Here Come The Boots On The Ground: US Troops Heading To Eastern Europe

Ukraine president calls for new anti-rebel offensive as crisis deal falters

www.reuters.com...

This could have something to do with the situation escalating. The pro Russians are killing Politicians now.

In an appeal that may complicate European efforts to mediate the crisis, Turchinov said two "brutally tortured" bodies had been found near Slaviansk, the objective of the failed Ukrainian army offensive. One was that of Volodymyr Rybak, a member of Turchinov's Batkivshchyna party, who had recently been abducted by "terrorists", he said in a statement.

In steps Mr Biden.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden told Russia on Tuesday that "time is short" for action on defusing the crisis, but Moscow refused to be rushed, saying it could handle any tougher economic sanctions the West might impose.

"We've heard a lot from Russian officials in the past few days. But now it's time for Russia to stop talking and start acting," he told a news conference. "We will not allow this to become an open-ended process. Time is short in which to make progress."

The warnings.

The United States has repeatedly warned Russia it faces "mounting costs" if it fails to ensure full implementation of the Geneva agreement.

But the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, ruled out rapid progress. "Of course, it would be naive to suppose that all this could happen quickly," Churkin said in an interview on Rossiya-24 television.

They Kremlin have already said that economic sanctions are not a real problem for them.
The threats are not working, stop wagging the finger at grown ups.

You're just heart broken because you have lost your Ukrainian slaves run away..

I'm not a Russian and I don't like NATO. What a surprise, right?

I never said Yanukovych was a brutal dictator, I just said he favours closer ties with the country of his mother birthplace

But in your previous post, you say:

It's clear as day... There wasn't much backing needed to help Ukraine like the rest of the Eastern block break free from there previous brutal rulers

Then..

When Yanukovych was elected it was not for closer ties with Russia HTH -

He was not for joining NATO also which Ukraine people knew, which was my point.

Just to end up. It is true that some people were for not breaking ties with EU, but what about the other half of people? There should had been a referendum, which could had settled all of this, but no, suddenly those EU "protesters" got weapons and everything. From that point, everything went to hell. Russia just wanted to protect their people from potential danger. Just like when NATO and USA stepped in the protect poor Albanians, and then they bombed my country for almost three months. Western democracy everybody!

originally posted by: Nikola014

You're just heart broken because you have lost your Ukrainian slaves run away..

I'm not a Russian and I don't like NATO. What a surprise, right?

I never said Yanukovych was a brutal dictator, I just said he favours closer ties with the country of his mother birthplace

But in your previous post, you say:

It's clear as day... There wasn't much backing needed to help Ukraine like the rest of the Eastern block break free from there previous brutal rulers

Then..

When Yanukovych was elected it was not for closer ties with Russia HTH -

He was not for joining NATO also which Ukraine people knew, which was my point.

Lol there you go trying to spin it again Nikola

Let me explain...

When I said

It's clear as day... There wasn't much backing needed to help Ukraine like the rest of the Eastern block break free from there previous brutal rulers

I didn't mean Ukraine's former president Yanukovych

I CLEARLY meant the kremlin & The Soviet Union

But you knew that...

Just to end up. It is true that some people were for not breaking ties with EU, but what about the other half of people? There should had been a referendum, which could had settled all of this, but no, suddenly those EU "protesters" got weapons and everything. From that point, everything went to hell. Russia just wanted to protect their people from potential danger. Just like when NATO and USA stepped in the protect poor Albanians, and then they bombed my country for almost three months. Western democracy everybody!

There wasn't another half of the people Nikola, the presidential elections and support for Ukraine pro EU and pro Russian as I mentioned a million times was not an election for pro EU or pro Russian ties, it was a presidential election for a candidate about many other issues, not a referendum or anything else, that's why millions protested to him in maidan by the way

Again you're certainly misleading people, the fact there are hundreds of thousands protesting against the small Russia special forces and small number of pro Russia protests across the country should tell you all you need to know, pro EU demos in the East of Ukraine made the pro Russian armed groups look like tea party's, a picture speaks a thousand words in this case a few million words

While nobody disputes there are as small minority of Russian speaking Ukrainians who want closer ties to Russia the majority of those just as the majority of Ukrainian do not want to return under the rule of its previous brutal rulers, no not Yanukovych ... The Soviet Union

a reply to: TritonTaranis
I'll reiterate:
please post a pic

because not just my self, but every sensible commentator I have seen has wondered where such pics..
or indeed, any evidence of such a troop build up might be found

originally posted by: Danbones
a reply to: TritonTaranis
I'll reiterate:
please post a pic

because not just my self, but every sensible commentator I have seen has wondered where such pics..
or indeed, any evidence of such a troop build up might be found

Dan...

You posted in the thread with NATOs satellite Imagery proving the Russia build up

Please go to your MyATS and find that thread you posted in denying the authenticity of the handful of 100 pictures NATO took of Russian Military build up..

Anyway if you can't do that that's ok... Because Putin has admitted the troops In Crimea was Russian now, and he also come clean on the reason NATO troops where on the boarder to which you still deny for what ever reason or agenda you have

www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: TritonTaranis


And secondly, Russia has fully rights to send their troops at their borders. But on the other hand, who allowed NATO to do so? Or they can do anything they want, because they are more powerful than the international law?

NATO can station and position troops anywhere in their alliance group given the host country agrees to it. I see nothing wrong in few hundred troops going to Poland for some exercise or training.

originally posted by: keenasbro
www.zerohedge.com...

How long has it been since the Geneva talks? hmm, has it been a week.

Not being military myself, How long would it take to make a decision to perform exercises in Europe, then get all the troops and every thing else that is need to station them there, we are talking 600 troops at the moment, at the moment, at the moment...

What will Putin think, Go ahead feller's it's only exercises, were doing the same thing on the Ukraine border. yeah right.

600 U.S. TROOPS HEADING TO EUROPE FOR EXERCISES: PENTAGON
U.S. AIRBORNE TROOPS GOING TO POLAND, LITHUANIA, LATVIA,ESTONIA
U.S. MILITARY EXERCISES ARE IN RESPONSE TO UKRAINE CRISIS:KIRBY
MORE MILITARY EXERCISES 'COMING THROUGH' NATO: PENTAGON

As these are Airborne troops already station in Europe, 24 hours is plenty of time to head them out for a readiness exercise. Although training exercises are held several times a year in Poland with both US and UK forces. I would expect once they leave another unit will rotate in for a series of rotational exercises. As for what will Putin think? He is much more concerned about his breaking economy and how to come to deal than he is about an exercise in Poland.

a reply to: Danbones

I can't post a pic but this satellite image may help.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: pirhanna

Hey, your a Texan! What if that 'elected' gov't breaks it's mandate? Goes in the opposite direction? Violates it's promises? Isn't it the citizen's duty to boot 'em out? A sizable portion of Texas has had enough of the feds, what's the difference?

a reply to: MrSpad
---
Totally agree!!

Lets just say this, 600 troops is really nothing, that's a fat BN for you.
But, under certain circumstances, I can't say much, but this little tidbit as of last week, WE ARE AT A 48 HR RECALL.....

originally posted by: keenasbro
a reply to: Danbones

I can't post a pic but this satellite image may help.

www.theguardian.com...

nice pics and all, and not to be difficult, but those don't really illustrate 40,000 troops.
(sort of reminds me of the portable gas makers or what ever..the weather baloon truck scam from Iraq)
Im sure their army is in a state of readiness somewhere in russia, but so is everybody's army ready somewhere.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

Please go to your MyATS and find that thread you posted in denying the authenticity of the handful of 100 pictures NATO took of Russian Military build up..

whaaaat?

I'm sure if there were a hundred nato pics you'd have linked to it, and my ummm, "post?"

originally posted by: Danbones

originally posted by: keenasbro
a reply to: Danbones

I can't post a pic but this satellite image may help.

www.theguardian.com...

nice pics and all, and not to be difficult, but those don't really illustrate 40,000 troops.
(sort of reminds me of the portable gas makers or what ever..the weather baloon truck scam from Iraq)
Im sure their army is in a state of readiness somewhere in russia, but so is everybody's army ready somewhere.

yes because in this world "peace is a time to prepare for war"

600 Paratroops. No unit is named, but it's almost certainly a battalion from the 173rd Airborne brigade stationed in Italy (portions n Germany). So their "boots are on the ground" in Europe all the time.They do training in Eastern Europe frequently and they are just a few hours from Poland...and even if this isn't scheduled it's not a big deal. US Army Europe only has 2 brigade combat teams, the 173rd and 2nd Cavalry. And the Cav is a Stryker wheeled light armored vehicle unit.....more potent than the paratroops, but still neither would be able to remotely take on 100.000 Ruskies. Both units are about 4500 troops each so there is up words of 10,000....still technically a "token" force. My guess is both units move into Poland to train (they have done it before) and stick around until Putin backs off a little.

If the US starts to send heavy armor units from Ft Hood, Ft Bliss, Ft Levenworth, or Ft Carson then we have something to talk about. Frankly if we are just trying to show we are interested I would send on armored brigade. If your send 3 or 4 going that's when you might consider something is really up.

a reply to: Danbones

That's all I could find Dan on short notice

a reply to: TritonTaranis

Star for you. Your my new hero!

a reply to: SrWingCommander

Btw Sir,

Would USAF be able to stop the Russians from moving into Ukraine and going all the way to Moldova.

Even using F-22s, as Russians are broke when it comes to stealth.

600 troops you say? Yes, obviously America is planning for a "massive" invasion. That was sarcasm by the way. America is not going to get involved against Russia with military force. It just will not happen, even if Russia decides to take over Ukraine, which they won't. Sending this number of troops to Europe means absolutely nothing, even if it is true. Russia has 99% of its armed forces right there more or less, and it would take more men on the ground than the US can even field at the moment to combat them.

Not to mention the fact that approval for military action against Russia would never come in the US. There is not enough support for it. Obama is not keen on starting WWIII either. Any US politician who threatens the use of military force is just plain warmongering. All things relating to military strategy and tactics is a hobby of mine, and although I may not be all that knowledgeable in this regard, here is what I think.

First of all a modern war would be unlike anything the world has ever seen, if it occurs between two nuclear nations. Obviously if a war does break out between two such countries, nuclear weapons will not be used initially. Conventional forces will be used instead. The only reason one side would use nukes is if they were going to lose. Mutual destruction is better than losing completely in the eyes of some, thus they could launch a nuclear attack if defeat were imminent.

The reason nuclear weapons wouldn't be used before that is because each nation would understand that by using nukes, they would insight their enemy to do the same, ensuring mutual destruction of both sides. Considering that the US and Russia both could destroy each other without ever having to launch a missile from a land-based system, there is no hope to take out the enemy's missiles before he could launch a crapstorm at you, which you could not prevent, even with the latest and greatest anti-missile technologies. I am talking about nuclear submarines. That is the single most powerful weapon in the modern battlespace, and imo was and still is the greatest deterrent to nuclear war.

Knowing that war between nuclear nations could eventually cause the losing side to launch a nuclear strike, any nation will think twice before entering even a conventional war with that nation. So neither Russia nor the US wants full scale war with the other. Let's say that Russia invades Ukraine. The US, even if it wanted to go to war in the region, could not do so on a scale to combat Russia's military might.

First off, the US could never transport enough large hardware, such as tanks, trucks, etc., to be on an even footing with Russia, because they have all of their hardware basically right there. And they have quite a bit of materiel. The US also has resources tied down in the Middle East. Anyway, so even fielding an army would be extremely difficult. And there is no guarantee that any nations would wish to enter the war on the side of the US, because they aren't dumb.

The US Navy would not be able to do a whole lot in a war against Russia either, considering there are not many avenues to get at central Russia from the sea. So all US troops would have to be airlifted in, which is extremely expensive. Not to mention the hardware, as I already said. There are myriad more problems than these, and it would take a while to go into all of them. Suffice it to say that the US has no taste for war, because military strategists realize that a conventional war against Russia on its own turf is next to impossible logistically speaking, at least without the money and support that would be needed, and they also realize that the nuclear option is out of the question.

This is why all the US can do is sanction Russia. The US cannot go in and bomb Russia like they have in so many other theaters and wars. Russia can fight back in an air war, which the US has not had to deal with...Ever. All the air wars the US has ever fought have been against inferior opponents, with inferior technology or a numerical disadvantage. Remember in WWII that the Luftwaffe was severely handicapped by the time the US got into Europe. The planes they dealt with in North Africa were in limited numbers...Then there was Korea. Russian MIG's were the main staple of the NK air force, and they were in very short supply, so no contest there. Same thing when it came to Vietnam. The US had a virtual monopoly in the air. It seemed like Iraq would be able to put up a fight in the air, but they had inferior technology and pilots, despite the fact their pilots had seen combat in the war with Iran. It was mainly the US technological edge as well as superior training and tactics that allowed a quick air victory.

Anyway, my point is that the US has never had to face an adversary like Russia in the air, nor on the ground if you think about it, although that point could be argued for sure, and I could be wrong. It depends on how you look at it. The US faced superior numbers in its Asian wars, but the enemy technology was inferior. Russian technology is not all that inferior to the US in today's world, and some of it is just as good and even better in some instances. And I think Russia can field a much larger armed forces.

If you look at the two militaries on paper, here is what you get...Russia can probably field twice as many troops as the US, but the US has the edge on the ground in terms of tech. Russia's navy is not comparable to that of the US, although its nuclear subs are quite capable. In terms of air power, the US has better radar and missile systems, but Russian jets have the edge in handling. So in a dogfight, Russian planes would be quite effective. But dogfights probably are outdated for the most part, with the missile tech that currently exists. We must not forget history either. Russia will sacrifice anything and everything to win a war.

To wrap things up, the US will not go to war with Russia. The US has to maintain 600 bases around the world, which alone requires thousands and thousands of troops. With so many forces and hardware tied up in the Middle East, and on these worldwide bases, the US could not even field a force to match Russia at present. The US military is smaller but better, but winning a war with Russia is still a coinflip. Thus the US will not go to war. If Russia invades Ukraine, which I still don't think it will, NATO will have to intervene somehow...but war will not be the answer. So even if 600 troops were sent to Europe, this means absolutely nothing.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus
only 600
reminds one of the way vietnam got going
say,I wonder who has more chinese chips in their gear?
the US or Russia?

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Quite an effort made for the long answer. 5 Stars !!!!!

However I would beg to differ a little. It would be idiotic for Russians to wait until nearing defeat to use the nukes. By that time, their ability to launch and direct nukes would have been long gone.

On the whole army, navy, airforce combined........US has a comprehensive 10 year technology lead over Russia. Only thing Russia has more is outdated tanks, APCs and artillery guns. If Russia can stop US from landing its men and machines (like you already mentioned traveling across the big atlantic) then it has some chances of prolonging the engagement.

Kremlin should let it be known to anyone in WH or Brussles, that any war will begin with the NUKES !!

Rest is for the decision of the wise heads.