Hi Guys! New but got some WikiLeaks Info...

Hi Everyone!

As you can see I'm new here Let me take this opportunity to say that I'm very much looking forward to chatting to you all at some stage and hope that I can make a positive contribution to this site! Here's hoping anyway!

My main reason for joining was to share with you all something I recently came across. I seem to have stumbled upon cable that was sent from the American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, marked Secret. This was in reference to a UN security Council meeting held in January 2010, this cable was part of the recently released WikiLeaks file in August of this year. The meeting was in relation to operation 'Eagle Guardian' the installation of missile sights across the whole of Europe I think. Now please correct me if im wrong as I do not in any way shape or form profess to know anything about this but I looked into it a little and that was interpration of it. Anyway, the reason I found the cable so interesting is because it concerns a speech delivered by the current President of the United States.

Now, just so that you all know I like to think of myself as having an open mind and found myself getting a little excited when I saw what the President had to say and in particular what was stated in the last paragraph of the cable. This might just be my imagination but then again it might not. I want to see what you guys make of it and hopefully generate a bit of a discussion. Here is the link and apologises if this topic has been raised before.

www....__._/cable/2010/01/10STATE7810.html

regards,



Apso1

reply to post by Apso1


Nice find......just shows whats coming down the pike.........

reply to post by Cloudsinthesky


Thanks! Could that have been the Obama disclosure of 2010 that we all thought was coming but didn't? I remember reading somewhere that he (the President) would mention it in a speech.

Apso1

For those who can't access the link:

VZCZCXRO8554
PP RUEHSL
DE RUEHC #7810/01 0262036
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
P 262029Z JAN 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO ALL NATO POST COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
INFO RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6905

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 STATE 007810

SIPDIS

EO 12958 DECL: 01/22/2020
TAGS MARR, MCAP, NATO, PREL, EN, LG, LH, PL
SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF EAGLE GUARDIAN TO INCLUDE BALTIC
ALLIES

REF: A. USNATO 35 B. 09 STATE 127892

Classified By: EUR PDAS Nancy McEldowney for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

¶1. (U) This is an action cable. Please see paragraphs 3-4.

¶2. (S) Summary and Action Request. On January 22 NATO Allies agreed in the Military Committee to expand the NATO Contingency Plan for Poland, EAGLE GUARDIAN, to include the defense and reinforcement of the Baltic States. Posts in Allied capitals should be prepared to explain, as necessary, U.S. support for this approach and how it fits within our broader vision for NATO contingency planning, as well as how to respond to media inquiries on the matter. Posts are asked to draw on the points below, as necessary, in discussions on this issue. End Summary and Action Request.

¶3. (C) Posts need not engage host government officials proactively on NATO contingency planning at this time, but are encouraged to use the points below as the basis for discussions on the matter as needed.
(S/REL NATO) CONTINGENCY POINTS (FOR USE AT POST,S DISCRETION)
-- The United States believes that NATO - as a matter of course - should conduct appropriate contingency planning for the possible defense of Allied territory and populations.
-- As President Obama said in Prague: “We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from.”
-- The U.S. welcomes the decision to expand EAGLE GUARDIAN to include the defense of the Baltic states, and sees it as a logical military extension of the existing contingency plan that fits well within the existing scenario.
-- We see the expansion of EAGLE GUARDIAN as a step toward the possible expansion of NATO’s other existing country-specific contingency plans into regional plans. This is the first step in a multi-stage process to develop a complete set of appropriate contingency plans for the full range of possible threats - both regional and functional - as soon as possible. At the same time, we believe contingency planning is only one element of NATO’s Article 5 preparedness.
(S/REL NATO) POINTS ABOUT PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF PLANS (FOR USE AT POST’S DISCRETION)
-- The United States believes strongly that such planning should not be discussed publicly. These military plans are classified at the NATO SECRET level.
-- The Alliance has many public diplomacy tools at its disposal. Contingency planning is not one of them. What we should do is explore other public steps for demonstrating the vitality of Article 5, such as exercises, defense investment, and partnerships.
-- Public discussion of contingency plans undermines their military value, giving insight into NATO’s planning processes. This weakens the security of all Allies.
-- A public discussion of contingency planning would also likely lead to an unnecessary increase in NATO-Russia tensions, something we should try to avoid as we work to improve practical cooperation in areas of common NATO-Russia interest.
-- We hope that we can count on your support in keeping discussions on NATO contingency planning out of the public domain.
-- We should work together to develop strategies - to include activities such as exercises, defense investment, and partnerships - for demonstrating to our publics that Article 5’s value ultimately lies in NATO’s capabilities and deterrence, rather than specific planning.

¶4. (C) Washington strongly believes that the details of NATO,s contingency plans should remain in confidential channels. However, recent press coverage of NATO decisions regarding possible contingency planning options for the Baltic region may lead to additional media inquiries. If necessary, posts may use the points below in responding to
STATE 00007810 002 OF 002
public queries.
(U) PUBLIC/PRESS INQUIRIES -- IF ASKED:
-- NATO does not discuss specific plans.
-- As a matter of course, however, NATO engages in planning in order to be as prepared as possible for whatever situations might arise, particularly as relates to its ability to carrying out its Article 5 commitments.
-- Plans are not static. NATO is constantly reviewing and revising its plans.
-- NATO planning is an internal process designed to make the Alliance as prepared as possible for future contingencies. It is not “aimed” at any other country.
-- President Obama acknowledged this when he said at Prague that “We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from.” CLINTON

reply to post by mr-lizard


Much appreciated and thanks for that. how long can I use the excuse 'I'm new'!

Perhaps someone can explain to me what the importance of this is supposed to be? I'm seeing discussion of contingency plans and the public restriction of information related to them. It's been said the Pentagon has invasion and Battle Plans for everything from Moscow, to London to modern day Tokyo.

That isn't a reflection on a particular interest or bend toward war mongering as much as a product of the largest office building on Earth full of bean counters that need something to do so their existence can be justified from one budget year to the next.

So... How should this be concerning? I'm not being sarcastic...I'm really wondering if I am reading the same message traffic on this and missing an obvious point. It sure wouldn't be the first time in life such a thing had happened.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Hi there,

Its in relation to the authors comments and Obama's speech in particular the last paragraph;

The missile system ' It is not “aimed” at any other country'.
-- President Obama acknowledged this when he said at Prague that “We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from.” CLINTON

If its not "aimed" at another country yet plans are in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from, Who's it aimed at and whats it for then?

In my second post I make reference to the so called disclosure by Obama about the existence of extraterrestrials that was supossed to happen last year but didn't. What I'm saying is that could the information that disclosure was coming last year be true but due to the nature of this 'secret' cable and indeed the meeting being asked to be kept from the public be the reason why no one got to see it? Does this help?

Originally posted by Apso1
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

Much appreciated and thanks for that. how long can I use the excuse 'I'm new'!

No problem buddy.

Thanks for sharing.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I understand that battle plans, contingency plans and war games if you like are always being drafted by analysts but for this to be discussed at the United Nations and for the Commander in Chief to make a speech about it struck me as a bit more significant than usual. You know what I mean?

reply to post by Apso1

It is not “aimed” at any other country.

-- President Obama "...wherever they may come from.”

In my opinion, these two phrases are being stressed as such due to this statement:

A public discussion of contingency planning would also likely lead to an unnecessary increase in NATO-Russia tensions, something we should try to avoid as we work to improve practical cooperation in areas of common NATO-Russia interest.

If it is like you mentioned and the EAGLE GUARDIAN project thingy has to do with increased missile defense utilizing perhaps locations on Russia's front doorstep, in Europe and other surrounding countries, that the US has "a say" in, then I could see why the US would prefer NATO to keep this hush hush to the general public.

A little too late for that now thanks to Wikileaks...

Nonetheless, I feel this has nothing to do with an extraterrestrial threat. If it were, yes I could see keeping it from the public, but why would you keep it from Russia, every country would need to help battle an attacking alien species I would think. If it were a reference to aliens this cable would have had no need to exist to begin with, imo.

Respectfully,

Hi there,

Yeah I can see your point. But remember the missile defence system is not a new proposal was it not devised by George W Bush a good few years back. The Russians knew about and weren't particularly happy at the time, it was all over the news and in the papers. Why keep something quiet that everyone already knows about anyway? And lets not forget they do have a response prepared for the media should they ask about it and one of the responses is the quote that I mentioned above. I'm also pretty sure the topic of discussion would have been made public just not the actual minutes of the meeting.

Originally posted by Apso1
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Hi there,

Its in relation to the authors comments and Obama's speech in particular the last paragraph;

The missile system ' It is not “aimed” at any other country'.
-- President Obama acknowledged this when he said at Prague that “We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from.” CLINTON

If its not "aimed" at another country yet plans are in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from, Who's it aimed at and whats it for then?

In my second post I make reference to the so called disclosure by Obama about the existence of extraterrestrials that was supossed to happen last year but didn't. What I'm saying is that could the information that disclosure was coming last year be true but due to the nature of this 'secret' cable and indeed the meeting being asked to be kept from the public be the reason why no one got to see it? Does this help?

Well, indeed I did miss something then. I honestly hadn't caught that missile aim reference to the subtle meanings that would seem to carry. Hmmm..... Thank you for the clarification to what you are trying to highlight and I believe you have given me something to spend part of a lazy Saturday afternoon looking deeper into.

Perhaps...just maybe..Russia did have some reasons to get awfully hot and bothered about a system we were told was strictly anti-missile defense and nothing beyond that for capability. At the very least...I think I'll start digging back through cable traffic in the database and some other info sources to get more references and details.

This may be nothing but talk about the Missile Defense systems we do all know about..but maybe there is more. Thanks again for the straight and sincere reply to my question.

No problem and more than happy to help!

Every time something relating to the Baltic sea like this comes up, it reminds me of the mystery of the MV 'Arctic Sea' which was pirated in the Baltic sea, and also in 2009.

en.wikipedia.org...

The whole scenario had never been properly explained, including speculation that something was dumped in the sea from the pirated ship, although all the hijackers were caught and sentenced as pirates. There is also speculation about any Russian government role in the incident. How does it link to this cable, well the cable is advisory, warning that the media have wind of the NATO operation, and what to say if asked, so that it what the cable is about, so no link in that way. The subject of say, US or other NATO missiles being based in the Baltics would be disturbing to the Russians alright, and possibly the Russians might have, (or others) half inched one, and is where the MV 'Arctic Sea' comes in, as all the speculation was that it was carrying something other that a not too valuable cargo of pine.

reply to post by Apso1


To my knowledge a "contingency plan" is an alternative plan from what is to be the original and laid out plan for all intents and purposes. I am taking this as, "wherever they may come from" to perhaps include Russia in the event Russia went rogue and decided to start popping missiles off.

I am sure that there would be multiple contingency plans for other countries that would be developed as well, say if China wigs out, or India, etc. I feel this is why the push to keep this out of the public eye is being stressed.

Occums Razor is all...

I thought it was being fairly simple in my explanation!

reply to post by Apso1


Don't take what I replied with as offensive (if you were), that wasn't my intent I assure you. I am just offering my opinion to what I feel the cable is referencing.

Your scenario: Aliens/UFOs

My scenario: Terrestrial threats from other countries, that aren't currently considered a threat therein requiring a contingency plan to be implemented by NATO and the US. Especially since we (the US) like to be "all up in the mix" all the time.

Which would be Occums Razor best fit?

No offence taken I promise! I was joking in my last post

As for which one would best fit?....I could not possibly comment! my pride wont allow it!

doesn't mean its right though...

reply to post by Apso1


welcome to ATS....hope you like it here...Thanks for the post