Nato puts 300,000 troops on ‘HIGH ALERT’ amid fears of all out confrontation with Russia

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Right except they are not reporting NATO placing 300,000 soldiers on high alert.

The "high alert" quote was reported by The Independent. I tried to find where the quote came from, but I couldn't find the answer. I think we can say with near certainty that the quote came from the interview with Jens Stoltenberg.

Nato puts 300,000 ground troops on 'high alert' as tensions with Russia mount

I'm not blaming you for the title so if it came across like that my bad. I know its the title of the article however my point is its not accurate and the comments by Jens Stoltenberg also don't reflect the title. He is referencing readiness dealing with deployment. Not alert status dealing with an imminent armed encounter.

Its why I took exception to the op title / article. They sensationalized it for whatever purpose they were pushing however its not accurate.

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY

originally posted by: TemporalMental
a reply to: 4N0M4LY

Your trolling powers are second to none. You've already stated you're sick of topics of the WW3 scenario so one must ask why it is you stick around in this forum?

I can only assume it's to troll & give stick to people which I'm pretty sure is against forum rules.

Sucks that you are offended but I really don't care. Anyone who has seen history would tell you wars come and go all the time, this isn't anything new. Just would be nice to Actually see some good intel about SHTF. I can go when I am ready, feel free to keep replying to my posts and you will see me more often.

Wars come and go, but never in the history of man, until very recently have we had the power to wipe us all out with the simple push of a button.

You all go on about TPTB, and how they would never let it happen, yet you are completely clueless.

Let me ask you this Anomaly. Do you believe TPTB control BOTH Russia AND the West? If so, you're not paying attention, if you don't, then of course nuclear war can happen, and honestly I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: grayghost
OP you just can't let it go can you?
And where are the mods?
A long time ago you would lose your account.

I've started 71 threads in the WW3 forum and none of them have been closed or moved to the trash bin forum. What are you referring to?

You're posting in a thread with the following information:

Nato is organising the “biggest reinforcement of its collective defence since the end of the Cold War”
REUTERS

...

Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s secretary-general, did not give precise figures, but Sir Adam Thomson, Britain’s outgoing permanent representative to Nato, said he thought that the goal was to speed up the response time of up to 300,000 military personnel to about two months. At present a force of this size could take up to 180 days to deploy.
SOURCE

This news is undeniably huge and on-topic. People are complaining because it's been posted? We're reaching new lows here.

originally posted by: TemporalMental
These belittling posts trying to stifle the OP and others like him for your own post count and for the aforementioned joy of stifling is pretty lame tbf.

If you disagree with the OP that's your prerogative, why be rude? I'm assuming most of are over the age of understanding respect for your fellow man?

This is the strangest behavior yet in the WW3 forum. I understand the old "if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" tactic, but claiming that this huge news isn't related to what's been going on for months concerning the NATO/Russia situation is simply denying reality. It could be that the reason so many here can't be reasoned with is because they're in denial.

I've started 71 threads in the WW3 forum

As you have stated [ I've started 71 threads in the WW3 forum ]

I understand your concern I really do.

But are we to run around and scream the sky is falling.

Maybe I have a different way of thinking.

If I have offended you that I apologize.

It's just all those negative waves.

hope it does happen!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Profusion

With due respect something this large would have made the news since something involving 300,000 would be noticed. There is nothing on NATO's website about it and there are no comments from Jens Stoltenberg on the topic.

There is, however, an emergency drill taking place in the Balkans involving like 800 NATO personnel. It is in response to Russia holding drills in the region.

NATO, Russia to hold parallel military drills in the Balkans

There should be because it has been on Our News and in Our News papers here in Norway.

Right except they are not reporting NATO placing 300,000 soldiers on high alert. They are talking about NATO making changes to its defense posture by increasing readiness to shorten deployment times from 6 months down to 2 months. The change is geared towards the ability of NATO to field a force large enough to counter a major offensive and to do so in a certain time period.

* - Does it involve a 300,000 strong NATO response - Yes
* - Is it geared towards Russia? - Yes
* - Does it place 300,00 troops on high alert - No
* - Does it increase readiness level for faster deployment - Yes
* - Does it change / increase troop levels - No

What Jens said is that NATO will make changes so that NATO would be capable of musturing 300 000 soldiers as soon as the rapid raction force is confronted. And it should be within 2 months. To day this would take about 180 days he said.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Right except they are not reporting NATO placing 300,000 soldiers on high alert.

The "high alert" quote was reported by The Independent. I tried to find where the quote came from, but I couldn't find the answer. I think we can say with near certainty that the quote came from the interview with Jens Stoltenberg.

Nato puts 300,000 ground troops on 'high alert' as tensions with Russia mount

I'm not blaming you for the title so if it came across like that my bad. I know its the title of the article however my point is its not accurate and the comments by Jens Stoltenberg also don't reflect the title. He is referencing readiness dealing with deployment. Not alert status dealing with an imminent armed encounter.

Its why I took exception to the op title / article. They sensationalized it for whatever purpose they were pushing however its not accurate.

The title of this thread has exactly the same meaning as the title of the article from The Independent concerning this development.

Nato puts 300,000 ground troops on 'high alert' as tensions with Russia mount

We need to find where the "high alert" quote came from exactly. Outside of the possibility of the quote that had the words "high alert" being taken out of context, there is no misrepresentation in the title of this thread.

originally posted by: grayghost
If I have offended you that I apologize.

You didn't offend me. I'm just reporting the news. I don't care what others think about it outside of the management of this forum.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Profusion

With due respect something this large would have made the news since something involving 300,000 would be noticed. There is nothing on NATO's website about it and there are no comments from Jens Stoltenberg on the topic.

There is, however, an emergency drill taking place in the Balkans involving like 800 NATO personnel. It is in response to Russia holding drills in the region.

NATO, Russia to hold parallel military drills in the Balkans

There should be because it has been on Our News and in Our News papers here in Norway.

Right except they are not reporting NATO placing 300,000 soldiers on high alert. They are talking about NATO making changes to its defense posture by increasing readiness to shorten deployment times from 6 months down to 2 months. The change is geared towards the ability of NATO to field a force large enough to counter a major offensive and to do so in a certain time period.

* - Does it involve a 300,000 strong NATO response - Yes
* - Is it geared towards Russia? - Yes
* - Does it place 300,00 troops on high alert - No
* - Does it increase readiness level for faster deployment - Yes
* - Does it change / increase troop levels - No

What Jens said is that NATO will make changes so that NATO would be capable of musturing 300 000 soldiers as soon as the rapid raction force is confronted. And it should be within 2 months. To day this would take about 180 days he said.

Yup we are on the same page.

a reply to: Profusion

The 2 additional sources you provided, one by the IB Times and one by Yahoo UK, dont share the same title as the one in your op and they are fundamentally different.

a reply to: TemporalMental

Its not just reasonable, its also common sense, which granted hardly ever transpires where politics are concerned. But lets face it, for my own nation(U.K), nuclear war equates to complete and utter annihilation, so any prime minister that actually entertains the prospect of launching Trident warheads in anger would be committing nation wide suicide.

As to there being another level, i take it you mean from a spiritual perspective? Lets stick to what we can determine actually exists, not saying there is no such thing or God, but if there is mass genocide/self annihilation would hardly be part of his plan.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I can see Iran certainly heavily backing Russia, but China may well decide to remain relatively neutral considering the finance and monies invested and owed is has tied up within the American system.

a reply to: andy06shake

I agree. I feel that China is truly a non-threat at this point in time. All of their military posturing, and naval prodding in the South China Sea is merely a PR stunt constructed by the CP of China to reinforce the "Rise of China" propaganda it spews on its masses. Russia and Iran are definitely a different story - both of them seem to be global "wild cards"... Neither Russia's or Iran's economies and infrastructures could safely make it through a massive war. China is the same way, and Xi knows it. I certainly think that China would use some back channels to supply and support Russia/Iran during any conflict; but, Xi wouldn't send the country he is finally (and ruthlessly) consolidating all power in into a large-scale conflict! Putin and the Ayatollah don't seem to completely grasp the ramifications that Xi does though... The big question still remains: who will tip over the first domino?? Will Russia really make an unprovoked move on, say, the Baltic States? Personally, I don't think so - Putin wants to; but, he needs a "good excuse" to show any more aggressive action to stay within a handshake to the global community. I think we need to keep our eyes on the Middle East - there, Iran is dabbling more and more in supporting their interests. All of us know that it's only a matter of time before Iran's (so, Russia's) interests really piss off Israel - and when you piss off Israel enough, by default, you piss off the US, which then - yet again, by default - you piss off NATO. Do you feel this is a more likely scenario? Or, do you think Russia will actually lay it all on the line, and roll the dice with further aggression in Europe?? It will be really interesting to see if any major players show any type of "move" before Trump is inaugurated into office... Only time will tell, I suppose...

#ing idiots are only making the situation worse.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I can see Iran certainly heavily backing Russia, but China may well decide to remain relatively neutral considering the finance and monies invested and owed is has tied up within the American system.

The Russian and Persian Empires have been at loggerheads for centuries.

Got to love the anti Russia fear mongering. The fact that we share a space program with Russia and use their rockets etc makes all this a joke. I've been hearing about world war 3 since I joined ATS back in 2010 .. a load of old BS

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Considering NATO has not put 300k troops on alert fear-mongering is a bit difficult. Its been explained that NATO wants to increase troop readiness, which will affect 300k troops. Currently NATO timelines to deploy 300k troops would require 6 months. The readiness update would reduce that time from 6 months down to 2 months.

NATO has not deployed 300,000 troops.

Its a change in their defense posture only.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Oh trust me I can see through the BS news reporting, by the article title itself is fear mongering as is the first paragraph

"Hundreds of thousands of Nato troops will be put on a higher state of alert amid growing tensions with Russia, the head of the alliance has indicated"

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Yeah the increase in readiness is what will reduce deployment times from 6 months to 2 months.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Sorry I'm not trying to say you are wrong .. but in the eyes of the average person .. that headline and paragraph reads "NATO is massing troops because Russia is ready to start a war' ... which as we all know is complete crap it's all a bit silly

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

No I agree.. The headline they used is bs and does not reflect what is occurring. Its fear mongering wrapped in ignorance.