Posts
NATO Begins Encirclement Of Russia
15
June, 2016
NATO prepares
a veritable military buildup in Eastern Europe:
German soldiers are operating in Lithuania, the British take over
Estonia, and US soldiers move in to protect Latvia. The
Canadians will be in Poland. Also in the Mediterranean, combat
units are being increased. Russia
perceives the activity as a threat, but hasn’t yet announced any
countermeasures.
At the NATO
summit during July 8th-9th in Warsaw, the Alliance will adopt a
massive military presence along Russia’s border. Russia
is classified by NATO as a threat. NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg recently said in Washington that the
US and the EU have the right in the form of NATO to defend its
territories on foreign soil. Critics
of this strategy believe that it’s possible this upgradewill
increase significantly the danger of a conflict between the
superpowers.
Wednesday in Brussels, the defense ministers want the military
alliance to take decisions which will then be sealed by the leaders
in Poland. NATO wants to strengthen its military presence on its
eastern borders significantly, and to position foreign combat troops
battalions in Poland and the three Baltic states. Germany
is the core of the Association in Lithuania, the British in Estonia,
and the United States is expected to be that in Latvia. What
remains unclear, however, is who will be sending troops to Poland.
Maybe Canada will take on
this task, it was last reported from Polish diplomatic sources as
quoted by Reuters. “’The
summit in Warsaw will be President Obama’s last (NATO summit) and
the U.S. wants it to be a success. It will ensure that the fourth
framework country is found, possibly by leaning on Canada,’ the
source said. ‘Washington will bend over backwards here.’”
Germany wants to send at
least 600 soldiers to Lithuania, which will constitute the core of
the local battalion there with about 1,200 soldiers.
The battalions are to
include around 1,000 soldiers each, and are not permanently stationed
in the eastern countries, but replaced regularly. By means of
this rotation, the military alliance wants to avoid
a formal breach of the NATO-Russia Founding Act 1997,
which prohibits the permanent stationing of a “substantial”
number of combat troops in the east. What specifically
“substantial” means, however, is controversial. [In other words:
Obama wants to be more aggressive than the NATO-Russia Founding Act
of 1997 might allow; he wants to violate the treaty in such a way
that he’ll be able to say he’s not really breaking the treaty.]
Poland and the
Baltic countries want to push NATO to be even more aggressive. They
demand among other things, increased aerial surveillance by fighter
jets of the alliance partners on the Baltic. Poland had in the
past also repeatedly demanded the permanent stationing of NATO combat
troops [which would clearly violate the NATO-Russia Founding
Act]. The Baltic States and Poland have been feeling threatened
since Russia’s March 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of
Crimea.
NATO defense
ministers will also discuss a new mission in the Mediterranean. What
exactly is planned there, is difficult to judge. Officially the
rise of extremist ISIS militias and the refugee crisis are given as
reasons for that expansion of NATO. ISIS is financed and otherwise
supported by Saudi Arabia, the closest ally of the West in the Middle
East. A good reason why NATO, the most powerful fighting force
in all of the world’s military, have not coped with that group of
more or less random ragtag mercenaries, is not known. Russia is
fighting on the side of Syria against ISIS and against previously
officially the US-backed al-Nusra Front [Al Qaeda in Syria — the
Syrian affiliate of the group that did 9/11].
The NATO alliance is
looking for a new combat mission in the Mediterranean, as the 11
September 2001 NATO response “Active
Endeavor”patrolling
the Mediterranean to stop terrorists there, has actually become
obsolete. The ministers therefore want to consider whether the
mission should be transformed into a more general one to strengthen
security in the Mediterranean. Also being considered is to
transform that mission to a closer cooperation with the European
Union, which maintains its own naval deployment off the Libyan coast
against human traffickers and the rescue of refugees in distress
under the name “Sophia”. At dinner on Tuesday therefore also
the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and government
representatives from the non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden will
also be in NATO headquarters.
The agenda on
Wednesday also includes the future of the NATO mission in
Afghanistan. According
to current plans, the US wants to reduce the number of its troops in
Afghanistan from its current 9800 to 5500. Whether Obama will
hold to that objective despite the poor security situation in
Afghanistan isn’t yet clear.
The New Cold War - NATO Plans 40k Force, Bases on Russia's Border
15
June, 2016
The
military alliance has called for permanent bases on Russia’s border
manned by 4,000 troops and an additional 40,000 rapid deployment
force, but how will the United States pay for their latest round of
war mongering?
On
Monday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed that NATO
will deploy four 'robust' international battalions to Poland and the
Baltic states to counter fears of 'Russian aggression.'
The
program, to be agreed to by NATO leaders at the July 8-9 summit in
Warsaw, calls for permanent bases along Russia’s border, with
nearly 4,000 permanently-stationed troops to function as a
"tripwire," and an additional 40,000-troop NATO Response
Force that can be deployed into combat within days.
NATO’s
plans to establish a permanent force along Russia’s eastern flank,
a violation of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, has been viewed by
Moscow as the latest provocative measure by a Western alliance that
gives every appearance of clamoring for a return to the Cold War.
The
ramp-up follows the unprecedented Anaconda-2016 war games in Poland,
featuring over 30,000 troops, led by German forces on the 75th
anniversary of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.
Both
Poland and Romania have been leading the charge for NATO expansionism
along Russia’s border, claiming that regional security is in peril
following violent political unrest in Ukraine. Both Warsaw and
Bucharest are demanding a troop presence and calling for
missile-defense shields.
Polish
and Romanian leaders have aptly employed Russophobic rhetoric to
strengthen their domestic hand and also look to benefit their
national economies by garnering increased military investments to
create local jobs.
One
year ago, as the drumbeats of the new Cold War began, Russian
President Vladimir Putin cautioned that "some countries are
simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to Russia and
they just want to play the role of front-line countries that should
receive some supplementary military, economic, financial or some
other aid."
President
Putin went on to blast the ‘Russian aggression’ talking point,
saying, "I think that only an insane person and only in a dream
can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO."
Nonetheless,
Moscow now faces an increasing military buildup on their borders, by
NATO leaders with either designs to incite conflict or profound
misconceptions about Russia’s intentions.
On
Wednesday, Radio Sputnik interviewed foreign policy analyst Dr.
Martin McCauley to discuss NATO’s inflammatory posture toward
Russia and what it holds for the future.
"From
the American point of view, they would like NATO to have a more
expansive global role and to be able to get member states to spend
more of their own money," said Dr. McCauley. "The other
members are reluctant to spend more, despite US calls for each
country to put forward at least 2% of their GDP for defense."
The
analyst stated that most European member states remain content with
allowing the United States to foot the bill, allowing for national
funds to be used for domestic, economic, and political concerns.
Currently, only Britain has committed to spending 2% of their GDP on
defense, whereas other key NATO allies, like Germany, contribute less
than 1.3% of their economic output to the alliance.
"If
you look at Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, they are the countries
calling for more investment and a greater NATO presence, leading to
the permanent battalions of 4000 troops to be stationed on Russia
border," said the analyst.
"These countries are
also calling for a total force of 40,000 later on, which almost
certainly will be confirmed during the NATO summit in Warsaw next
month."
"The
big question is, who is going to pay for this?" asked Dr.
McCauley. He observed that both Eastern and Western Europeans intend
to spend as little as possible on defense, while relying almost
solely on American military beneficence, but the status quo has been
disrupted by Republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s arguments that,
"America has spent too much money already and that NATO is past
its sell-by date so it is up to Europeans to spend more."
Response
to US Navy Destroyer in Black Sea 'Expected' - Ex-Navy Officer
Dr.
McCauley suggested that there is a sharp divide among European
countries on whether Russia poses enough of a threat to justify a
significant increase in defense spending, with countries like the
Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary arguing that there is no risk
of Russian invasion and no justification for the expenditures, while
Poland and the Baltic states claim that Moscow presents an immediate
threat.
The
analyst posited that the United States and Poland will likely be
forced to increase their defense spending disproportionately, as they
will have a hard time convincing Europeans of 'Russian aggression.'
Dr.
McCauley pointed out that protests against NATO deployments in
Greece, a country in a fiscal crisis, are a result of military
spending increases that have forced drastic cuts to domestic
necessities. The analyst expects similar uprisings across Europe for
the same reasons, as the EU economy faces additional shocks in years
to come
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.