To anyone relying on the "not enough troops to indicate concern" defense

This is something of an offshoot thread, but it is in response to something I have seen posted in multiple threads of late. In response to concerns over the US sending 300+ Marines to the Russian border, in response to the UK sending 800 troops to the Russian border, in response to all the NATO countries sending small contingents of troops and equipment to the Russian borders we've heard one narrative consistently: "Oh, that's not enough troops to indicate there's anything serious happening."

My how 2 year's passage of time has changed the narrative.
www.cnn.com...

A top Ukrainian army officer said a "full-scale invasion" of his country was under way Thursday, as a U.S. official said up to 1,000 Russian troops had crossed Ukraine's southern border to fight alongside pro-Russian rebels.

Russia's military actions in eastern Ukraine "must cease immediately," British Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday.
"I'm extremely concerned by mounting evidence that Russian troops have made large-scale incursions into South Eastern Ukraine, completely disregarding the sovereignty of a neighbor," Cameron said. "The international community has already warned Russia that such provocative actions would be completely unacceptable and illegal."

Yet another example of the west's never ending "NATO good, Russia evil" narrative. When Russia involves 1,000 troops in assisting a region which requested their help (Crimea, or more recently Syria) the western leaders come unglued... but when the west does the same, it's "exercises" and "no cause for any concern."

When a snake coils, it intends to strike and when a scorpion raises it's tail it is preparing to sting.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't really think of a large number of troops when I think of war anymore. At least not in a war between two (or more) nations with well established militaries.

I think of bombers, drones and computer nerds hidden away in an undisclosed windowless basement somewhere.

Unfortunately, I also think of mad scientists/doctors working on the worst kinds of biological agents to covertly threaten other nations with.

As it pertains to Russia in general.... I find this entire thing fascinating and horrifying. There are "some" in the TPTB hierarchy that feel they need a boogeyman for one reason or another. Using a long outdated playbook from when Rocky 4 was in theatres, they chose Russia. They chose Russia even though there a hundreds of thousands if not millions of self-proclaimed Middle Eastern terrorists that want to kill anything that the West considers "good."

But they choose Russia to taunt, accuse and poke with a stick.

I hate to admit this... I mean I really, REALLY hate to admit this.... but at the moment the Russian government is acting like the adults in the room while my beloved United States is having temper tantrum after temper tantrum, kicking and screaming on the floor.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Russia vs the Ukraine is like the US vs Mexico. Steamroller. Also they only took a stretch of land, both in Georgia and Ukraine after NATO told them no to membership both along the Black Sea. If you think a coalition of approximately 5,000 troops with mostly defensive equipment can invade and take over Russia. You are CRAZY.

This is the same military philosophy as the troops along the DMZ in SK. They are speed bump. A tough one, but a hiccup in time and for reinforcements to deploy.

ETA- Not saying we aren't stirring the pot with the acts though.

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Russia vs the Ukraine is like the US vs Mexico. Steamroller. Also they only took a stretch of land, both in Georgia and Ukraine after NATO told them no to membership both along the Black Sea. If you think a coalition of approximately 5,000 troops with most defensive equipment can invade and take over Russia. You are CRAZY.

This is the same military philosophy as the troops along the DMZ in SK. They are speed bump. A tough one, but a hiccup in time and for reinforcements to deploy.

The coalition troops are there as skeet, IMO. Goad Russia into attacking them and suddenly you've got a media narrative of "OMG! Russia just attacked the US and her allies!!! This cannot be allowed to stand. Congress will be asked to declare war on Russia at first light tomorrow and we will begin deploying troops to the region en masse."

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's kind of the point. Poland and few other other countries have requested it for that exact reason minus the skeet. Russia already did to two former soviet states in the past 10 years. This will hopefully stop them.

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's kind of the point. Poland and few other other countries have requested it for that exact reason minus the skeet. Russia already did to two former soviet states in the past 10 years. This will hopefully stop them.

God forbid Russia involves itself in the type of forced regime change tactics the coalition has made into an art form in the Middle East and South America, ya?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

where have you been the last 20 years. when the U.S. and it's allies go in they go big, or small as in like 20 man teams.
gulf war we went big
war on terror we went big
iraq war we went big
libya we went semi big
kill osama we went small


see what i'm talking about

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yes. I think you're right about that.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Congress will be asked to declare war on Russia at first light tomorrow and we will begin deploying troops to the region en masse."

You missed what will really happen prior to the Declaration of War ... the retaliatory first-strike ... and believe me, any armed confrontation between the US and China or Russia will be lead-off with a full-scale nuclear first-strike.

Everyone thinks it'll end the world, but it won't. Most people will hardly even notice.

Tell ya this ... it'll be a bad day for any nation in possession of a nuclear arms program. And that's all I've got to say about that.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Huge difference. We're not crossing any borders?

We had briefing is all I can legally say. But for what its worth... iron curtains can be taken down and shades replace them to ensure "best interests". My apologies for being short.

originally posted by: anonymous0311
We had briefing is all I can legally say. But for what its worth... iron curtains can be taken down and shades replace them to ensure "best interests". My apologies for being short.

How about apologize for being so cryptic? either tell us something real, or don't bother posting this kind of stuff..........

a reply to: burdman30ott6

While Ukraine was just another shade of the Orange Revolution (they even kicked the same guy out of office,) Georgia was not. Regime changes and LAND GRABS are two different things.

eta-It would be like us grabbing Baja California and some Labrador islands. Not interfering in Mexico and Canadian elections.

I see a bunch of old fools in DC and on the campaign trail who are stuck in the '70s. "It's the Russians!" I think maybe they watched too many tv spy shows and movies and got around to believing the propaganda. Now they think that's the easiest way to scare us and bend us to their will. Play on the fears generated by the "Duck and Cover" drills we endured as children.
The difference today? We're no longer children and have far more accurate information from world-wide sources than was available in the '70s.
It is the Military-Industrial-Petrochemical-multinational fascists who constantly want some kind of war being waged so their investments in those industries don't lag. Fear makes money for them. Actual war makes even more money for them so they will do whatever they deem necessary to keep that gravy train on the tracks. Peaceful commerce just isn't as profitable in the short run as war.

a reply to: thesungod

having total dominance over a nations leadership through regime change and puppet installation IS a land grab, and economy grab, and resource grab, and labor pool, market access, etc.. etc..

The Georgia conflict was related to Abkhazia and South Ossetia wanting to declare independence the way Kosovo had done as well that same year due to disagreements with the capitol. It was considered the first time cyber warfare was done alongside military battle. It made for some interesting viewing the year Obama was elected.

Both Russia and NATO have their own interpretations as to why it went down the way it did. The only opinion I have is that I am thankful Russia did not have to drag half the world with it into a conflict people would have been against like Iraq, or Libya, or Syria. They handled their dirt alone and without too much grandstanding, and then moved on.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

You get it.

a reply to: thesungod

I tried to explain what a "tripfire" force was to a stripper before I left for what turned out to be Cp Stanley Korea as a blues scout,in 85.
She was convinced I was crazy for going.
I am wondering what is REALLY happening but I'M thinking the MIC has been cutting the administration out of the loop about it's exotic weapons...probably ALL after Bush Sr.
The last use weapons we keep hearing about have indeed played a strong deterrent to all of these situations,only using at the last minute so they couldn't be predicted ,countered or are illegal.
My Question to ATS is DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK we have "wonder" weapons we aren't using yet,because they haven't been warranted?