UK to Send Five Ships to Baltic as Part of Nato Buildup Against Russia

a reply to: gortex

That's why there is a NATO, after all. The stationing of troops stabilizes a region.


Have you forgotten the large, near perpetual U.S. military presence in Europe is the signal reason for the eventual and unprecedented peace in Europe, not to mention the climate that allowed the EU to even considered, never mind achieved?


The argument that Russia has always 'feared' NATO expansion is Russian propaganda and nothing more. If NATO had designs on Russia they would have acted long ago. Obviously.


If it takes 'permanently' stationed troops to achieve stability, then so be it. This prevents war more often than causes it. Especially when well announced and publically disclosed in advance.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
not to mention the climate that allowed the EU to even considered, never mind achieved?

# you USA for that

J/k....Kinda

a reply to: crazyewok

Understood.
I was thinking the same thing myself when I posted it.


I justified it by thinking that it was Europe that screwed it up, not the U.S.. After all, that's what 'freedom' offers....the right to screw it up on one's own determination.....

a reply to: pikestaff
This isn't fighting on another nations soil...the war could go nuclear and would they be directed at enemy forces (from the eyes of the Russians) on Russian soil, or British soil. Wars between great powers are not fought only on the other nations soil, but either on both (if both great powers) or on neutral ground (usually a proxy war).

EDIT: Even if it doesn't go nuclear other missiles and bombs would be used.

a reply to: nwtrucker
Whoa. You're saying invading a nuclear power is obvious had NATO so desired. That is rather insane to even consider.

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: nwtrucker
Whoa. You're saying invading a nuclear power is obvious had NATO so desired. That is rather insane to even consider.

Thereby proving my point, doesn't it? NATO hasn't, to my knowledge, ever considered invading Russia, It has been the other way around. Hence, the argument that Russia 'fears' NATO is bogus, at least on their part.

The obvious part is NATO has had many more opportune times than now. With almost no U.S. presence, compared to the day. If there was an intention to do so, insane or not, it would have occurred long ago, wouldn't it?

a reply to: nwtrucker
I don't consider it "bogus." Military bases all around the country with military build up around it? With what purpose? Russia has not attacked NATO and has, to my knowledge, made no threats to NATO. NATO is the aggressor. You can make the argument of Crimea and Russia's role with that situation, but ultimately Russia has not attacked NATO. Ukraine is not a NATO member.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Have you forgotten the large, near perpetual U.S. military presence in Europe is the signal reason for the eventual and unprecedented peace in Europe

, No , I haven't forgotten it because it isn't true , peace in Europe has come about through our experience of WW2 and a determination not to revisit it.
The only reason US troops were over here was to protect America from the cold war threat not to put the word on our countries.

not to mention the climate that allowed the EU to even considered, never mind achieved?

The EU has evolved from a trading partnership between European countries known as the EEC which started after the war , from little seeds great oaks do grow , or lumbering behemoth in this case.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: nwtrucker

Have you forgotten the large, near perpetual U.S. military presence in Europe is the signal reason for the eventual and unprecedented peace in Europe

, No , I haven't forgotten it because it isn't true , peace in Europe has come about through our experience of WW2 and a determination not to revisit it.

not to mention the climate that allowed the EU to even considered, never mind achieved?

THe EU has evolved from a trading partnership known as the EEC started after the war , from little seeds great oaks do grow.

Historically, the only thing that stopped the Red army from advancing all the way to the Atlantic ocean was the presence of a substantial Allied force.

Everything from the DPRK land grab of the southern Korean peninsula to the Berlin blockade was tempered by the presence of U.S. the military.

Edit: Look at the Communist domination of the puppet states of the Warsaw pact, the Czechoslovakian revolt or the Hungarian uprising that were crushed by Russian military force.

There is no parallel in the west.

a reply to: Tiamat384


The only reason the Ukraine isn't a NATO member is they were refused entry, largely due to Russian backlash.


Russia is surrounded by nations. They all have militaries....and bases. You omit Georgia,
then the annexing of Crimea then adventurism in the Ukraine. There are only two nations currently expanding the territorial claims. Russia and China,


If anything, NATO should be doing more than they have, at least in the European continent. Now Putin is working the ME. Please. Russia always will be surrounded. They engender the response they get.

a reply to: gortex

I fully disagree. The U.S. had/has no need to have troops in Europe to prosecute a cold war with the Soviet Union. Just ask an immigrant from one of those satellite nations...including the Ukraine, what life was like under the Soviet 'curtain'. Ask a Yugoslav...any of them. The wall in Berlin keeping the East Germans in the East? Really? Between the Marshall plan and the military presence which saved Europe billions in their own defense spendings, none of the groups you mention had any chance of achieving anywhere near the speed they did without the stability provided by the U.S..


You must be young....

If NATO isn't able to brainwash europeans into thinking that Russia is an aggressor, then there is no reason for NATO to exists at all.
While I can understand how some people in eastern european countries are scared of Russia, and I want to underline SOME people, very far from being the majority portrayed by our crony media, I cannot do anything but laugh at those poor guys in the west who lives in fear of the bear and care nothing about the real problem in the world which is western corporate hegemony.

Reality check: Russia isn't the aggressor, but NATO makes no sense in western europe and the USA is losing ground and need to enforce a much bigger pressure in the eastern part, mostly because this divides Russia and Europe. If the anglo-americans weren't the world hegemony Russia would be PART OF Europe, but this isn't acceptable for some monarchs and they are ready to sacrifice our lives to protect the status-quo. However I'm scared because they're broke and desperate and they may really act as stupidly as they say.

It's all because your german queen and her family didn't want any germany around. Two world wars weren't enough, they need a third.

originally posted by: Britguy

I think us Europeans would be a hell of a lot better off telling the US to close all it's bases and take a hike, then resuming diplomatic and trade relations with Russia, as many people are calling for, especially those in industry and agriculture who are collectively losing €Billions and laying people off as a result.

Totally agree with this on the economic thing. We are losing trade and Russia is entitled to have its sphere of influence just like the US attempts to influence other American states. We do need the Yanks in most European states bar France and The UK, they can't defend themselves against Russia as they don't have a counter to the Russian enormous nuclear
arsenal. But Russia does have a right to not be surrounded by NATO (US) leaning countries and things would be much better if we just left Russia alone with attempting to take over the former Soviet states which seriously pisses off Moscow big style and that I like many fair minded Europeans understand

a reply to: Britguy

Using the events in Ukraine as an example of Russian aggression is a bit lame really as the whole mess there was as a result of another US sponsored coup

Care to provide something to back this claim, because it seems to be thrown around without proof?

Surely the fact Russia strong arming then president Yanukovych out of signing the Eu agreement that he promised the Ukrainian people he would do had no bearing on the protests?

And surely the fact Ukraine was beginning impeachment of their Putin pocket president for corruption that even his own party was in favor of could have had any bearing on what happened when he lied to his own people who then protested his actions?

None of that could have been it, because the US is always the reason things happen.

Russia responded to that, as would any other country having a similar situation occurring in it's backyard.

No Russia was one of the big reason's this happened. D

Did you know they predicted everything that happened in Ukraine at least a month before the first protest had even begun?

Glazyev, speaking on the sidelines of the discussion, said the exact opposite was true: "Ukrainian authorities make a huge mistake if they think that the Russian reaction will become neutral in a few years from now. This will not happen."

Instead, he said, signing the agreement would make the default of Ukraine inevitable and Moscow would not offer any helping hand. "Russia is the main creditor of Ukraine. Only with customs union with Russia can Ukraine balance its trade," he said. Russia has already slapped import restrictions on certain Ukrainian products and Glazyev did not rule out further sanctions if the agreement was signed.

The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void.

www.theguardian.com...

But that's okay we can just blame the US. Seems like an awful coincidence that Russia foretold exactly what was going to happen...coincidence, not even close.

Blaming Russia for destabilizing Ukraine is also untrue as this was also a result of the US sponsored coup, and look at the mess there now!

Except they did...and it has been shown many times their involvement in destabilizing Ukraine.

Doesn't matter how you try to package or frame all this, it was a western backed play that caused the issues.

It's fun watching someone blame the US when there is more than enough evidence that doesn't back that claim.

The reality is that Russia doesn't have the means, money or desire to invade anywhere! It has no need to and knows the cost of trying to do so, favouring trade and cooperation instead, but will not just stand idly by and watch while idiots try to muscle in like gangsters.

And yet they still try.

I have to laugh because you say you won't stand idly by and watch while idiots try to muscle in like gangsters.

Pot meet kettle, as that is exactly what Putin tried to do in Ukraine and was denied by the people of Ukraine and their quest to get away from Russia.

But I guess you missed that didn't you?

a reply to: nwtrucker

I fully disagree. The U.S. had/has no need to have troops in Europe to prosecute a cold war with the Soviet Union.

That's because they were here for defensive not offensive reasons , the joke in the 80s was that we (UK) were America's biggest aircraft carrier , more true than funny.

You must be young....

False assumption but I'll take it as a compliment.

none of the groups you mention had any chance of achieving anywhere near the speed they did without the stability provided by the U.S..

You must be American.

a reply to: Britguy

You are spot on with what you say the West has been manipulating Ukraine and the Crimea vote seems a fair one where the people decided for themselves.

Lavrov explained quite simply that it was agreed after the war that NATO would never come up to russian borders and that's exactly what NATO has tried to do especially in Ukraine. Furthermore people have short memories forgetting the pipelines and money owed by Ukraine to Russia, so the situation there is far more complicated than people think.

One thing that always gets overlooked is that Germany trades with Russia and that is a huge market for Western powers. Something that the money men and America won't want or like so naturally we are seeing their pathetic effort at trying to sling every bit of bad propaganda they can about anything Russian.

In fact its time for us to get much stronger ties with Russia because we have a common enemy in Saudi's push for wahabism to be spread throughout the world and Russia is an ally for this which is happening now today. Personally if it came to a choice of Obama and the old Bush regime or Putin I would prefer Putin because he hasn't the same record that Bush and Obama have for creating wars and misery everywhere. We can see what Putin is doing in Syria and the effect the russian bombing campaign is having.

Its still costing and wasting our money with cameron's little flotilla flying the Union Jack in Russia's face - which I am sure Putin will be utterly unwhelmed about. I suspect our ships have only a very small arsenal on them simply because we haven't the money - what with all the cuts etc etc Eh Osborne?

a reply to: MrSpad

so what you just ignore that NATO has been swallowing up everything around Russia? its not just one sided dude. quit making it out to look like Russia is the bad guy. they still have yet to attack anyone unless they had a damn good reason. Georgia backed by actual NATO troops on the ground attacked ossetia, Russias fault right? EU and US backed the coup in in Ukraine by arming a god damn NEO NAZI party, Russia fault right?

of course Russia is gonna act aggressively towards her neighbors. THEY DONT WANT TO BE SURROUNDED BY NATO! nato and the US are notorious for attacking other countries, mostly for resources, which russia has alot of. the west bought up Russian assets in the 90's, Putin took them back. they dont want Russia to grow. Russia has the capacity to be a dominant force in the geopolitical and economic sectors, thats not good for the west, obviously. anyone who even thinks about it for a second can see that.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Surely the fact Russia strong arming then president Yanukovych out of signing the Eu agreement that he promised the Ukrainian people he would do had no bearing on the protests?

you have any proof of that? where was the strong arming?

Did you know they predicted everything that happened in Ukraine at least a month before the first protest had even begun?

im sure the phone call they intercepted of nuland talking about what they would do once yanukovich was gone had nothing to do with it..... bahahahah. god your arguments suck.

ohh and lets not forget oleg tsarov detailing exactly what was going to happen before ukranian congress the december before. you want me to post that video again?

Pot meet kettle, as that is exactly what Putin tried to do in Ukraine and was denied by the people of Ukraine and their quest to get away from Russia.

except for crimea..... and the entire eastern region..... who still have yet to have their voices heard and have been having to protect them selves through means of violence. but yeah lets ignore that.

originally posted by: gortex
So Russia is our enemy now ?

Given that Putin has been claiming NATO is a threat and that he could take the capitals of several NATO nations its clear Russia thinks NATO is a threat. Ironically everything Putin has been doing is the direct cause of NATO changing its stance towards Russia.

If you don't like nato and dont want countries joining then maybe putin should stop acting like a whiny no talent ass clown and stop threatening / invading its neighbors.

a reply to: Xcathdra

How would you call an alliance made to protect your neighbours from your old self, that serves the interests of a country 5 thousand miles away? A threat. If you had any idea of how europeans view NATO and the USA and got down of your high horse, you wouldn't dare to say bs like that.
Your twisted view of the role of NATO in Europe isn't going to change the facts, that Russia has all the reasons to consider NATO a threat, and maybe in Europe we should consider it aswell given that.

If it was for the people in this continent there wouldn't be any NATO nor Russian's armies running around. Unfortunately it's isn't about the people, neither here nor in other parts of the world. It's about who's selling weapons to whom and creating the conditions to spend more money on useless weapons. Trying to believe that there is anything but wasting taxpayer's money and a brutal plan to keep Russia and Europe segregated to mantain a totalitarian 'murican world is pathetic.