... Israel?

2) you just conveniently subordinated all continental european countries to the status of pawns. I find this stance a bit strange from you, considering your usual stance in other things. As soon as it is geopolitics, you sound either Russian or American, either RT or US-media, imho

"some form of "European"? now that is something I never heard. Bavarians, yes. Sometimes they can imagine themselves even joining Austria, or going alone. CSU might still split from the CDU, btw

the "End of Days" has a lot to do with the "Expectation of Great Conflict" that buzzes in the average American's head, imho. Hollywood is full of that. It's all zombies, end of the world, ww3, and so on. of course, all good selling points for moar ammo

Haus-Targaryen's picture

1) I am not one of those whom know that Jews run the world.  I am not sure who controls who.  I lean more along the lines of those that really run the world are very rarely in the spotlight, and don't have any national affiliation, irrespective of to DC or Tel Aviv.

2) That is because all continental European countries are pawns, just like the US and UK are.  See #1 above.

3) The most common answer I got was "I am both first, as they mean the same thing."  Most refused to make a distinction between the two. The most direct respondants were people who said German without hesitation.  For every other answere there was some diliberation involved, as they attempted to find a PC way out of the question.

4) Humanity is a violent species.  To expect peace forever and ever and ever amen is as naive as someone who expects the world to collapse tomorrow.  There is a time for war and a time for peace.  Expecting either scenario to last forever is illogical.   

Ghordius's picture

1) some countries punch well above their size and further then their immediate surroundings. Israel is one of them. And it's exploring it's way into NATO

2) that's the problem. you don't see the minor "pawn"'s influence nor their... agency. in fact, you attribute only agency to two groups: Russia and "Them". That's the "black & white" view, I'm afraid

3) it's interesting, isn't it? doesn't tie in with my prediction of something in the tune of "being a good German means being a good European"?

4) that's that "Darwinism" that is part and parcel of that "End Of Times, Soon", imho

man of Wool's picture

The forces are being put into these countries to re-assure these countries that they are protected from Russia. They are not there to attack Russia.

mary mary's picture


Let me guess.  Because Russia invaded Libya?  Because Russia invaded Iraq?  Because Russia invaded Syria?  Because, in WW2, Russia invaded Nazi Germany?  Because Russia invaded England?  No.  None of these sound right to me.  Guess I can't guess.

Jubal Early's picture

Because, in WW2, Russia invaded Nazi Germany?

Stalin was poised to invade Germany in June 1941, there is extensive evidence for this.   Hitler beat him to the punch and was able to destroy so much forces and equipment because Stalin wasn't ready for defence, only offence.   It is ironic that the shoe is on the other foot this time, and now Zato may end up with its troops as cannon fodder.

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Exactly right.  

After Poland was split, essentially everyone knew (shoot, even American/British political cartoonists knew it) that either Stalin was going to invade Germany, or Germany was going to invade Russia.  

I often look back on the war, and so many decisions that were made make me seriously think

1) Hitler never wanted to win the war; or
2) The Allies had a spy or two at the very very very top.  

Reason I say this, for example;

1) Why did Hiter split his force 150 km away from Moscow.  He had a shot to take it with the entire Wehrmacht ... but once he split it simple demographics destroyed him completely.

2) Why did he not pursue the troops at Dunkirk?  Those 300,000 troops came back and was the equivlant of 3 entire armies he just let "escape."  The fight for Dunkirk would have been, more or less, "You surrender or you all die" and I imagine would have only lasted a few days had he done it.

3) Why did he -- even when the Luftwaffe was maxed out -- insist on bombing London every night for 9 months solid, a city/target that was merely symoblic in nature?  Had he spent the Luftwaffe's resources going after the RAF and her production capabilities, the battle for the skies would have ended up differently.  

4) Why did he bother with Greece?  He did not need the mainland.  He needed a few islands south of the mainland and those could have been easily taken without the time, money and lives spent on planting the Swastika on top of the pathanon.  

5) Why did he suspend his nuclear weapons program, which was 1-2 years ahead of our weapons program in 1941 -- after the math proved it would work?  

Stuff like this makes me scratch my head.  Much of WWII we are taught in schools in completely crap -- utter propaganda.  

D-Day was not about liberating Europe from the Nazis -- the Soviets could have done that by themselves.  D-Day was about preventing the Soviets from taking over all of Europe.  

Jubal Early's picture

I think Hitler knew that WWII was a Zio-war of white genocide.  Stalin and the USSR were essentially one arm of the tribe, while the US was the other.  How could he fight them without doing the jews dirty work?  That was his biggest dilemna.

If there had been an Israel then he probably would have invaded it first.

I believe he bombed London in retaliation for Churchills bombing of Berlin and other northern German cities.

Jubal Early's picture

@Haus:  Can you provide a link to your Molyneaux interview?  Or is it not on youtube yet...

Déjà view's picture

4) On this day in 1940, Adolf Hitler meets with Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano over Mussolini’s disastrous invasion of Greece.Mussolini surprised everyone with a move against Greece; his ally, Hitler, was caught off guard, especially since the Duce had led Hitler to believe he had no such intention. Even Mussolini’s own chief of army staff found out about the invasion only after the fact!

Not only America had problems with sheepherders.

Info is so easy to look up!


Mussolini’s Initial Invasion

The Greco – Italian War, as Italy’s invasion of Greece is now referred to as, took place on October 28, 1940 and lasted until April 23, 1941. In Mussolini’s mind, the invasion should have taken two weeks, at the most.

At the time of the initial invasion, Mussolini wanted to impress Hitler and mimic his military success. Greece, he thought, would be a surefire way to give him the respect he so craved.

So, when Metaxas wouldn’t allow Mussolini to occupy Greece, he used this as an opportunity to invade in an attempt to show his allies his military prowess. At the time, Italy occupied Albania so they were bolstered by this initial success.

Difficult First Week of Battle

Rather than succumbing to the Italians’ show of force, the Greek army fought for a solid week and eventually pushed the Italian army back into Albania. This was humiliating for Mussolini who faced opposition for his attack into Greece by his allies and even some of his own generals. What was supposed to be an easy victory became a desperate fight for survival.

At this point, Hitler was in a tough situation. On the one hand, Mussolini was one of his strongest allies. On the other, he didn’t support Italy’s attack on Greece in the first place. An Italian defeat in Greece, however, would only serve to strengthen the Nazi cause. So, he was forced to step in and aid Italy. After several months, Greece finally did succumb and a period of German occupation followed.

Additional Reasons for Italy Invading Greece

Even though Hitler and Mussolini were strong allies, they also didn’t always get along. Mussolini wanted to believe that they were on an equal footing. However, Hitler launched several campaigns without first informing him. There are some who believe that Mussolini attacked Greece behind Hitler’s back out of retaliation.

Mussolini also understood that the airports and seaports in Greece were strategically important. Since England supported Greece, Mussolini believed that the British controlled these ports. If he were to attack and then occupy Greece, Italy would have control of these ports.

As you can see, there are a few reasons why Mussolini attacked Greece initially. However, things didn’t go as planned for him. Even though Germany eventually succeeded where Mussolini failed, Mussolini’s actions could have caused the ultimate defeat of Hitler and his allies during World War II.

Categorized in: 

This post was written by

hestroy's picture

There is ONLY one source for this claim. Suvorov. Agent of CIA.

mary mary's picture

I haven't read enough about this.  I saw the movie "Stalin", which I enjoyed, though I don't know how accurate it was, and in the movie, Stalin drowned a whole bunch of senior Army officers, and then, when Hitler attacked, Stalin told the General Staff, "counter attack here, here, and here", and they answered, "but we can't, because we have no officers to lead the troops".  It was a memorable couple of scenes, but it's no substitute for reading.

ft65's picture

There are some good comments here. Putin is not Stalin, as for Hitler and his "tactics", 20 x 20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hitler started something that was impossible to finish, especially once the USA industrial might was unleashed with the 8th and 15th Army Airforces.

WW3 has already started and is as different as WW1 was to WW2 (WW1 and WW2 were only 20 years apart). The reasons are the same and has everything to do with population, industrialisation and collapse of economic power.



Ghordius's picture

man of wool wrote: "The forces are being put into these countries to re-assure these countries that they are protected from Russia. They are not there to attack Russia."

they are negligible. they are absolutely insufficient to even think about attacking Russia. even Napoleon would not attack Russia with so few of them. no, they are not there to attack Russia. only an utter fool would think so

but here it is, ZH's "Commentariat" in it's full "retarded" splendor

mary mary's anwer was: "Because? Let me guess.  Because Russia invaded Libya?  Because Russia invaded Iraq?  Because Russia invaded Syria?  Because, in WW2, Russia invaded Nazi Germany?  Because Russia invaded England?  No.  None of these sound right to me.  Guess I can't guess."

while Jubal is all about "ZATO". now, let's go down that list, for the fun of it

Libyia's Ghaddaffi was protected by France & Italy (with German support) from US/UK bombings. most of them

Iraq... Bush (US) and Blair (UK) told the world that "Saddam has WMDs". "Coalition of the Willing" & "Freedom Fries" ensued

Syria... is still a Russian protectorate. Except that Russia is fine with France and Germany there. strange, isn't it? but look, Russian media are complaining a bit about the US and the UK operating there. just a small bit, a small voice to the great booming voice of US media explaining that Syria and ISIS will be fine thanks to a US-Russian understanding

meanwhile, mary mary does not mention that Russia just recently annexed some parcels of the former SU. in the same spirit, the fact that Nazi Germany and Uncle Jo's Soviet Union only shared a border because they cooperated into invading and partioned out Poland is conveniently... forgotten

Jubal Early's picture

"they are negligible. they are absolutely insufficient to even think about attacking Russia."

If that were true, then they are absolutely insufficient to defend the baltics if Putin really wanted to invade too.  But this is a lie.  Just look at all the drivel the zato propaganda organs put out about the ABM's in Poland and Romania being about Iran, and now they are about Crimea.  Or the Cook loitering off the shore of Kalingrad sending out polish ASW helicopters.  Or all the spy planes flying right up to the Russian borders, often without their transponders turned on.

At a minimum it is about provocation, but there is certainly an element of espionage and electronic warfare about it.  It is not plausible that the ZATO MIC is just rattlng sabres to get more money, as we see with all the increased budgets across Zato.  And why all the shenanigans in Macedonia, illustrating Zato's continuing expansion.

From a Russian standpoint, Zato is setting up facilities all along their borders, prepositioning equipment, and doing what else?

The "what else" is the issue here.  The US defense budget dwarfs that of all of Europe inclduding Russia. Israel also has loads of military technology, as does Germany.  Maybe its viral warfare.  Particle beams?  Satellite coordination?  Drone technology?  Weather manipulation?  Mind control through electronics?  None of us can say.

One thing speaks volumes though:  why is the EU and all the Europeans allowing these blantant provocations and brinksmanship to continue without any of the elites or media daring to mutter a word? After all, the warsaw pact is now part of Zato, and Russia is outnumbered what, 40 to 3?

Ghordius's picture

Jubal, if you attack a country like Russia... you need millions

at the same time, you don't need millions for a "tripwire" and/or a demonstration of a willingness to defend a territory

meanwhile, it is not ZATO, it's not even really NATO, it's the UK

the US defense budget dwarfs the whole world. it's half of the world's expenditures: 800 billions per year

Russia spends 80 billions. the eurozone 19 countries together twice that, 160 billion. the EU 28 countries three times that, 240 billions. numbers very rough, from memory. I'm sure someone will correct it with more exact numbers, but that's the proportions

"why is the EU and all the Europeans allowing these blantant provocations..."

because it is not "the EU" and it is not "all the Europeans"

it is the three Baltic states. all previously part of the Soviet Union. all with minorities, Russian-speaking ones

supported by Poland, which is convinced Russia is not up to any good, supported by the "Visegrad Group" countries, and yes. supported by the UK and ultimately by the US

Russia is not outnumbered. Russia is still impossible to invade and occupy. So is most of the EU.

but perhaps we might excuse those three little countries up there to find they can, in the same way that Crimea was not impossible to annex, regardless of what your opinion on if it was right or not is

nobody is really making Russia's life difficult, with a couple of British tanks there

we are not talking about US spy planes flying over them or something more hostile

Jubal Early's picture

because it is not "the EU" and it is not "all the Europeans"

Perhaps in your EU utopian fantasy bubble all of Europe is pleased to see Zato provokations as a ""tripwire" and/or a demonstration of a willingness to defend a territory" but in your fantasy bubble "Ghaddaffi was protected by France & Italy (with German support) from US/UK bombings." which is absolute drivel.

Ghordius's picture

Jubal, I have evidence for that. in Ghaddaffi itself, in his hilarious tents that he was allowed to set up in Paris and Rome, in the way US Bombers had to fly around allied airspace closed to them because they wanted to bomb Ghaddaffi

meanwhile, you phantasize in "ZATO", to which I repeat: no, Israel isn't part of NATO, Israel would like to be part of it

I could point to further evidence in the diplomatic wrangle that we had around Russia. but something gives me the impression that you aren't interested, actually

Jubal Early's picture

There is no treaty organization called "Zato", Ghorius.  It is satire. The governments of US, UK and EU are controlled by zionists, and they control Nato, so Nato is a puppet treaty organization run by a group of people who are predominately Zionist, although there are plenty of shabboh goy involved as well.

The nofly zone over Libya was voted as follows:


Voting for the resolution

Permanent members: United States, Britain, France
Non-permanent members:: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa


Permanent members: Russia, China
Non-permanent members: Germany, Brazil, India

So although Germany abstained, they did not prevent it.  France and Britain voted for the nofly zone which was turned into a Gaddafy hunting excercise with in days.

Trying to claim that because France let Ghaddafy pitch is tent means they protected him is beyond absurd, but it is the kind of drivel the spews so often from your mouth.

Ghordius's picture

Jubal, you have picked the last resolution. You have not picked all those before. Nor the discussions that led to abort previous resolutions. Yes, they dropped him, at the end. No, this does not mean they did not protect him, before. some 20 years

again, I am telling the story as it unfolded since the 80's, and you are concentrating on the very last years

mary mary's picture

Ghordius do you work for the State Department or CIA?

Ghordius's picture

"There is no treaty organization called "Zato", Ghordius.  It is satire. The governments of US, UK and EU are controlled by zionists, and they control Nato, so Nato is a puppet treaty organization run by a group of people who are predominately Zionist, although there are plenty of shabboh goy involved as well"

that's the problem. all that satire prevents us from having a frank discussion about how much

how much is the gov of the US influenced by Zionists?

how much is the gov of the UK influenced by Zionists?

how much are the govs of the EU (other) Countries influenced by Zionists?

I maintain it's in decreasing order. your satire maintains it's "all puppets", with full control

mary mary's picture

Libya: I thought France flew at least a hundred "sorties" (bombing missions) into Syria.  Bombing Syria is not protecting Syria from being bombed by the US.  Also, France could have demanded a UN Security Council meeting.  France could even have sailed some warships to Libya to push back the USA Cruise Missile Launching Ships.

Poland: granted that nobody seems to love the Poles (and I don't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with the Poles) but after losing so many millions of Russian lives in WW2, Uncle Joe decided that he simply could NOT trust Europeans not to start yet a third "world war" that would end up killing Russians.  Thus the Iron Curtain.  Also, don't forget that the UK had it in for Bolshevik Russia from Day One, and still has it in for Russia.

Syria: Russia is there at the request of the Syrian government.  That's all I need to know.


Ecclesia Militans's picture

Russia did invade Poland in 1939 along with their Nazi allies, a fact conveniently forgotten from most contemporary arguments made by Russophiles.

I spent a year in Libya in 2012-2013, 6 months in Iraq, and almost 4 years in Afghanistan working for various NGOs.  I am no lover of militant warmongering, but at no time did I ever get a sense that the US had invaded anyone, and in fact I met volumes of people who were grateful that the US was apparently expending something (blood, treasure) to affect some kind of systematic change from their percived status quo.

I am not justifying any of these foreign interventions.  But I think it merits pointing out that broad, generalized statements such as your implicit defense of Russian geopolitical movements can always be challanged.

mary mary's picture

I think most NGO's are front groups and spies for the International Bankers.  Maybe you weren't a spy, but I bet somebody was.

beijing expat's picture

Here is a scenario: Paranoid and delusional Putin launches a preemptive strike and obliterates all NATO assets in Eastern Europe. He then issues a statement that if NATO retaliates he will launch his strategic arsenal and end Western civilization. How do you respond?

Nexus789's picture

Get a clean pair of pants?

BarkingCat's picture

Problem with your statement is that Putin is neither paranoid nor delusional. 

He is quite restrained when you consider all the facts. 

BarkingCat's picture

Problem with your statement is that Putin is neither paranoid nor delusional. 

He is quite restrained when you consider all the facts. 

beijing expat's picture

Ok, let's say master strategist Putin sees throug the lies and bullshit and knows he is being setup.

BarkingCat's picture

I did not call him master strategist.

I do not subscribe to the theory of Putin being a chess master playing against those who like checkers.

Part of the reason he is getting pushed around is that he is very timid.

He is doing everything that he can to avoid confrontation. 


If he is avoiding direct confrontation for a strategic reason that is the only thing that I will consider masteful plan. That is he knows that NATO nations are imploding like the Soviet Union imploded and he is simply waiting them out.

HowdyDoody's picture

He is not timid. He knows the fucking reality of war. He also believes in the primacy of international law, rather than 'might makes right'. Nobody in their right mind wants war, unless there is no alternative. The trouble is that the US has never experienced real war on its territory and is populated by people who glorify violence. Couple that with impending economic collapse. The outcome is not going to be pleasant.

Allen_H's picture

It's not strategy as much as timing, usually its tit for tat, but Russia times it moves just ahead of the terrorist west. When they see a threat coming they address it immediately. As opposed to the west which carries on like a drunkard fumbling and pushing all in front of it.

War is to be avoided, and Russia does all to avoid this, and when they get pushed far enough, it will be hell for the terrorist West, they will experience the death and destruction they have been pushing for on a scale bigger than anything they had imagined, and I will say good riddance to satanic trash.

ft65's picture

Here is a scenario: Paranoid and delusional Clinton launches a preemptive strike and obliterates all Russia's assets in Eastern Europe. She issues a statement that if Russia retaliates she will launch her strategic arsenal and end Western civilization. How do you respond?

Is Putin so different than Obama, Bush, Clinton, Cameron, Blair?