The U.S. Might Position Heavy Weapons In Eastern Europe

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...aponry-in-east-europe/ar-BBl6eku?ocid=UP97DHP

Only enough for a brigade of 3-5,000 troops but it is a start. Probably 100 times that amount eventually needed but it is a start.

There is never going to be 100 times that number, but having some equipment there should focus Russian attention that they can't view NATO members as another Ukraine.

Eventually needed for what?

War with the Russians. I thought that was so very obvious. 500,000 American troops I presumed. plus Probably 100-150 non U.S. NATO troops vs. everything the Russians can pull together which I figure is anywhere from 400-700,000.

At any rate trying to pull that large a conventional force together and sustain it might kill the Russian economy anyway so perhaps no actual fighting would be necessary.

@Dayton3 wins this round by being honest. Si vis bellum, para bellum.

Russians -- even pacifists -- already see Russia's actions in the Ukraine partially motivated as a response to NATO's Eastern expansion, especially in the face of promises not to expand. So this is just one more turn of that screw, giving Russian war-hawks every reason to push on and stabbing everyone there in the back who tries to argue moderate and reasonable policy.

We could have avoided a lot of nonsense just by inviting Russia into the NATO alliance sometime around the turn of the century.

The human species is close to the edge of a cliff with such a move and all Dayton thinks of is masturbation material.

Total scumbag.

And you can't wait can you?

I was a big proponent of this during the 90s. It was a missed opportunity.

Yes, and the cause and outcome of a conflict with Russia is entirely dependent on whether or not Dayton pops wood. Because Dayton will indeed be the tipping point, no doubt about it.

I hope that's true, but I think this will do the opposite. It is just more of the same policy that they believe justified their actions in Ukraine in the first place. It tells them that yes, they should consider the new Ukrainian government along with these troop movements as a NATO threat.

Might be a good idea. Russia's becoming a bit aggressive with its neighbors, and that aggression might reach Eastern, then Western Europe if the Europeans don't stop playing the Neville Chamberlain card with Putin.

Imagine the opportunities for a history teacher though. Like teaching a class in World History on Dec. 7th, 1941 coming back to class that next day on Monday. Teaching about major events as they unfold before your eyes just before the Christmas break.

Wars are the exclamation points of history (not my term but I like it).

Putin boxed himself in because he thought gas and oil prices would remain extremely high, and that's where he gets almost all of his revenue. He can't use his petro-funded military to cut himself off from his Western European customers. That's why he tries so hard to keep Europe from fracking for natural gas and oil. His actions in the Ukraine have already cut Russia off from Western credit, and the drop in fuel prices has cut deeply into his military expansion and modernization.

Seems like he would remember the 1980s and how the Saudis kept oil prices low at the behest of the Reagan admin. to hurt the Soviet Union and Iranians.

But the reality he was seeing was Obama saying that fuel prices would necessarily skyrocket under his administration, while the West tried to commit to non-viable green energy that depended on high fuel prices and subsidies. It was also soon apparent that Obama didn't have the ability to persuade Arabs to do anything. So it looked certain that high fuel prices were here to stay, and Russia would have a seller's market.

Wait, I thought Obama was a Muslim . . .

He is, but Arabs can't persuade Arabs to do anything except wage jihad.

You said that. I certainly didn't.

Wrong kind of Muslim. But seriously, Obama is Baptist. Like George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter explicitly walked away from the southern baptist church, George W. Bush was never a baptist of any sort, and the united church of christ, to which Obama belongs, while baptist, is otherwise not at all like the southern baptist church that Carter used to be a part of.

Normally I'd agree, but Putin is not following the same logic. He sees our lack of action in Ukraine as a sign of weakness, and it encourages him to push harder. Until we have a clear and obvious bullwark against further expansion, he'll keep pushing whenever and wherever he can.

Emphasis added. The fact is that even at the height of the cold war we didn't have sufficient troops in Europe to constitute a "clear and obvious bulwark against further expansion." What stopped expansion then, and what will stop or contain it now, is the combination of a nuclear deterrent, diplomacy, limited Russian resources, and limited Russian ability to govern a hostile foreign population, with the addition of significant trade and property ownership incentives that didn't exist back then.

Yeah, I used the wrong word. What I meant was a tripwire. They have to believe we will engage, and the best way to emphasize that is with forward deployed forces.

At the moment I think that Gulf War I is my favorite war of my life.

I have high hopes that this might surpass it.

A limited nuclear exchange would be icing on the cake.

There is nothing whatsoever in the Budapest Memorandum (actually there are three) that could be interpreted as a binding 'promise' of non-expansion. In fact it's said that it's nothing more than a throwaway line by somebody during the negotiations. There is nothing in writing and that's what counts.

However, the Russians do keep bringing it up as a justification for their paranoia when it comes to the west.

IMHO Russia has enough other problems than to fear NATO. Sure, if Putin continues to try and bring the band back together, one day. But Russia as well as the NATO alliance certainly have other priorities. Cui bono from a NATO-Russian war? In contrast to, say, flourishing trade? Not even the maddest right wing psychopath US president 2016 would start a war with them for shits and giggles. What's the point? So the first move's gotta be Putin's. And he knows better than to start something up in the Baltics. He also knows nobody is buying his Maskirova/hybrid warfare strategy.

To whom? If we're going for peace with Russia, the only thing that counts is whether we are or they are signalling aggression ion the other's perception.