‘Outgunned’ NATO to Step Up Eastern Deployments to Deter Russia
Source: Bloomberg
NATO will move more defensive forces toward Russia’s border after eastern European governments complained that reinforcements deployed since 2014 don’t provide enough deterrence.
Allied military planners have called for a “battalion-size multinational force” in each of several eastern countries including the Baltic republics, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said.
“A multinational presence sends a very clear signal that an attack on one ally will be an attack on the whole alliance,” Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday. He said details will be worked out by a summit in Warsaw in July.
Russia’s takeover of Crimea and proxy war in eastern Ukraine near NATO territory in 2014 led the U.S. to rotate troops into eastern Europe and prompted the alliance to set up a 5,000-man rapid-response force.
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-18/-outgunned-nato-to-step-up-eastern-deployments-to-deter-russia
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)are going to screw around until they start WWIII.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)is the plan.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
Old Vet
(2,001 posts)
MattSh
(3,714 posts)Voted most likely to start WWIII.
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)[link:
|
braddy
(3,585 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)I wonder how Putin manages that. Tectonic shift is my suspicion.
braddy
(3,585 posts)NATO isn't invading anyone, if Finland feels that the Russian threat on their border is too great for them, then Finland and Sweden should be allowed to join NATO.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)That's a funny one. Perhaps you should seek other sources of information that are not propaganda outlets for Western intelligence agencies.
braddy
(3,585 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)I'd be an epic hypocrite to be making such a suggestion to Russia.
Betcha can't even name the last country the US invaded.
braddy
(3,585 posts)before he can become a more serious threat to European peace with his continuing aggression.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)The US invades a different country every year and it's Russia that somehow needs to be stopped.
Is your self-awareness level zero, or less?
braddy
(3,585 posts)Not to mention the former slave states of Russia such as Poland and Estonia and the other NATO nations seeking reassurance that NATO will not abandon them in the face of Putin's aggression and threats of war and annihilation.
Lodestar
(2,388 posts)Diclotican
(5,095 posts)Purveyor
I do not think NATO is "Outgunned" even if a little thin in the lines - but the fear many east european countries have about Russia IS real... And justified to a large extent too.... But it might be that in the years into the future, the whole Alliance need to bolster its military, that every member state need to use more resources on the military field, than before - not to start a war - but to be able to counter if Russia who have re-armed and modernized their military greatly the last years decide on anything.
And the annexations of Crimea - and the proxy war in Eastern Ukraine, plus the new games Putin have been plying with NATO in 2014-2015 have shown that Russia want to be seen as a power in Europe - and a country who is to be respected by NATO - and maybe even feared... But of ocurse, one also have the many "games" been played by NATO, and specially the US, who have a finger in many things that happend in Europe now a days...
Diclotican
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Russians deserve some respect.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)Just "spreading Democracy" and other such bullshit...
MattSh
I kind of stated such did I not? - That NATO, had a finger in two in it all... But the fear many europeans have against the expansive role Russia have had the last couple of years is real - specially in the former member states of the soviet union, like the baltic states who does not want to return to the "good old days" where Kremlin deiced of what they could do - or if they could use their own language instead of russian in education or elsewhere in public... And they also fear what Russia could do with the relative large groups of minorities in the baltic states, who speak and feel like russians, but who have lived in the baltic states for decades - maybe centuries - but who still held strong connections to russia for much of their "identity"... And a former commander of NATO have stated quite clearly that it is more than possible that Russia could use the pretext of "defending" their russian compatriots in the baltic states - to invade, or try to invade the baltic states - even if it would mean a war with NATO - according to article 5 in the treaty who state quite clearly that a attack on one of the member states, is an attack on the whole alliance - and as Russia have emphasized their reliance on nuclear weapons to defend Russia and russian interests even if Russia is the attacker the fear of a nuclear exchange have greatly grown the last couple of years...
Diclotican
Lodestar
(2,388 posts)has been voiced by Rumsfeld. It's an attempt to move the front line away
from the shores of the U.S.. And of course with over half of discretionary
spending going to the military complex, war IS the economy and being the
policeman of the world is quite lucrative.
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)Lodestar
One thing who is a little ironic, about being the police man of the world, with all the benefits it reap the US - many in US now a days cry out for more isolationism, hiding behind the oceans, and let the rest of the world fall down as they might do - This is a sentiment I have seen on many social forums the last couple of mounts - specially after Donald Trump got into the action, America First as the slogan is... Charles Lindberg also had the same slogan more than 80 years ago, after he got a little chummy with Hitler, and wanted US to stay out of the world affairs - and let Hitler rape the world....
Diclotican
scscholar
(2,902 posts)escalate things in Europe again.
braddy
(3,585 posts)
Backwoodsrider
(764 posts)Just a little more serious
braddy
(3,585 posts)It was deadly, and today Russia doesn't have those 100s of millions of people enslaved and supplying their military in men and material, and that Soviet military was built for ATTACK, it was not defensive.
The Soviet military had SEVEN Airborne Divisions, huge amounts of bridge building units, and a vast Armor force, all built for invasion and conquest, not for defense.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)thanks.
braddy
(3,585 posts)Putin is trying to rebuild the Empire and he sees the small NATO nations as weak and feels that NATO itself doesn't have the resolve to defend itself, that is why he is invading and conquering, and threatening not only the tiny NATO nations but also Sweden and Finland.
UnitedFront4Sanders
(23 posts)Don't tell me Crimea. That has been ethnically Russian for a long time with I think what are descendants of the Mongols. Khrushchev gave Crimea to what was then the Soveit Republic of Ukraine. That did not make the Crimea Ukraine's by default and Russia therefore has no claim. Just more neocon nonsense to start another cold war and get us to play cop to the world.
braddy
(3,585 posts)joining NATO, if Russia wasn't on the move again.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)tell me again who is on the move?
Please, just turn off the MSM bullshit. It's the quickest way possible to double one's intelligence.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I am FUCKING SICK of this anti-American horseshit.
braddy
(3,585 posts)defense alliance against their former master.
They know they are under threat again from Putin, who wants to reconquer them, even Sweden and Finland are being forced to look at whether they can survive Putin if they don't join NATO.
Russia is on the move, not NATO, Russia is fighting for empire, NATO nations are a voluntary defense alliance to protect their individual freedom.
Poland and the Baltic states are not looking to escape NATO, they are looking for ways to escape being enslaved again.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Until they gained independence
LeFleur1
(1,197 posts)is that critical people haven't studied how Hitler began to take over the continent. NATO could wait until Putin invades France, Italy, and Spain, I guess. OR they could let him know that they see what he is doing and he'll have a fight on his hands if he continues. That could be called war mongering, I guess. OR it could be called protecting people and countries. Depends on your knowledge and your viewpoint.
braddy
(3,585 posts)We defeated Hitler, but the Russians kept what they conquered, until the empire collapsed.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Ethnic cleansing of the Crimea tartars by the Russians
UnitedFront4Sanders
(23 posts)Last edited Tue May 24, 2016, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)
Link to a present article where the Russians are ethnically cleansing the Crimean Taters? Glad to see you support us spending trillions of dollars(that otherwise could be spent on people here that really need it) playing cop to the world.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts) Nihil
(13,508 posts)As usual, the truth lies between the two extremes but no-one wants the truth, they want "News" ...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Nihil
(13,508 posts)I am just seeing so much of DU becoming so highly polarised that I'm
fed up of seeing the extreme positions trumpeted as "The One True Way".
YMMV.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)Yeah, I'm sure they're terrified of the 100 Canadians and 3 Lichtensteinans who will join in the fracas.
But no seriously, everyone knows WWIII has already started. It's just off to a slow boil.
independentpiney
(1,510 posts)and executive summary:
Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank
Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics
• Across multiple games using a wide range of expert
participants playing both sides, the longest it has taken
Russian forces to reach the outskirts of Tallinn and Riga
is 60 hours.
• Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited
number of options, all bad.
• Having a force of about seven brigades, including three
heavy armored brigades—adequately supported by
airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the
ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities—
might prevent such an outcome.
• While not sufficient for a sustained defense of the
region or to restore NATO members’ territorial integrity,
such a posture would fundamentally change the
strategic picture from Moscow.
• While this deterrent posture would not be inexpensive
in absolute terms, it is not unaffordable, especially in
comparison with the potential costs of failing to defend
NATO’s most exposed and vulnerable allies.
It's an interesting read though rather long.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)That is putting 100,000 soldiers into those two countries in the form of an ARMOR Corp. The argument is without that level of Land forces Russia could take Latvia and Estonia within no longer then 70 hours even with NATO air power. At that point what will NATO do? Nuclear confrontation will be out IS Riga worth Chicago? If you French is Riga worth Paris? if you are German, is Riga worth Berlin, the answer is the same as when DeGualle asked in 1960 is "Paris worth Chicago" and that is NO if you are the USA).
Any reserve forces will have to come from Germany, via Poland and Kaliningrad (which is Russian territory). Worse 30% of the population of Estonia are Russian, 40 % of Lativia is Russian (mostly in the urban areas). The RAND report does mention the huge number of Russians living in both countries, but ignores the issue that under the law in Latvia and Estonia they can NOT vote (if you are Russian, in both countries, you must show your ancestors where in that country prior to 1939). Thus Russia has grave concerns about that discrimination and has protested it, but it is ignored by the west.
Side note: In a recent election in Latvia, where the issue of giving such Russian who have lived in Latvia for decades for decades and born in Latvia the vote, the vote when 2 to 1 against such an extension of the vote, given the huge number of Russians living in Latvia, who would have voted YES, if they could vote, most residents of Latvia would extend the vote to such Russians, but a large hard right wing refuses to do so)/
Now, an Armor Corp will be able to stop any Russian invasion of Latvia and Estonia, but it also will be capable of taking St Petersburg in 48 hours. Do you think Putin will TOLERATE that threat to the second most important city in Russia? Latvia and Estonia as weak countries on the edge of Russia are NOT a threat to Russia (thus Russia has tolerated them as independent from 1918 to 1940, when the fear of Germany using those countries as bases to attack Russia grew). On the other hand both can and have been used in the past as bases to invade Russia (The Swedes in the 1600s to 1700s, the Teutonic Knights from about 1100 to 1400). Latvia and Estonia as independent countries are NOT a threat to Russia UNLESS tied in with a large country elsewhere and right now that is NATO and the US.
Sorry, the US should NEVER have permitted these two countries to join NATO, they are on the edge of the alliance and almost impossible to defend, but are great bases to attack Russia, especially St Petersburg. No Russian leader will accept a NATO Armor Corp in Latvia and Estonia and will either attack as it is being formed up, or have special forces enter both countries to destroy the ability of the Corp to operate. Given the huge Russia Speaking minority in both Countries, NATO will then have to do ethnic cleansing and since most of the Russia Speakers are technical people, provide replacements for those people.
An Armor Corp in Latvia and Estonia is a nightmare not a dream and hopefully this idea will die a quick death.
independentpiney
(1,510 posts)I'm genuinely interested in reading anything you have to substantiate that. I'm pretty sure Russia has at least several corps in the military district, and Russians are extremely tenacious on the defensive. Army Group North (9 corps) couldn't take it even with additional corps from the Finns helping out . You seem to think I'm supporting the plan which is hardly the case, I've been aware of the Rand study from being a wargamer and when I read the article in the op I thought 'holy shit' this is based on these wargames. The Baltic States do have legitimate concerns based on recent history, as does Russia with NATO agression. Incorporating any of the Russian 'near abroad' into NATO was a serious strategic mistake in my opinion.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In fact the distance from the Estonia border to Tallinn is 210 Kilometers, it is actually SHORTER to go to St Petersburg then Tallinn (The capital of Estonia) from the border. It is from that border that the Rand Corporation said it would take the Russians no more then 70 hours to take Tallinn (and in most cases 24 hours, 70 hours was the MAX time, if everything went right for NATO and wrong for the Russians).
The range of an M1 tank is 426 km or 265 miles, so an Armor thrust to St Petersburg, the tanks will NOT even have to refill their fuel tanks. St Petersburg is within 1/3 of the range of the M1 tank from the Estonian border. An armor thrust headed by a massive air assault, should disperse anything the Russian had in front of that Armor Corp.
St Petersburg AND Moscow are in what the Russian's call their Western Military District. That district had 400,000 troops, but most are around Moscow NOT St Petersburg (With additional forces near the White Sea).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/vo-western.htm
According to Wikipedia, the only tank units in the Western Military District are around Moscow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Military_District
St Petersburg had two Motorized Rifle BRIGADES and two ARTILLERY BRIGADES (General rule three brigades to a division WITH the Division having as many men in the Brigades providing support for the Division, in a Russian Motorized Rifle Division it is three regiments of Mechanized Armored fighting Vehicles and a Tank Regiment, an Artillery Regiment and an Anti Aircraft Regiment PLUS the support units to help those units maneuver, i.e. supply, medical and engineering units).
Please note, today, most Regiments are called Brigades and the terms are used interchangeably in most circumstances. Historically Regiment and Bridges were different size units, but in the last 150 years that has ceased to be the case. Thus today, Brigades are sometimes referred to as a "Regiment", you could have three battalions from the same regiment in a modern US Brigade. During WWII, you had three battalions to each Regiment, and three Regiment to each Division (and NO brigades). Today, it is three Battalions (with Regimental names) to each Brigade, with thee Brigades to a Division (and no Regiments except for the Three Battalions of the same Regiment in the brigade). In the US Civil War, you could have anywhere from two to five regiments to a Brigade, during WWI the US had two regiments to a Brigade, thus the terms have changed meaning, but today they tend to be the same size units).
The forces around Moscow can be moved to the border of Estonia and Latvia if Russia wanted to attack either country (Thus the Rand statement that Russia can take over both countries within 70 hours). The forces around St Petersburg do NOT have support units for any long maneuver efforts (Those units tend to be at Divisional or Corp level and all the units around St Petersburg are Brigade level units). Thus St Petersburg has a decent size defensive force, but like the defensive forces for Latvia and Estonia, the defense forces around St Petersburg has little ability to maneuver (Through being mechanized Brigades better then the Latvia and Estonian Units).
That is NOT true of the Units around Moscow, but by the time those troops would be committed to an all out attack on St Petersburg, St Petersburg would be in NATO/US's hands. Moscow is about 715 kilometer or about 440 miles from St Petersburg, thus any Armor from Moscow will have to be refueled at least twice before reaching St Petersburg (It is a doable range for Tanks, but in most cases the Tanks will be moved by train to some location closer to St Petersburg before launching their counter attack).
Thus my point, St Petersburg could be taken by a NATO Armor Corp in Estonia and Latvia within 24 hours. The Russians could put up a better defense then could the Latvians and Estonians could in a Russian invasion, but the results would be similar.
Please, note if everything goes right for NATO and wrong for the Russians, St Petersburg could be in NATO's hands within six hours. That is unlikely but it is possible, just like Estonia and Latvia falling to Russian's hands within six hours, possible but unlikely. Please note both attacks assume units that exist, but are NO WHERE NEAR where they would have to be to do such an attack. This is all theoretical until someone move those units, which is what RAND Corporation is advocating.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)to try to bankrupt Putin by forcing him to arm up. I believe the oil price drop was engineered to put pressure on various 'enemies' - Russia, Iran, Venezuela.
braddy
(3,585 posts)Why doesn't Russia withdraw it's troops back to it's own borders and quit threatening everyone?
Even Sweden and Finland are now under Russian threat and contemplating NATO membership.
LarryNM
(493 posts)Those Opposed labeled as "Putin Apologists". And So It Goes.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Everything old is new again.
Of course those trip wires don't mean much if they aren't backed-up. Back-up means forward positioning, forward positions must be supported, etc, etc. Time to dust off the old plans.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg should have consulted Moscow before announcing that the military alliance will hold a new meeting of the Russia-NATO council before NATO's July summit, Interfax news agency quoted the Russian foreign minister as saying on Friday.
"Why on earth did he say that? The Russia-NATO council works on the basis of consensus," Interfax cited Sergei Lavrov as saying and expressing Moscow's "bewilderment". "If they want to discuss this, let him discuss this with us instead of making his way to the microphone."
NATO is due to hold its next summit in Warsaw in early July.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-nato-idUSKCN0YB18H
bemildred
(90,061 posts)BRUSSELS — NATO has reached “broad agreement” to seek another meeting with Russia before NATO leaders meet in Warsaw this July, the alliance’s chief said Friday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman swiftly welcomed the announcement, but said all dialogue must include a respect for Russia’s interests.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said at a Thursday dinner, alliance foreign ministers agreed on a “dual track approach” toward Moscow: to keep reinforcing NATO defenses against what they see as a mounting Russian threat, but also to keep channels of communication open to the Kremlin.
Stoltenberg said the ministers “all agreed in the current situation that we need a platform (like) the NATO-Russia Council to pursue transparency, predictability and to work for enhancing mechanisms for risk reduction to avoid dangerous situations, situations which can spiral out of control.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/nato-chief-broad-agreement-to-seek-meeting-with-russia/2016/05/20/9381f2ea-1e5c-11e6-82c2-a7dcb313287d_story.html
bemildred
(90,061 posts)The Kremlin has seized on the visit by southeast Asian leaders for a summit as an opportunity to show Russia still has friends on the international stage, despite being cold-shouldered by the West over the conflict in Ukraine.
Russia has had few chances to host major international gatherings since Western sanctions were imposed, so there has been considerable fanfare around this week's summit with members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).
A special commemorative coin was minted for the occasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin flew most of his government to the Black Sea resort of Sochi to take part, and state television broadcast a prime-time report showing how cleaners were vacuuming the carpet at the summit venue in preparation.
While the formal agenda of the two-day summit that ends on Friday has focused on building Russia's ties with ASEAN member countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar, it has also been conducted with an eye on the United States and Europe.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-asean-idUSKCN0YB14P
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Trump and Bob Gates are in a media war over foreign policy.
The Russians are offering to conduct joint attacks on al Nusra with us.
Erdogan intends to have a war with the Kurds, maybe some other people too. How Putin will choose to deal with that I don't have any idea, but he will want to make Erdogan pay for it, and I expect he will use the opportunity to make more friends and sell guns.
Trump has said he would beat the hell out of ISIS but leave Assad alone.
NATO continues to be confused about how it wants to relate to Russia, meanwhile Trump says Russia should be our ally.
Etc.
Trump is a wrecking ball. They better stop thinking he is stupid. He's outsmarted them.
I see hints about concessions to Sanders to get him back on board too. Always behind the curve, they are, but better late than never. Pride goeth before a fall.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Former CIA director and defense secretary Robert Gates isn’t thrilled with either major party’s presumptive nominee. He has pointed out that there has been too little serious discussion of foreign policy on the Democratic side. From Donald Trump, we get “bluster and threats,” Gates said Thursday.
When Trump shot off his mouth after news of the downed Egyptian airliner was first reported, Gates scolded, “One of the things that you learn fairly early when you have responsibility is how often the initial reports or information you get on a situation prove to be inaccurate. With the demands of news media and so on, there’s always pressure to immediately react before you know really what’s going on, and that’s a discipline that frankly a lot of politicians don’t have until they have responsibility.” Gates makes clear, “Temperament is the most important thing.” For a president, that means “knowing what you don’t know.” That sounds like a thumbs-down on Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/05/20/robert-gates-vs-donald-trump/
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates found himself on the receiving end of Donald Trump’s barbed tongue Friday.
Gates had publicly criticized the presumptive Republican presidential candidate’s foreign policy proposals and temperament several times the day before. He said some of Trump’s statements – such as making Japan and South Korea pay more for U.S. military resources – could spur others to take steps that ultimately undermine cooperation with our allies.
Mika Brzezinski, co-host of “Morning Joe,” asked Trump to respond to these criticisms during a Friday interview with the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
“The comments are wrong. He knows nothing about me. He knows nothing about what I said,” Trump replied. “I’m not a big fan of his, by the way… look at where our country is with years of him being involved. We are a mess.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fires-back-at-ex-sec-of-defense-gates-he-knows-nothing-about-me-151530691.html
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Washington. Presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Friday (20/05) British Prime Minister David Cameron had asked him to visit and that he might accept the invitation, an apparent easing of tensions between the presumptive Republican Party nominee and the leader of a major US ally.
Trump, in an interview with MSNBC, said Cameron extended the invitation to visit 10 Downing Street two days ago and that he "might do it." He gave no other details, including when the visit might occur.
Representatives of Cameron's office could not be immediately reached for comment to confirm the invitation.
http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news-international/trump-says-cameron-invited-visit-uk/
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Now why is Trump able to control the narrative? It's unusual, isn't it? Because we have so many political taboos that he can stomp on and failed policies that are clung to for poltical reasons, that's why. In a well run country guys like Trump don't get far, they have nothing to attack, and no pissed off crowds to inflame.
And the other (related) thing is the habitual lying by the media and business and political classes, they have lost their legitimacy and nobody is listening. This appears to dumbfound them.
No 10 has rejected a claim by Donald Trump that David Cameron has invited the US presidential hopeful to visit Downing Street.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/world/news/75219/no-10-rejects-donald-trump-claim-invitation-downing-street-david-cameron
bemildred
(90,061 posts)--
FRUSTRATED AMERICANS ARE LESS LIKELY TO SUPPORT TRUMP THAN ANGRY AMERICANS - Amy Walter: "Americans aren’t actually any angrier at government today than they were a year ago, or even four years ago. In fact, according to data from the Pew Research Center, the percent of Americans who say they are 'angry at the federal government' has remained rather consistent over the last six years...'So, why the obsession with anger? Well, like just about everything else we talk about this year, it has an association with Donald J. Trump….f you interview or focus on only 'angry' people, you get a very biased sample of the overall electorate and who they are likely to support….[T]hose who were the most likely to think Trump would be great were angry voters and those who thought he’d be terrible were 'content' or 'frustrated' voters...In other words, people who are angry with government (21 percent of all voters) have their candidate - Trump. People who are content with government (20 percent of all voters) have theirs - Clinton. But, for the vast majority who are frustrated, Clinton has a small edge. Or more accurately, those who are frustrated with government view Trump more negatively than they do Clinton." [Cook]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-voters-angry-risk-accepting_us_573f069ce4b0613b5129effc
bemildred
(90,061 posts)London Mayor Sadiq Khan is inviting Donald Trump to come to his city to meet its residents, including Muslims.
"On your programme, I invite Donald Trump to come to London, meet my wife and my daughters, meet my friends and my neighbors, meet Londoners...they're Londoners, they're Muslim," Khan said on ITV's "Good Morning Britain."
Khan was elected as London's first Muslim mayor in early May and has feuded with Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, over his proposed Muslim entry ban.
In the latest interview, Khan said he hopes Hillary Clinton "trounces" Trump in the general election.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/london-mayor-invites-donald-trump-to-meet-muslims/
bemildred
(90,061 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)According to Page Six, my favorite political publication, Donald Trump’s spokeswoman Hope Hicks essentially ripped his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski a new asshole last night in a very public display of contempt.
Lewandowski—best known for grabbing a young female reporter hard enough to leave a bruise and pretending he never touched her until there was video evidence—has seen his role diminished in recent months as Trump started hiring actual professionals to run his campaign. Last night, things apparently got worse for him.
http://gawker.com/donald-trumps-spokeswoman-tore-his-campaign-manager-a-n-1777782778
bemildred
(90,061 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)WASHINGTON, May 20 (UPI) -- Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said he would not pursue military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but would wage a military campaign in that country only to combat the Islamic State.
Trump, speaking on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Friday, reiterated his previous stances, that the war in Iraq and the limited military incursion into Libya were mistakes he opposed. Trump also has said he would not use the U.S. military to oust Assad's regime, which has been locked in a five-year civil war with various elements within Syria opposed to his rule, including IS -- also identified as Daesh, ISIS and ISIL.
"I would have stayed out of Syria and wouldn't have fought so much for Assad, against Assad because I thought that was a whole thing," Trump said. "You have Iran, which we made into a power. Iran now is a power. Because of us, because of some of the dumbest deals I have ever seen. So now you have Iran and you have Russia in favor of Assad. We're supposed to fight the two of them. At the same time, we're supposed to fight ISIS, who is fighting Assad."
Asked whether he would be content to leave Assad, who is backed by Russia and Iran, in power, Trump said the United States has "bigger problems" than Assad.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/05/20/Trump-opposes-US-military-action-to-oust-Syrias-Assad-regime/5121463753743/?spt=sec&or=tn
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I saw one statement that Hezbollah is withdrawing from the front, in translation.
https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/hezbollah-is-not-willing-to-engage-in-further-battles-if-these-aim-only-to-improve-the-position-of-the-syrian-government-at-the-negotiation-table-in-geneva/
bemildred
(90,061 posts)ANKARA—Turkey’s parliament adopted a constitutional change that rescinds immunity for one quarter of the nation’s lawmakers, in a step likely to fuel the country’s simmering Kurdish insurgency.
The controversial bill introduced by the ruling Justice and Development Party passed with a surprisingly strong 376 votes in the 550-member parliament, handing President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a significant victory against his political foes. The first round of voting on Tuesday had suggested the measure would fail to garner a supermajority and need a national referendum to pass.
The temporary change makes prosecution possible for 138 lawmakers, including 50 Kurdish politicians and 51 from the largest secularist opposition party. They are facing possible charges including support for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, and insulting Mr. Erdogan.
“In this historic vote, my nation doesn’t want to see guilty lawmakers in this parliament—especially those that the separatist terrorist organization supports,” Mr. Erdogan said, referring to the PKK in standard Turkish official shorthand.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/turkish-parliament-votes-on-bill-that-would-strip-lawmakers-immunity-1463735376
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Political commentator and New York Magazine editor Andrew Sullivan is more bullish than many other experts of Donald Trump's chances this November.
Sullivan told Slate's Jacob Weisberg that he thinks Trump, the presumed Republican nominee for president, has a better chance of winning the general election than his likely Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Sullivan cited Trump's ability to hold and control attention in the press as a key advantage.
"I think to be honest with you, I think he's more likely to win at this point than Clinton," Sullivan said. "... I can't prove that. That's my instinct at this point, because he owns the narrative."
http://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-sullivan-trump-might-win-2016-5
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okkupert
Octafish
(55,745 posts)You know, the end of the Cold War would free up all sorts of money for making life better Peace Dividend?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I Have old cartoons of defense business employees being defenestrated from airplanes from back then? Does that count?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It's held the fort long enough for Putin and Xi to get their houses of enemies in order for the return of business as usual.
Before the collapse, CIA saw writing on the wall. Which is why they didn't "predict the collapse."
1980 campaign:
Agents for Bush
by Bob Callahan*
Covert Action Information Bulletin, Number 33 (Winter 1990)
EXCERPT...
Bush and Terrorism
The Bush presidential campaign not only set the tone for the role and structure of the intelligence apparatus in the new Reagan administration, it also took up a new foreign policy theme which would reap huge political dividends in the years to come. This new theme was terrorism/counterterrorism.
In July 1979 George Bush and Ray Cline attended a conference in Jerusalem where this theme was given its first significant political discussion before leaders of Israel, Great Britain and the United States.
It would take an enormously important event to keep a major American presidential candidate away from campaigning on the Fourth of July weekend. For George Bush, the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism was such an event. The Jerusalem Conference was hosted by the Israeli government and, not surprisingly, most of Israel’s top intelligence officers and leading political (figures) were in attendance. (6)
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin rose to the podium on July 2, 1979 to provide the conference with its opening address. By the summer of 1979, even Menachem Begin was willing to join in the bashing of his old Camp David friend, Jimmy Carter – a practice which had become almost endemic by the fall of 1979.
The Israelis were angry with Carter because his administration had recently released its Annual Report on Human Rights wherein the Israeli Government was taken to task for abusing the rights of the Palestinian people on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Israel’s new anti-Carter tone was mile, however, compared to the rhetoric of the two separate U.S. delegations which attended the conference. The first delegation was led by the late Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington. It included the noted black civil rights leader Bayard Rustin; Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute; and Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter of Commentary Magazine. The members of this delegation were registered Democrats, yet all became very active in neo-conservative politics during the Reagan years.
The Republican delegation was led by George Bush. It included Ray Cline and two important members of Bush’s Team B form his CIA days – Major General George Keegan, a Bush supporter who had served as intelligence chief for the United States Air Force; and Harvard professor Richard Pipes. (7)
Looking for a mobilizing issue to counter the Carter-era themes of détente and human rights, the Bush people began to explore the political benefits of embracing the terrorism/anti-terrorism theme.
As Jonathan Marshall of the Oakland Tribune explains: “At the conference, Ray Cline developed the theme that terror was not a random response of frustrated minorities, but rather a preferred instrument of East bloc policy adopted after 1969 when the KGB persuaded the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to accept the PLO as a major political instrument in the Mideast and to subsidize its terrorist policies by freely giving money, training, arms and coordinated communications.(8)
In Ray Cline’s imagination, terrorism had now hardened into a system – an international trouble making system. Richard Pipes elaborated on the Cline hypothesis. “The roots of Soviet terrorism, indeed of modern terrorism,” Pipes states, “date back to 1879….It marks the beginning of that organization which is the source of all modern terrorist groups, whether they be named the Tupamaros, the Baader-Meinhoff group, the Weathermen, Red Brigade or PLO. I refer to the establishment in 1879 of a Congress in the small Russian town of Lipesk, of an organization known as Narodnaya Volya, or the People’s Will.”(9)
According to Philip Paull, who wrote his master’s thesis on the subject of the Jerusalem Conference, “If Pipes was to be believed, the Russians not only support international terrorism, they invented it!”(10)
The Bush/Cline/Pipes definition of terrorism was of course both expeditious and powerfully political. “Left out of their equation,” Jonathan Marshall comments, “was any mention of terrorist acts by CIA-trained Cuban exiles, Israeli ties to Red Brigades, or the function of death squads from Argentina to Guatemala. Soviet sponsorship, real or imagined, had become the defining characteristic of terrorism, not simply an explanation for its prevalence. Moreover, there was no inclination whatsoever to include, under the rubric of terror, bombings of civilians, or any other acts carried out by government forces rather than small individual units.” (11)
Within days after the conference the new propaganda war began in earnest. On July 11, 1979, the International Herald Tribune featured a lead editorial entitled "The Issue is Terrorism," which quoted directly from conference speeches. The same day Congressman Jack Kemp placed selected quotes from the conference in the Congressional Record. In his syndicated column of July 28, 1979, former CIA employee William F. Buckley blasted two of his favorite targets in one single mixed metaphor: “No venture is too small to escape patronage by the Soviet Union,” Buckley stated, “which scatters funds about for terrorists like HEW in search of welfare clients.” Then in August, George Will, who also attended the conference, wrote about it in the Washington Post.
Before the year was out Commentary, National Review, and eventually New Republic writers would all church out yard after yard of copy on this theme. Soon after, Claire Sterling, who had also attended the conference, would create the first "bible" of this new perspective with the publication of her highly controversial book, The Terror Network.(12)
With the help of George Bush and Ray Cline, the Jerusalem Conference had managed to start a propaganda firestorm.
In the following decade, the theme of terrorism/counter-terrorism would grow increasingly important to George Bush. He would become the ranking authority on this subject in the Reagan White House. Indeed, it would be Bush’s own Task Force – the Vice President’s Task Force on Combatting Terroris, -- which would eventually provide Oliver North back channel authorization through which he would bypass certain dissenting administration officials in his ongoing management of the Reagan/Bush Secret War against Nicaragua.(13)
CONTINUED...
PDF: https://archive.org/details/GeorgeBushTheCompanysMan-CovertActionInformationBulletinNo.33
And that is how Poppy got his clue.
