Russia says will retaliate if U.S. weapons stationed on its borders

a reply to: seagull

Prepositioned equipment is nothing new. Many of you are trying to frame this as a US planned pre-invasion moves.

Pre-positionng euqipment gives a side 4-5x higher ability to switch modes from defense into attack. Consider the most advanced military in the world i.e. that of the USA, this prepositioning is equal to having a fully loaded base ready to go into action with few hours or notice.

The soldiers to man and operate these equipments can be smuggled in as civilians and total surprise can be attained. Does US have the ability to smuggle in 5000 soldiers in a night? very much so and hence Russian worries are more than justified.

US leadership is trying to provoke Russia in order to make it look aggressive and bad in the world eyes. The real poke in the eyes are the economic sanctions and aggressive Russian postures make them easy to impose. Economic world war is already in the process.

a reply to: victor7

This is nowhere near enough equipment to be a real threat to Russia or any other nation in the area. And even if they sneak the troops in, do you think that anyone watching is going to somehow miss a large group of Abrams and support vehicles rolling down the road?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: victor7

And even if they sneak the troops in, do you think that anyone watching is going to somehow miss a large group of Abrams and support vehicles rolling down the road?

Well, in all fairness Russia doesn't think anyone sees the large group of Russian tanks and support vehicles rolling from Russia into Ukraine.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Machines like M1s already in place, sneak the troops in like even 1000 spec ops and then it becomes a matter of few hours before a major town near border is taken. Unless this force (machines and men) is equally matched with, it will be a scenario of total surprise. Half a dozen such movements on various borders and lots of important towns are gone.

Although, land war comes few steps behind in the US way of fighting. It is the air war via missiles and then planes that is first used.

But still, Russia is right in saying that it will counter any force build up with forces of its own. In a way that is also trying to disperse the strength of the Russian army. With that so, Russia will have to find an appropriate way to counter such a move, even if that means hiring more soldiers and making more active use of the reserves.

a reply to: victor7

They're not going to be parked near the border. They're going to be kept back where if someone were to come across the border, they couldn't hit them immediately. That means they have to go across country just to get to the border. Then all the way across to the nearest city. You're talking hours just to get to the border. Not to mention, these aren't the kind of thing you leave parked for months, hop in, and crank them up. Even stored, you're going to have to spend time getting them prepared, and replacing parts. That's going to be really obvious to anyone paying attention.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Basic point is any men or machines stored up in any place in nearby border nations have to taken seriously and appropriately responded with.

...and how is this different then the era from 1945 to the fall of the Warsaw Pact? Seems like old times to me, more's the pity.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Zaphod58

Machines like M1s already in place, sneak the troops in like even 1000 spec ops and then it becomes a matter of few hours before a major town near border is taken. Unless this force (machines and men) is equally matched with, it will be a scenario of total surprise. Half a dozen such movements on various borders and lots of important towns are gone.

Although, land war comes few steps behind in the US way of fighting. It is the air war via missiles and then planes that is first used.

But still, Russia is right in saying that it will counter any force build up with forces of its own. In a way that is also trying to disperse the strength of the Russian army. With that so, Russia will have to find an appropriate way to counter such a move, even if that means hiring more soldiers and making more active use of the reserves.

This is not a video game, it is real life. An invasion force would require a large logistical tail that would have to be moved into place to keep up with an advance. The fact is Russia own actions have brought this on. They though that they could frighten the Eastern NATO states and neutral states like Finland and Sweden into moving away from NATO. That might have worked if anybody thought Russia could defeat NATO. Instead Russia's threats and actions simply unified them. And those state have called upon the rest of the alliance to make sure any Russian invasion would be quickly dealt with. Putin has underestimated the US, NATO and the rest of Europe along over estimation support he would get from place like China. That has lead to Russia's isolation, instability and economic woes.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Nukes or not weapons on the border that will cause a war is the same outcome and could lead to nukes being used minutes away or in range nukes will have the same results. ...you think that the US having weapons all around the world is ok? And to put more someplace that they know will cause a bigger problem on purpose is just asking for trouble.

Wait, would Western forces launch an invasion of occupation against Mother Russia? How or why would the west want that?

And if the us positions weapons and then smuggle troops in as civilians doesn't that make them more like terrorists? Blend in with the population and then start an attack? Sounds like something sneaky our government would do.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: victor7

This is nowhere near enough equipment to be a real threat to Russia or any other nation in the area. And even if they sneak the troops in, do you think that anyone watching is going to somehow miss a large group of Abrams and support vehicles rolling down the road?

You assume that we are going to be told by our media what's really going on.
If American forces move first, and I'm not saying they would but hypothetically, if they made a move to provoke Russia on their door step, then we aren't going to be told that. We are going to be told the opposite, that American or NATO coalition forces are reacting to Russian aggression.
And the same goes for the Russian side.

Whose telling the truth so far? I'd say the truth is somewhere in the middle of all the propaganda spewed by both sides. And really, none of us are there on the ground, and none of us have access to real time satelites watching the conflict nor do we have access to intercepted communications from both sides, so all any of us can do is make assumptions. Of course there are some people like Xcathdra and Tsurfer who not only believe the propaganda from one side, they actively promote it and spread it on internet forums and then argue and try and drown out those who disagree.


Of course at some point the propaganda war might become irrelevant, if a full blown war erupts.

a reply to: JHumm

And the countries they are putting them in have every right to request that the equipment be stored there. It is within their sovereign territory.

a reply to: JHumm

This isn't like the movies. An M1 that sits for months, even in stored condition, requires many hours of maintenance to get it ready to roll down the road. Seals go bad, filters need replacing, etc. You don't just jump in them and take off.

a reply to: mortex

What does that have to do with what I said? Any move on Russia would take a huge force. A lot more than will be stored anywhere near them. And moving more to the area will take weeks to move.

www.cnn.com...

Air Force may send F-22s to Europe over Russia 'threat'

"The biggest threat on my mind is what's happening with Russia and the activities of Russia," Secretary of the Air Force Deborah James said during a visit to the Paris Air Show. "It's extremely worrisome on what's going on in the Ukraine."

originally posted by: victor7
www.cnn.com...

Air Force may send F-22s to Europe over Russia 'threat'

"The biggest threat on my mind is what's happening with Russia and the activities of Russia," Secretary of the Air Force Deborah James said during a visit to the Paris Air Show. "It's extremely worrisome on what's going on in the Ukraine."

I Agree Russia invading eastern European countries is worrisome to say the least. Fascist regimes usualy don't stop there in order to survive they constantly have to grow and gather new resources at the expense of others.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

"SO American money is being used to destabilize Ukraine...care to provide anything that backs that claim?"

Come off it, this is about protecting American investments and the personal losses for men like Soros putting 1billion into Ukraine after he has interfered in Georgia and is busy in Belarus - wherever that poisonous gnome goes blood flows all for his profit, Oh sorry charitable causes. All destabilised by his money and influence.

You forget Dr Michael Hasenstab www.bloomberg.com...

www.washingtonsblog.com... Add men like the Koch bros into the mix and you get a better picture about Ukraine and what is going on there.

You seem to forget about NATA troops using that hard wear deposited by the USA which would threaten Russia. As usual there is more hidden yet still in plain view about this matter and its about oil money and not democracy.

If you think that the UK has asked for American missiles to be put on our land when we already have nuclear submarines with our own missiles - as indeed does France and anyone who chooses, like israel, to be separate from international treaties on the control of nuclear weapons, I think you are mistaken. Furthermore any country receiving massive aid from the USA/elsewhere could buy them from Pakistan with launchers etc. We even give massive aid to that country also though why?

Something from common sense should be telling American puppet politicians that you don't poke a quiet lion with a stick - which is exactly what is being done slyly and that puppeteer is risking all our lives, whilst probably owning their own select bunker. Do you have a safe haven if this gets forced into some oil-rich elite/bilderburger organised war, its our kids who will fight this deliberately manufactured war to protect the ilk mentioned above.

Another point is if the EU were best buddies with Russia would it need America and would America loose a powerful set of allies and trading partners it needs to hold up the petri dollar? Who has the most to loose? (I am not decrying the relationship between the USA and the UK, but this is about these ghastly, greedy financial gnomes who have no regard about whose kids even from the countries they currently squat in, who they will kill without giving a damn.

a reply to: seagull

They seem to be re-creating the Cold-War just for the money gnomes who finance our politicians. Until we change this and make it illegal we are going to be victims of their every whim.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Make what illegal?

War? Google the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. See how well that worked out. You can not outlaw/legislate away conflict. Conflict only stops when people stop it. That requires a tad bit of work on our part...