...Pentagon Announces Plan To Deploy Troops Along Russian Border

In addition to Finnish involvement and British involvement in NATO drills in the Baltic, previous ATS links below if people aren't aware. Now we have the USA/Pentagon now committing US troops to the Russia border Eastern European countries by February 2017.

Huffington Post Link

If you have paid access to the Wall Street Journal, a source article is available at the WSJ - LINK.

From Huffington Post:

As tensions continue to escalate between Russia and the West, the Pentagon has announced plans to deploy U.S. troops, armed with modern equipment and heavy artillery, full time along NATO’s eastern borders.

...

General Philip Breedlove, the top U.S. commander in Europe, announced the plan on Wednesday, calling it a “strong and balanced approach to reassuring our NATO Allies and partners in the wake of an aggressive Russia in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.”

...

Slated to start in February 2017, the plan will increase the number of U.S. combat brigades in Europe to three. Currently, there are approximately 62,000 U.S. military forces, including a reported 25,000 Army soldiers, permanently based in the continent.

Take this move by the Pentagon together with:
Finnish/NATO drill (ATS LINK)
and
UK Sending 5 naval ships to Baltic (ATS LINK)

It appears as though that the USA and NATO Allies are posturing for something major to happen in Russia or Eastern Europe. Hopefully it's not a false flag event - Gulf of Tonkin, etc.

Now add with this ATS topic and information about "A World War has begun..."and consider that the article it references the increase in nuclear production by the Obama administration. That they are now working on a much smaller nuclear missile - the B61 model 12 and that General James Cartwright as said, “Going smaller [makes using this nuclear] weapon more thinkable.”

Video discussion (18 min long):
Here is a video discussing the Pentagon's actions from the Ron Paul Institute/Ron Paul Liberty Report (love him or hate him). He discusses the Cold War era issues as well as the notion that this is perhaps a larger move by the military industrial complex (MIC) to sell more stuff. The price tag given in the video is $3.4 billion worth of new vehicles and armaments.

As Ron Paul discusses in the video, this move towards Russia is purportedly to stop Russia aggression. Likewise, we attempted to stop Sadam Hussein's aggression and we can see how well that turned out.

He states - "I think this has nothing to do with our National Security, I think this has nothing to do with Russia potentially invading Europe..." He further says that it's not good for:
1. budget
2. national security
3. reputation of NATO



To me, this appears to be more posturing by the USA and their NATO lapdogs to push Russia into a corner. Putting British ships in the Baltic Sea, and an increase in US troops around Eastern European countries almost looks like a blockade of sorts. But to what end? A false flag to start WW3? A blockade to keep Russia pinned down and cause agitation?

How easy will it be for the USA to pull off WW3 and how easy will the American public blindly follow the aggression of our government?

a reply to: WCmutant
In response to the Huffington article, I'm glad the States realize the threat to Europe is Russia....

If NATO/West keep upping the ante eventually Russia will be forced to react. News like this doesn't bode well, reminds me of how coalitions baited German aggression before WWII and we all know how well that was for mankind.

Putin has been described as an animal when cornered. It's unwise to test this theory.

a reply to: WCmutant

Winston Churchill did consider having the US, British and other Western Nations invade Russia right after WW2

The initial primary goal of the operation was declared as follows: "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though 'the will' of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment".[2] The word "Russia" is used heavily throughout the document, as during the Imperial period the term was used to refer to the Russian Empire, with which the USSR was almost coterminous.

The Chiefs of Staff were concerned that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe. The Soviet numerical superiority was roughly 4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks at the end of hostilities in Europe.[1] The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japanese forces, and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally with Japan if the Western Allies commenced hostilities.

The hypothetical date for the start of the Allied invasion of Soviet-held Europe was scheduled for 1 July 1945.[1] The plan assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines.[1] This represented almost half of the roughly 100 divisions (approximately 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time.[4]

The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible due to a three-to-one superiority of Soviet land forces in Europe and the Middle East, where the conflict was projected to take place. The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers. Any quick success would be due to surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter, the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a protracted total war. In the report of 22 May 1945, an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous".

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: WCmutant

Not sure of what the numbers might be but I as a Canadian wouldn't mind a invasion by Russia . I am thinking the way the Russians have been handling ISIS in Syria that a lot of Europeans could handle the Russians intervening and bringing the foolish hap hazard attempts of the security in Europe to stem the wave of ISIS . Trump might even be onside with Putin and call on his help at home .The west seems to be coming apart at the seems as of late . A invasion might just be the jolt we need to get things back to something that resembles a culture .

Ah the Nazis probably egged ole Winston on.......
If the Japanese weren't still fighting it could have happened...Patton was all for it....
Then when we got the bomb...well.....we had the hammer for a while....
Hungary was begginf for US troops...The Pentagon tried to shuffle them off by offering prepositioned heavy weapons over there...
Those smaller states are sitting between two big jaws....they are getting really antsy if you believe the propaganda we get....I don't know wasn't there lately...cant say if I believe in the danger much...

originally posted by: Tiamat384
I'm glad the States realize the threat to Europe is Russia.

Russia isn't a singular threat. The threat is compound. Pretty sure the US is a major role player as well.

After watching the first 3:15 of that video ... I'm here to tell you it's a lucky thing Ron Paul isn't the President of the United States.

But to what end? A false flag to start WW3? A blockade to keep Russia pinned down and cause agitation

Worst case scenario possible here?

This sparks a conflict and Obama will have to stay in office until things are resolved.


All planned, the ultimate FF to usher in the NWO.

originally posted by: Snarl
After watching the first 3:15 of that video ... I'm here to tell you it's a lucky thing Ron Paul isn't the President of the United States.

Why do you say that? At 3:15 he says - "what do you think the odds are we wake up and find out Russia has invaded Easter Europe?"

He was referencing the 1950-60s Cold War scare tactics and the current scare tactics. Also, the Cold War was an absolute joke, a fabrication. US corporations benefited from cheap Communist labor from the early days of Communist Russia and into the 1980s USSR.

The question we really have to ask ourselves is if the USSR spent so much time working with US corporations, is there much difference now? Or is this a ruse on the world stage?

Haha Eastern Europe and elsewhere he says. ...


Crimea and Syria he means. Best to be vague in meaning when your storyline is 2 dimensional.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

A invasion might just be the jolt we need to get things back to something that resembles a culture .

Nothing quite like killing a bunch of people to get things back to normal ...eh

All I can ask is why?

What are we not being told about Russia that makes it a big scary threat that needs this kind of military guardianship?

Do foreign policy makers not understand that such actions will only steel Russia's resolve?

Why is Russia being turned back into the boogeyman? To keep Attention off the fact that the USA is on life support?

a reply to: markosity1973

It's a good question.

Russia is so far down my list of threats, probably between getting bit by my neighbors dog and slipping on a banana peel, that there clearly seems to be an ulterior motive here.

Also, how long do we have to hold Europe's hand? Can these pansies defend themselves or do anything themselves? I say that as someone with family in Eastern Europe too but at some point Europe is going to have to have their balls drop and show some testicular fortitude.

They're like the kid in school who always gets picked on, always needs someone else's help and never stands up for himself and on top of all that, is arrogant to the point he's somehow owed being stuck up for.

a reply to: WCmutant

I would wait for a better source on this. Huffington Post isn't much better than the National Enquirer and random youtube videos are even less than that.

Only 4,200 of those troops are going to the 3 Baltic States that border Russia. They are symbolic in that is Russia thinks it can attack some of NATOs smallest members that their will be a reaction from the US. I know that kind ruins the drama but, it is what it is.

a reply to: RAY1990

Putin is the reason NATO is doing this and the fact that Balkan states are asking for the added security.

Putin tried to play the victim card with NATO, but he showed his true intentions when he invaded Ukraine.

He lied about that, he lied about Georgia when he invaded them, and even lied about the reason to invade Chechnya, so Putin has brought his own problems on himself...the west didn't gorce hom into doing any of those things...he did them on his own.

He created his mess now he has to deal with the consequences.

a reply to: markosity1973

Russia has made themselves the boogey man by trying to force themselves into nations that don't want to be part of the Russian world anymore.

That's why they want more protection from the Russian aggression we have seen in the region.

LEAVE THE RUSSIANS ALONE!

a reply to: WCmutant

Yeah it is trying to push Russia into a corner. I honestly believe USA either wants to colonise Ukraine into a 'democacy' with US educated 'Ukranian' (lol) politicaians Saakashvilli style, or option two have Russia invade Ukraine in total and take over.

Both options are beneficial to the USA because it creates a new cold war and the military industrial complex will gear up and the US economy will gain a manufacturing kick start.

The policy of constantly pushing Russia into a corner is plain wrong. Russia has its sphere of influence as a great power, Russian people also have their pride too. I am actually positive and back most USA policies worldwide but when it comes to Moscow the USA is one big nastly bully who wants all the sweets out the pockets and won't share a single one.