Russia

NATO: US Troops Could Be Deployed to Eastern Europe

|

Security-and-Defence-Agenda CC BY

Pressure is rising between the U.S. and Russia, with Ukraine caught in the middle. The top general of NATO suggested yesterday that he may send American troops to Eastern European members of the military alliance.

U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove said he isn't going to "write off involvement by any nation, to include the United States." He told the Associated Press that "essentially what we are looking at is a package of land, air, and maritime measures that would build assurance for our easternmost allies…. I'm tasked to deliver this by next week. I fully intend to deliver it early."

The request comes from the foreign ministers of NATO.

Any U.S. military involvement likely wouldn't sit well with the American public, however. The latest Reason-Rupe poll indicates that 76 percent of Americans oppose sending troops to Ukraine, even if Russia were to stage another invasion.

Ukraine is not a NATO member, but it borders four countries that are. Russia also shares a border with four NATO members.

Breedlove noted that Russia's aims are still unclear, so "everything we are trying to do in the air, on the ground, and at sea, we are trying to completely characterize as defensive in nature… so that we don't provoke."

Last month, NATO suspended cooperation with Russia over perceived threats to Ukraine's sovereignty and has been turning up the heat. The AP explains that "NATO has already reinforced its Baltic air patrols and is performing daily AWACs surveillance flights over Poland and Romania," and "NATO member states [will] carry out beefed-up maritime operations through the end of the year."

The Russian Foreign Ministry shot back yesterday, accusing NATO of exaggerating the Ukrainian crisis to stir interest in potential new members. The Kremlin denies that it plans to invade any more parts of Ukraine, but the fact that it has stationed artillery, airplanes, and an estimated 40,000 troops along Ukraine's eastern border leaves Ukraine and other countries with large ethnic Russian populations wary of Russian President Vladimir Putin's plans.

Advertisement

NEXT: Data From England Suggest E-Cigarettes Help Smokers Quit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. EXCELLENT.

  2. U.S. military involvement likely wouldn’t sit well with the American public

    Then it’s a good thing General Breedlove didn’t suggest such a thing. Moving troops to Poland =/= military intervention, and frankly closing down shop in Western Europe and maintaining a small presence in Eastern Europe makes at least some sense.

    The point of this is to reassure current NATO members, not to defend Ukraine (which at this point is SOL).

    1. and frankly closing down shop in Western Europe and maintaining a small presence in Eastern Europe makes at least some sense.

      If you think for a second they’re going to cut the troop levels by a single person in western Europe then you’re sadly mistaken. This is a sabre-rattling designed to assuage the more hawkish elements of the independent voter base.

      As for NATO members begging for us to come to their aid, I will say: get your own military or pay us for the privilege of being your fucking mercenary Army.

      1. I think they will move things from the expensive places (Germany, Low Countries) and into the cheap ones (Poland, et al)

        Cut? Maybe a little bit – Congresscritters will be howling about any cut in their districts, so the cuts to come will probably be tilted abroad.

        1. Should have made that move a decade ago.

          What difference does any of this make? Poland and the Baltic States are NATO allies, if Russia invades we are at war regardless of were our troops are.

          As for provocation – Russia waited until after a company of U.S. Marines training in Georgia had left before invading. Like any smart bully, Putin doesn’t want a real fight.

      2. I don’t know; if it’s anything like our aircraft and naval deployments up until now, then it’ll be like one more ship and 50 personnel, some token measure that won’t amount to anything. I don’t think we should even do that much, myself.

  3. Well, if we can get back to worrying about Mutually Assured Destruction, maybe we can stop worrying about ragheads toppling buildings.

  4. They’re just moving the tripwire closer to where it ought to be.

  5. Good. Cold War II: The Crimea Frontier is starting up and we’ve got Mr. Community Organizer going up against Comrade Vader.

    1. Instead of Luke, once he became a Jedi, going up against Vader and Palpatine, I would liken this to Jar Jar leading the Rebellion.

      1. Mee-sah think dry cleaning-ah too much money-ah fo woman gungan!

        1. ^Excellent^

          1. That would be “excerrent”.

  6. America, FUCK YEAH!
    Coming again, to save the European day yeah…

  7. “essentially what we are looking at is a package of land, air, and maritime measures that would build assurance for our easternmost allies…. I’m tasked to deliver this by next week. I fully intend to deliver it early.”

    George C. Scott probably said it better.

    1. Putin is a pretty magnificent bastard…

  8. Who could possibly care what this guy says? Anders Fogh Rasmussen is NATO Sec General and Knud Bartels is Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.

    NATO is a treaty organization where everyone has a voice and not just a puppet for the US to pull strings for when it feels like flexing its flabby muscles.

    1. “The request comes from the foreign ministers of NATO.”

      So it appears they asked for this, not the US. If I were Putin, I’d be shaking like a leaf…”Ohnoes! They are making a package of measures! I must flee to my hidden lair!!!!”

  9. “everything we are trying to do in the air, on the ground, and at sea, we are trying to completely characterize as defensive in nature… so that we don’t provoke.”

    So FedGov is going to call it “defensive” even though they are massing the army right on the Russian border. And the purpose of this “defensive package” is not to provoke, even though a massive build-up on the border of a country is, by its very nature, provocative.

    1. Yeah, I can only imagine Russia to have to respond accordingly by also sending some more troops to its western borders.

    2. ^^This^^

      I ran it through my bullshit translator and this came out: “We will move our assets, including those of nations that have never had troops here, to mass at Russia’s borders and effectively moon and flash our peckers at them like the dudes did in Braveheart. And if the Russians take offense then that’s their problem.”

      1. Are we to think that the formerly Soviet Union’s satellite nations, now NATO members, have no legitimate worries about Russian intentions?

        If they have worries, can they not call on NATO for some preventative troop shuffling?

    3. “massive build-up”?

      I don’t think NATO can “massive” anything right now except hot air and bluffs.

  10. Bad foreign policy by the Federal government has been destroying the USA and everything else that gets in its way.

    But anyway.

    Vlad the Debt collector is coming!

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26975204

  11. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Send Code Pink.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.