Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Guardian G.I.]

The US government wants to deploy Abrams tanks, APCs , Bradley combat vehicles, and various other heavy weapons in Poland, and in the Baltic states. The Pentagon and the White House still need to give clearance for it to happen, but that is expected to happen soon.

It will be the first time, since the cold war ended, that the US will have pemanent forces stationed in Europe.
Apparently US intelligence is worried enough about Putin that they feel the need to take this action.

In response, Russia will probably start deploying forces at the Russian side of the border.

Then, USA will find it a sign of aggression and respond with more troops, Russia will follow suit, etc.

[martinuzz]

It's the other way around. Pentagon is doing this in response to Russian troup buildup along the Eastern European border

[Sheb]

Well, the US had troops in Germany, Belgium and a bunch of other places... It is the first time that the US has an effective military presence east of the old Iron Curtain. Quite ironic that Russia's fear of being encircled are finally being realized after it freaked out the Balts and Poland with its Ukrainians shenanigans.

[Loud Whispers]

Maybe Agincourt had something to do with it?

It never ceases to amaze me how English PR has overblown a few victories it had over France troops, and have shunned down all defeats that it has suffered. France have won the war and repelled England from its territory, and yet everyone only remembers times when France lost a few battles.
Truly an amazing feat of propaganda.

What? Only if English PR is run by Russia Today. Agincourt WAS an amazing victory, brought about by better leadership, tactics, soldiers and the English not being team killing fucktards. It was a victory no one expected, and its impact rippled throughout Yurope all the way to the Pope, who found the Frogs and Anglos still too indecisively locked in combat to stop the Ottomans rolling all over the Balkans. It ended Knights, with gorillion folded English longbows that shoot through tanks. That is why it is remembered. That is sexy. No one is going to recall how the French took over Aquitaine through siege after siege, because those are hideously boring. Few people consider logistics to be as sexy as fighting. Contrast that with Napoleon, who is far more famous than Wellington, despite the latter giving the former a thorough thrashing. Why? Wellington was one of the history's greatest defensive commanders, but that's not nearly as sexy as Napoleon baguettekrieging throughout Europe and sticking his cannons into the sovereignty of others.

[mainiac]

Well, the US had troops in Germany, Belgium and a bunch of other places... It is the first time that the US has an effective military presence east of the old Iron Curtain. Quite ironic that Russia's fear of being encircled are finally being realized after it freaked out the Balts and Poland with its Ukrainians shenanigans.

Yeah but Putin is a strategic mastermind who is playing the long game.

[Sergarr]

Well, the US had troops in Germany, Belgium and a bunch of other places... It is the first time that the US has an effective military presence east of the old Iron Curtain. Quite ironic that Russia's fear of being encircled are finally being realized after it freaked out the Balts and Poland with its Ukrainians shenanigans.

Yeah but Putin is a strategic mastermind who is playing the long game.

For one, the increase in presence of actual NATO troops in Europe will reinforce the internal propaganda campaign that NATO wants to take over Russia. That will ensure that Putin's popularity support will stay high, as most people in Russia do not want to get invaded by NATO, and Putin has shown himself as the most military-oriented leader of Russia since the fall of Soviet Union.

[mainiac]

He's a political genius!

[martinuzz]

I still just can't understand how any well-thinking Russian would actually believe that NATO has any interest at all to take over Russia.

[Helgoland]

It's full of Russians, for one thing.

[Mr. Strange]

And NATO invasion of Russia has been a commonly used thing in russian politics since soviet era, it's the norm there.

[Sergarr]

I still just can't understand how any well-thinking Russian would actually believe that NATO has any interest at all to take over Russia.

NATO countries don't exactly have a good track on not taking over (or regime-changing, or invading, or destroying the government of) other countries. Many people in Russia fear that, if Russian military is not strong enough, some NATO countries might decide to do the same to Russia, under the pretense of "liberating Russians from the evil dictator Putin".

[mainiac]

It's the newest story under the sun.

[Avis-Mergulus]

Yeah, invasion? Goddamit, no, nobody thinks like that here and you're doing yourself no favors if you think we do. (Well, perhaps WWII trauma does result in some paranoia about invasion, but generally no). Fear of shenanigans that will result in another political division and another nineties? Hell yes. It's the paranoia of the last ten years. One of Putin's major advantages is the fact that he's not Yeltsin.
Also, belief that a confrontational policy towards NATO would result in a better economic or political position for Russia in the long run? We have that here. Whether it's substantiated or not, it's not for me to say, I can't into geopolitics. Also revanchism. It's pretty popular.

I dunno, after some reading, modern Russia seems a bit like 70s America in the politics sense, what with the militarism and the jingoism and the counterculture and the things. Add an extra helping of Glorious Past about which nobody is exactly sure if it was actually Glorious or not, mouth-frothing reactionaries, tear-guzzling liberals who can't make their mind on whether they're social liberals or economic liberals, and a dash of not being sure on which of those are just thieves and which are genuinely crazy, and there you have us. Except that 70s America could afford such stuff because it was America, and there was nobody to try and exploit the divide.

I mean, I would pick no other place to be born in, but it's a little crazy sometimes even without the foreign affairs shitstorm. A lot of people vote for Putin just because he seems uncomplicated. That's a bit stupid, but very understandable if you try living in this political climate for a bit.

It's full of Russians, for one thing.

As a Russian internet adage goes, "And you say that as if that's a bad thing".

[Helgoland]

I meant it as a general drawback of invading countries: If you're not the Wehrmacht, the people there remain. Why invade France, for example, if it's already full of French people? What's the benefit?

[Avis-Mergulus]

I meant it as a general drawback of invading countries: If you're not the Wehrmacht, the people there remain. Why invade France, for example, if it's already full of French people? What's the benefit?

Nah, I'm jus' foolin' too. Never mind, it's way too three in the morning here for me to make funny.