Tag: nato

Report Details US Troop ‘Land Corridors’ In Event Of European Ground War With Russia

NATO has a plan in place for rapid deployment of its forces in the scenario of a future Russian attack on Europe. It includes the development of “land corridors” which can be used to rush some 300,000 troops — mostly American soldiers — to front line positions in order to defend against a Russian invasion.

High-ranking British military sources described to the Telegraph that the plan entails troops landing at key European ports whereupon they would move east along pre-planned routes to counter potential Russian attacks.

Lt. Gen. Alexander Sollfrank, chief of NATO’s Joint Support and Enabling Command (JSEC), described to the UK publication, “Huge logistics bases, as we know them from Afghanistan and Iraq, are no longer possible because they will be attacked and destroyed very early on in a conflict situation.”

The logistics and troop transport corridors would originate in places like Greece, Italy, Turkey, The Netherlands, Norway – and the port of Rotterdam, a key northern European hub, is specifically named. Lines like the Germany-Poland railway are also mentioned in the report – all of which would theoretically allow rapid deployment of US forces to any NATO territory being threatened (based on Article 5 common defense).

Separate alarmist reports in UK media have been warning that the West should prepare for war with Russia at some point in the next two decades, connected with ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

For example, a prior March report in The Telegraph claimed that President Putin has a “paranoid obsession” with stoking conflict and provoking Western allies.

“Now that Russian President Vladimir Putin has secured his historic fifth term in office, it is patently clear that he will devote his next six-year spell at the Kremlin to pursuing his paranoid obsession of confronting the West,” that prior stated.

As for the Telegraph’s latest Tuesday revelation of the NATO land corridors — with the somewhat loud and sensationalist headline of “Nato land corridors could rush US troops to front line in event of European war” — the reality is that big picture contingency plans like this have been on US and NATO planners’ shelves since the Cold War.

But without doubt they are getting dusted off amid the continued escalation of the Ukraine proxy war…

Keep reading

Presidents Who Gamble With Nuclear Armageddon

The overriding job of any U.S. president is to keep the nation safe. In the nuclear age, that mainly means avoiding nuclear Armageddon. Joe Biden’s reckless and incompetent foreign policy is pushing us closer to annihilation. He joins a long and undistinguished list of presidents who have gambled with Armageddon, including his immediate predecessor and rival, Donald Trump.

Talk of nuclear war is currently everywhere. Leaders of NATO countries call for Russia’s defeat and even dismemberment, while telling us not to worry about Russia’s 6,000 nuclear warheads. Ukraine uses NATO-supplied missiles to knock out parts of Russia’s nuclear-attack early-warning system inside Russia. Russia, in the meantime, engages in nuclear drills near its border with Ukraine. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg give the green light to Ukraine to use NATO weapons to hit Russian territory as an increasingly desperate and extremist Ukrainian regime sees fit.

These leaders neglect at our greatest peril the most basic lesson of the nuclear confrontation between the U.S. and Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis, as told by President John F. Kennedy, one of the few American presidents in the nuclear age to take our survival seriously. In the aftermath of the crisis, Kennedy told us, and his successors:

Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy – or of a collective death-wish for the world.

Yet this is exactly what Biden is doing today, carrying out a bankrupt and reckless policy.

Keep reading

The West Is Hell-Bent On Provoking Russia Into Hot War

The warning by President Putin could not be starker: “In the event of the use of long-range weapons, the Russian Armed Forces will again have to make decisions about expanding the sanitary zone further (…) Do they want global conflict? It seemed they wanted to negotiate [with us], but we don’t see much desire to do this.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov then came up with the appropriate metaphor to designate NATO’s ramped-up military outbursts: not only NATO is raising the degree of escalation but delving into a warlike “ecstasy”.

It does not get more serious than that. “They”, as Putin alluded to, do seem to want “global conflict”. That’s at the heart of NATO’s new suicidal “ecstasy” strategy.

For all their circumlocutions, NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have effectively greenlighted Kiev using Western weapons for attacks deep inside the Russian Federation. The alleged debate, still ongoing, is just a “smokescreen” for the real objective: a pretext that could lead to WWIII.

There’s no reason to think Kiev will stick to “limited” strikes against relatively unimportant targets. Instead, it is likely to target critical security infrastructure in hopes of provoking an unrelenting Russian response, which in turn would pave the way for NATO to invoke Article 5 and de facto engage in a Hot War.

Keep reading

Arrest These Insane NATO Warmongers!

Incredibly, the world is being pushed to the abyss of nuclear war by nonentity Western numbskulls who are not even elected.

Jens Stoltenberg, the civilian head of the NATO military bloc, is the latest blockhead to advocate for the United States to permit the targeting of Russia with long-range weapons.

The Norwegian figurehead, we are led to believe, made the conceptual breakthrough (how much was he paid and by whom or what was the blackmail used?) by telling the Economist magazine that the Ukrainian regime should henceforth be officially allowed to use NATO missiles to hit Russia.

Keep reading

Revealed: NATO’s Air Defense Shield in Eastern Europe So Full of Holes It’s Essentially Nonexistent

NATO has sent billions of dollars-worth of sophisticated air and missile defenses to Kiev among the $200 billion+ in support committed to date for the proxy war against Russia. The Russian military has used a combination of missiles, heavy glide bombs and drones to gradually grind the Western-supplied equipment into dust.

The Western Bloc’s European allies have only an infinitesimal fraction of the air defense capabilities its Eastern European members would need to stave off Russia if the proxy conflict in Ukraine expanded into a direct Russia-NATO confrontation.

That’s the concern of officials familiar with the alliance’s internal calculations, as cited by the Financial Times. Officials told the UK-based business newspaper that NATO presently has “less than 5 percent” of the capacity necessary to defend its so-called eastern flank with Russia in the event of a “full-scale attack.”

“[Air and missile defense capabilities are] a major part of the plan to defend Eastern Europe from invasion. And right now, we don’t have that,” an anonymous senior NATO diplomat told the outlet.

Keep reading

NATO’s Eastern European air defenses at 5% of required capacity

NATO member states have just 5% of the air-defense systems required to repel a significant attack in Eastern Europe, according to an internal assessment by the military bloc.

A NATO diplomat told the Financial Times on Wednesday that the shortage of such systems was “one of the biggest holes we have,” and a situation that members of the US-led military organization “can’t deny.”

One of the reasons for the shortage is that Western-designed anti-aircraft weapons are expensive and slow to manufacture, the British newspaper reported. Advances in drone technology are also making long-range strike capability more affordable. This has been seen in the Ukraine conflict, with both sides using relatively cheap unmanned aircraft to attack targets far from the front line.

NATO’s apparent vulnerability in Europe is being exacerbated by disagreements among EU member states about how to address the air-defense deficiency. Germany and France have proposed competing plans, while Poland and Greece are calling for an EU-wide integrated system.

Keep reading

Harsh Electronic WARFARE among Russia and Ukraine-NATO Military Forces

Ukraine’s stocks of American-made Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) munitions are being jammed by Russian electronic warfare equipment, three informed sources familiar with the ‘problem’ told Reuters.

The Boeing/Saab Group-developed GLSDB is a ground-launched variant of Boeing’s GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb – a 129 kg glide munition with a 93 kg fragmentation warhead and a 150 km range designed for strikes against heavily entrenched targets.

The GLSDB can be fired from M270 and M142 HIMARS precision multiple launch rocket installations – which the United States began delivering to Ukraine in mid-2022, and which Russian forces initially had difficulties locating due to the systems’ rapid shoot-and-scoot [the ability to come out of cover, quickly fire and go back into hiding] capabilities.

GLSDBs began to be sent to Ukraine in early 2024 in a bid by the Pentagon to extend Ukraine’s long-range strike potential, which Kiev has used to target both military and civilian targets in the Donbass and elsewhere.

Keep reading

Closer to Nuclear War

I can’t help but wonder what proponents of America’s participation in the old Cold War dinosaur known as NATO are thinking about NATO officials who are contemplating sending NATO military personnel into Ukraine to train Ukrainian troops in their war against Russia. Those who relish the idea of nuclear war between the United States and Russia undoubtedly must be ecstatic over the possibility of such a move.

It has been clear for some time that Ukraine is losing its war with Russia. Ukraine has lost countless young soldiers and their front-line troops are now largely composed of middle-aged men. Its production has plummeted. Its supply of weapons is low, which is why it continues to desperately seek replacement weapons from the United States. Ukrainian forces continue to retreat. And there is the increasing possibility that Russian forces will achieve a breakthrough in Ukrainian defense lines.

Obviously feeling desperate over the battlefield situation, European officials within NATO are contemplating sending military personnel into Ukraine to help train Ukrainian soldiers.

But wouldn’t that put NATO and Russia into direct military conflict? After all, what happens if a Russian missile kills a bunch of NATO soldiers inside Ukraine?

According to the New York Times, “So far the United States has said no, but Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that a NATO deployment of trainers appeared inevitable. ‘We’ll get there eventually, over time,’ he said.”

Keep reading

Ukraine Formally Asks NATO To Send Troops For First Time, Pentagon Mulling

The continued inevitable and disastrous slide into a WW3 nuclear-armed confrontation between Russian and the West continues as The New York Times reports NATO appears to actually be seriously mulling sending troops to Ukraine to serve in the role as ‘trainers’ at a moment Kiev is desperate to tap and train up new manpower. And this would be closer to front line positions as well.

“NATO allies are inching closer to sending troops into Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, a move that would be another blurring of a previous red line and could draw the United States and Europe more directly into the war,” NY Times wrote Thursday. What has changed? The Zelensky government is now directly requesting it, apparently on a formal level for the first time of the conflict, according to officials.

The Times confirms “Ukrainian officials have asked their American and NATO counterparts to help train 150,000 new recruits closer to the front line for faster deployment.”

Keep reading

The United States-Ukraine Security Pact Is Lipstick on a Bloody Defeat for NATO

The United States and Ukraine are moving toward signing a 10-year bilateral security pact. But former Pentagon analyst David Pyne sees it as a sign that Washington realizes Russia is near to outright victory in the conflict.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has this week renewed talk about signing a long-term security alliance with the United States. The Biden administration seems to be amenable to signing off on the pact.

Such a move may appear to give the U.S. a long-term foothold in Ukraine but, says Pyne, it is being proposed from a position of weakness, not strength.

Russia has all but won the war that escalated in February 2022. Earlier predictions by NATO states that Ukraine would defeat Russia are shown to be a cruel fantasy.

Despite massive supplies of weapons to Ukraine from the United States and its NATO allies, Russia is prevailing militarily. David Pyne reckons that Russia’s anticipated offensive over the summer dry period will result in a decisive victory before the end of the year.

The signing of a security pact between the U.S. and Ukraine is a way to put lipstick on what is otherwise a crushing defeat for the NATO side.

Pyne points out that Russia will be in a dominant position to make sure that Ukraine does not become a member of NATO. That has always been a key demand by Moscow

Keep reading