It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: smurfy
NATO, including the US has been in Poland and the Baltic since 2010, (pre Ukraine uprising) that was exposed by Wikileaks almost right away.
Poland has been with NATO since 1999 so wikileaks is telling us nothing new there.
The Baltics since the early 2000's so what do you think was exposed by wikileaks?
And the fact NATO has a plan to defend their member states really isn't something that wouldn't be done...do you think Russia doesn't have a plan to defend it's self and it's allies from NATO...of course they do.
What is the problem there?
. What I am saying is cut our losses with Ukraine. We lost there.
Well strictly speaking, 'the plan' is not from the North Atlantic Council, it's from member states military, specifically 9 member states. You can have a read here from The Guardian 2010, and bear in mind there are far more troops there now.
In determining troop contributions, ACO engages with the Military Committee, the North Atlantic Council, and individual countries, all of which have critical roles to play in bringing Alliance operations and missions to reality.
Repeated U.S. statements since August 2008 that the battery will not be operational are interpreted by the Poles to be part of a larger discussion of C4ISR and the inter-operability of Patriot in their overall air defense architecture. After months of back and forth, we think the Poles now understand that the rotation battery will not be fully operational and cannot be integrated immediately into the Polish system and that the battery will focus on training and exercises.