• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NATO seeks troops to deter Russia on eastern flank

Kelfuma

Kelfuma

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
708
Reaction score
107
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
NATO seeks troops to deter Russia on eastern flank | Reuters

NATO will press allies on Wednesday to contribute to its biggest military build-up on Russia's borders since the Cold War as the alliance prepares for a protracted quarrel with Moscow.

With Russia's aircraft carrier heading to Syria in a show of force along Europe's shores, alliance defense ministers aim to make good on a July promise by NATO leaders to send forces to the Baltic states and eastern Poland from early next year.

The United States hopes for binding commitments from Europe to fill four battle groups of some 4,000 troops, part of NATO's response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and concern it could try a similar tactic in Europe's ex-Soviet states.

France, Denmark, Italy and other allies are expected to join the four battle groups led by the United States, Germany, Britain and Canada to go to Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, with forces ranging from armored infantry to drones.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the commitments would be "a clear demonstration of our transatlantic bond." Diplomats said it would also send a message to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has complained that European allies do not pay their way in the alliance.
Click to expand...

You think things will escalate only further?
 
joG said:
Not too much just now. They wouldn’t have escalated in Ukraine, had there been Nato troops in Crimea and Nato not turned down Ukraine's application for membership.
Click to expand...

I think you mean had Nato turned down Ukraine's application. It was the continued expansion of NATO ... across the Russian "red line" that contributed to the escalation in Crimea (a Strategic interest and port under Russia's control for 4 centuries).
 
joG said:
Not too much just now. They wouldn’t have escalated in Ukraine, had there been Nato troops in Crimea and Nato not turned down Ukraine's application for membership.
Click to expand...

Ukraine only decided joining NATO was a good idea AFTER it was invaded:

Although Ukraine pursued NATO membership under pro-Western President Viktor Yuschenko, most Ukrainians never warmed to the idea. More Ukrainians saw NATO as a threat than as offering protection during the pursuit and have continued to feel this way even after the country ended its membership bid in 2010 under President Viktor Yanukovich. Dropping the bid may have neutralized the threat for many Ukrainians, with at least four in 10 or more likely to see NATO as neither protection nor a threat since that time.

Before Crisis, Ukrainians More Likely to See NATO as a Threat | Gallup
Click to expand...

Sounds like a fair-weather ally to me. If we're going to risk American lives and money, that is the kind of ally we can do without.
 
Ahlevah said:
Ukraine only decided joining NATO was a good idea AFTER it was invaded:



Sounds like a fair-weather ally to me. If we're going to risk American lives and money, that is the kind of ally we can do without.
Click to expand...

Agreed. NATO/EU are fools for thinking that Ukraine would side with them if any of their Eastern NATO forces around it were attacked by Russia. It wouldn't take much of a push to get Ukraine to sit it out, or even assist, Russian forces in whatever (unlikely) attack they may launch on NATO countries.

More than likely though they'll just continue pissing around in Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia (and Crimea and Syria, of course). Russia is more of an annoyance as opposed to Islamic State, which the international community agrees is the enemy here.
 
thinkagain said:
I think this is all hand waving. Gorilla's puffing out their chests. Neither has any intention of "nuclear war".

The US needs to stop arming and supporting extremist Islamists (Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, Islamic State, ISIS and others of the same ilk)
Click to expand...

There is zero proof the US is arming or supporting ISIS.
 
Kelfuma said:
NATO seeks troops to deter Russia on eastern flank | Reuters



You think things will escalate only further?
Click to expand...

It's a bunch of useless chatter. With the US having a president that is a coward, we won't do much. Maybe send some there, but really under Obama and possibly Clinton in the near future, Russia knows we won't do anything. As far as Europe goes, there are only a few militaries that even worth mentioning the could possibly do anything. You cannot depend upon the socialist surrender monkeys from France. England has a pretty good military, but really is way too small to stand alone against something the size of Russia, even if they got all the commonwealth countries to join them. Germany, has enough military, though only mediocre in quality, to augment the British, but are constitutionally bound to only operate within the borders of NATO. Adding the totally incompetent and poorly equipped Italians actually hinders your efforts far more than the could ever possibly help. The Greeks are broke and haven't had even a mediocre military since ancient Greece. Turkey is at war with its-self right now.

I've served in a NATO unit before, believe me, most of Europes military forces couldn't wipe their own asses most days and would be completely useless in a fight. We and probably the British also, joined NATO against the soviet union only so we had someplace to fight them other than our homes.

Unless the Chinese want to stand up to them Russia pretty much has a free hand because the leftist cowards in the US won't do anything and no one else can do anything. NATO without the US and Britain couldn't fight off a girl scout troop.
 
joG said:
Not too much just now. They wouldn’t have escalated in Ukraine, had there been Nato troops in Crimea and Nato not turned down Ukraine's application for membership.
Click to expand...

It's a little bit more stickier than that.
 
Ahlevah said:
Ukraine only decided joining NATO was a good idea AFTER it was invaded:



Sounds like a fair-weather ally to me. If we're going to risk American lives and money, that is the kind of ally we can do without.
Click to expand...

IIRC, they had an election and the incoming president won becuase he wanted warmer relations with the west which put Putin on edge.
 
Kelfuma said:
NATO seeks troops to deter Russia on eastern flank | Reuters



You think things will escalate only further?
Click to expand...

Syrians want Russian support. Crimeans want to be with Russia. That port was used before by Russia. IMO, who gives a **** if Russia wants it back? Ukraine isn't an ally. Hell, people that the west wants to support are actual neo-Nazis in that god forsaken country. This is not worth the fight. That whole country smells like soup anyway.
 
Tigerace117 said:
There is zero proof the US is arming or supporting ISIS.
Click to expand...


You only mentioned ISIS so I take it that you are OK with arming Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, Islamic Front, and other Islamist groups ?

Ignorance of nature the conflict in Syria/Iraq since 2011 is no reason to spout demonstrably false claims.

The Modern incarnation of ISIS was forged in the Syrian Conflict. The ISIS of today did not exist at the time.

The US (in conjunction with Saud, Turkey and others) armed extremist Islamist's (Islamist is a person who wants strict sharia/theocracy to be the law of the land/political system = someone who hates individual rights and freedoms/liberty and who wants to force their religious beliefs on others through violence) in Syria starting around late 2011 to fight a proxy war against Assad.

With the support of various nation states these Islamist's took over most of Syria relatively quickly. It was from these Islamist groups that the Islamic State (IS)/ modern incarnation of ISIS was formed in 2013.

It is not like this is some big secret (except to those listening to the mainstream media over the last few years).

Here is one of the recent Presidential Nominees on the CNN Sunday Morning Program "State of the Union".

PAUL: Let me - let me finish, because the thing is, is that they would not be empowered and in Iraq if we were not providing safe haven in Syria by arming their allies.

CROWLEY: So should we go to Syria? I mean, the thing is, we kind of are where we are. So, the question is whether they're a threat.

PAUL: No. No. Well, we are where we are because - we are where we are because we armed the Syrian rebels.

We have been fighting alongside al Qaeda, fighting alongside ISIS. ISIS is now emboldened and in two countries.


CROWLEY: Shouldn't we stop them (ISIS) now?

PAUL: Well, we should have not armed them (ISIS). If we wouldn't have armed them (ISIS) in Syria, maybe they wouldn't...
Click to expand...

Sen. Rand Paul: "I'm not willing to send my son into that mess" on the crisis in Iraq – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs


In the beginning in Syria it was one big happy Jihad. Each of the various Islamist groups that make up the rebels are united in their desire for Strict Sharia/Theocracy.


Virginia Senator Thanks Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for Saving the Lives of Christians
Open Letter of U.S. Senator Richard H. Black to President Bashar al-Assad Acknowledges US Support to Terrorists


“My personal thanks to the Syrian Arab Army and Air Force for protecting all patriotic Syrians, including religious minorities, raped, tortured, kidnapped and beheaded at the hands of the foreign jihadists”…

I cannot explain how Americans, who suffered so grievously at the hands of al-Qaeda, were tricked into supporting the jihadists.

But I do know that many U.S. officials disagree with equipping and training the terrorists who penetrate your borders from the Kingdom of Jordan and through Turkey.* Senator Richard H. Black of Virginia, 13th District
Click to expand...
Virginia Senator Thanks Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for Saving the Lives of Christians | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

I can't explain it either but it passes me off. How is it that we are arming and supporting the same terrorist group who did 911 ?

What is perhaps even more disconcerting is how the State Department, Pentagon and mainstream media are lying their disingenuous faces off in an attempt to cover up these facts.

So at the end of the day I am not surprised by your comment but, it is very far from the truth.
 
thinkagain said:
You only mentioned ISIS so I take it that you are OK with arming Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, Islamic Front, and other Islamist groups ?

Ignorance of nature the conflict in Syria/Iraq since 2011 is no reason to spout demonstrably false claims.

The Modern incarnation of ISIS was forged in the Syrian Conflict. The ISIS of today did not exist at the time.

The US (in conjunction with Saud, Turkey and others) armed extremist Islamist's (Islamist is a person who wants strict sharia/theocracy to be the law of the land/political system = someone who hates individual rights and freedoms/liberty and who wants to force their religious beliefs on others through violence) in Syria starting around late 2011 to fight a proxy war against Assad.

With the support of various nation states these Islamist's took over most of Syria relatively quickly. It was from these Islamist groups that the Islamic State (IS)/ modern incarnation of ISIS was formed in 2013.

It is not like this is some big secret (except to those listening to the mainstream media over the last few years).

Here is one of the recent Presidential Nominees on the CNN Sunday Morning Program "State of the Union".



Sen. Rand Paul: "I'm not willing to send my son into that mess" on the crisis in Iraq – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs


In the beginning in Syria it was one big happy Jihad. Each of the various Islamist groups that make up the rebels are united in their desire for Strict Sharia/Theocracy.


Virginia Senator Thanks Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for Saving the Lives of Christians
Open Letter of U.S. Senator Richard H. Black to President Bashar al-Assad Acknowledges US Support to Terrorists


Virginia Senator Thanks Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for Saving the Lives of Christians | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

I can't explain it either but it passes me off. How is it that we are arming and supporting the same terrorist group who did 911 ?

What is perhaps even more disconcerting is how the State Department, Pentagon and mainstream media are lying their disingenuous faces off in an attempt to cover up these facts.

So at the end of the day I am not surprised by your comment but, it is very far from the truth.
Click to expand...

ISIS is the most egregious example of these groups. Yet nobody's proven the US is arming AQ and the like either. ISIS grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq(AQI). The US armed the FSA(Free Syrian Army) which wasn't affiliated with Al Qaeda in anyway. The more militant Islamist groups basically broke off a while ago.

There was already an organization in place. The US had absolutely nothing to do with it's formation.

Rand Paul is a lasting joke. His shtick is "isolationism now isolationism tomorrow isolationism forever". Nobody really takes the man seriously at this point. And his claims about ISIS are sketchy at best.

Some hardline Republican is kissing the ass of one of Putin's allies. So what? Assad hasn't treated Christians very well either.
 
Tigerace117 said:
ISIS is the most egregious example of these groups. Yet nobody's proven the US is arming AQ and the like either. ISIS grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq(AQI). The US armed the FSA(Free Syrian Army) which wasn't affiliated with Al Qaeda in anyway. The more militant Islamist groups basically broke off a while ago.

There was already an organization in place. The US had absolutely nothing to do with it's formation.

Rand Paul is a lasting joke. His shtick is "isolationism now isolationism tomorrow isolationism forever". Nobody really takes the man seriously at this point. And his claims about ISIS are sketchy at best.

Some hardline Republican is kissing the ass of one of Putin's allies. So what? Assad hasn't treated Christians very well either.
Click to expand...

Demonizing the messenger is not an argument for much. Claiming Rand Paul - member of the foreign relations committee - is going to make up claims about arming Al Qaeda and ISIS is what is "sketchy".

Paul is not the only one. What about Senator Richard Black. Is he another recently escapee from the loony bin as well or is that just the label you give everyone who disagrees with you.

The Free Syrian Army is made up of extremist Jihadist Islamists. You are making a bunch of naked claims so start putting up (evidence to support those claims) or shut up. The idea that you would compare Assad's treatment of Christians to the Rebels is loony tunes.

The fact here is that you do not know much about the conflict and so are speaking out of ignorance, desperately trying to defend the State Department and Pentagon's "moderate rebel" lie/necessary illusion.

Reliance on these two state propaganda machines is what is sketchy. I do not agree with many of Paul's ideas but he is not a "known liar" ... like the Pentagon and State department.

If you not like Paul or Richard Black as a source. What would make you happy ? The Russian Foreign Minister ... Larov ?

How about the Catholic Archbishop of Syria or perhaps a Nun working in Hom's.

NY Times ? will that do ? how about

Fox News ? Syrian News ? Stars and Stripes ? The Christian Post ? Judicial Watch - Declassified documents from the US Defense Intelligence Agency ? The Independent ? Guardian ? Global Research ?

What would you like. Take your pick. Feel free to choose more than one.
 
thinkagain said:
Demonizing the messenger is not an argument for much. Claiming Rand Paul - member of the foreign relations committee - is going to make up claims about arming Al Qaeda and ISIS is what is "sketchy".

Paul is not the only one. What about Senator Richard Black. Is he another recently escapee from the loony bin as well or is that just the label you give everyone who disagrees with you.

The Free Syrian Army is made up of extremist Jihadist Islamists. You are making a bunch of naked claims so start putting up (evidence to support those claims) or shut up. The idea that you would compare Assad's treatment of Christians to the Rebels is loony tunes.

The fact here is that you do not know much about the conflict and so are speaking out of ignorance, desperately trying to defend the State Department and Pentagon's "moderate rebel" lie/necessary illusion.

Reliance on these two state propaganda machines is what is sketchy. I do not agree with many of Paul's ideas but he is not a "known liar" ... like the Pentagon and State department.

If you not like Paul or Richard Black as a source. What would make you happy ? The Russian Foreign Minister ... Larov ?

How about the Catholic Archbishop of Syria or perhaps a Nun working in Hom's.

NY Times ? will that do ? how about

Fox News ? Syrian News ? Stars and Stripes ? The Christian Post ? Judicial Watch - Declassified documents from the US Defense Intelligence Agency ? The Independent ? Guardian ? Global Research ?

What would you like. Take your pick. Feel free to choose more than one.
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

Guide to the Syrian rebels - BBC News

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ion-president-assad-islamic-state-regime-isis

The Moderate Opposition in Syria Lives - FPIF

Here are some sources on the Free Syrian Army for your perusal. They certainly aren't some "coalition of jihadis"--- that maybe be Assad's line, but he's not exactly unbiased.

Somebody like Rand Paul, whose made a career of demanding the US stay out of one conflict or another, is hardly going to point out the legitimate reasons why the US is there.
 
Tigerace117 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

Guide to the Syrian rebels - BBC News

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ion-president-assad-islamic-state-regime-isis

The Moderate Opposition in Syria Lives - FPIF

Here are some sources on the Free Syrian Army for your perusal. They certainly aren't some "coalition of jihadis"--- that maybe be Assad's line, but he's not exactly unbiased.

Somebody like Rand Paul, whose made a career of demanding the US stay out of one conflict or another, is hardly going to point out the legitimate reasons why the US is there.
Click to expand...



Did you even bother to read your own links ?

From July 2012 onward, ill-discipline and infighting weakened FSA, while jihadist groups became dominant within the armed opposition
Click to expand...
Tigerace117 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

Again from your link

Arab backers sought to encourage a centralised rebel leadership and in December 2012 a number of brigades affiliated themselves to a newly-created Supreme Military Council (SMC).
SMC-aligned brigades retain separate identities, agendas and commands. Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003

More from your BBC link- which by the way is totally biased towards US foreign policy such that it would not even publish such an article today (Back in 2013 the State Department's "moderate rebel lie" was not so obviously a lie)

SMC AFFILIATES

Martyrs of Syria Brigades - Well with a name like that who the frick do you think these guys are ? "extremist Islamist Jihadists perhaps" ????

Islamic Front (the largest fighting force) - These are hard core Islamist extremists devoted to turning Syria into a Strict Sharia/Theocracy.

Your own links prove that your claims are demonstrably false.

Arms were being shipped to Syria from Benghazi under Hillary's watch way early in the conflict (prior to the State Department admitting they were arming the rebels) (Reported by Fox) Arming an insurgency in a foreign nation is a violation of international law ... PERIOD. If some other nation were doing this we would be crying out loudly.

Arming the extremist Islamists in Syria led to the worst humanitarian crisis so far this decade, the refugee crisis, and led to the rise of the modern incarnation of ISIS.

I am just getting started here ... Go back and pick a few of the options I gave you.
Click to expand...
 
poweRob said:
IIRC, they had an election and the incoming president won becuase he wanted warmer relations with the west which put Putin on edge.
Click to expand...

Recall as well that in choosing the president the country was bitterly divided between Eastern and Western Ukraine. The reason Putin was put on edge was because there are more than eight million ethnic Russians in Ukraine, most of whom are in the Eastern part of the country and who don't want anything to do with NATO. Also, having closer economic and political ties to the West didn't necessarily mean the rest of them wanted to join a mutual defense treaty rather than be non-aligned. (In fact, polls of the populace pre-crisis indicated the contrary.) Finally, putting that country into the Western defense orbit, with it's historical ties to Russia and long frontier bordering that country, was probably not a good idea in any case.
 
Ahlevah said:
Recall as well that in choosing the president the country was bitterly divided between Eastern and Western Ukraine. The reason Putin was put on edge was because there are more than eight million ethnic Russians in Ukraine, most of whom are in the Eastern part of the country and who don't want anything to do with NATO. Also, having closer economic and political ties to the West didn't necessarily mean the rest of them wanted to join a mutual defense treaty rather than be non-aligned. (In fact, polls of the populace pre-crisis indicated the contrary.) Finally, putting that country into the Western defense orbit, with it's historical ties to Russia and long frontier bordering that country, was probably not a good idea in any case.
Click to expand...

Russia went into Ukraine because their puppet president fell and the new guy ran on getting close with the West. But actually having the Ukraine align with NATO?.... That's dangerous not to mention puts us in a really bad light being that we had agreed not to let NATO go East of Germany. Our excuse for pushing for Ukraine is that that agreement with with the Soviet Union and not Russia... as if there is really a difference.
 
thinkagain said:
I think you mean had Nato turned down Ukraine's application. It was the continued expansion of NATO ... across the Russian "red line" that contributed to the escalation in Crimea (a Strategic interest and port under Russia's control for 4 centuries).
Click to expand...

What ever the reason. The invasion was made possible by leaving the military power vacuum along the boarder. Someone hadn't read his military and power political theory very well. But Putin had as had Gerasimov.
 
Ahlevah said:
Ukraine only decided joining NATO was a good idea AFTER it was invaded:



Sounds like a fair-weather ally to me. If we're going to risk American lives and money, that is the kind of ally we can do without.
Click to expand...

Actually, the they had applied much earlier than that, but a few of the European members didn't want them.
 
poweRob said:
It's a little bit more stickier than that.
Click to expand...

Things are regularly more complex than the forum format can handle easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom