In Europe - East, Russia

RT.com, March 20, 2017

U.S. Army soldiers on exercise in Lithuania, March 4, 2015 (U.S. Army photo)

A U.S.-led battalion of over 1,100 soldiers will be deployed in Poland in the beginning of April to deter what is said to be possible Russian “aggression,” with the unit’s commander stressing that his troops are ready to use lethal force. The NATO battle group to be stationed in Orzysz, 220 kilometers northeast of the capital, Warsaw, will include more than 900 American troops, around 150 British personnel and some 120 Romanian servicemen, Reuters reported.

Below: NATO logic: British troops in Estonia good, Russian soldiers in Russia bad, commentary by Bryan MacDonald on RT.com, March 20, 2017

 “This is a mission, not a cycle of training events. The purpose is to deter aggression in the Baltics and in Poland,” U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steven Gventer, the battle group’s commander, said.

“We are fully ready to be lethal,” Gventer said during a press conference on Monday.

Another of the battle group’s high-ranked officers, U.S. Army Major Paul Rothlisberger, added that April’s deployment is “not the entirety of NATO’s response” to Moscow.

The battle group is being deployed in Poland in line with the decision to place four multinational battalions in the Baltics, agreed by NATO last year. It will see around 4,000 NATO troops with tanks, armored vehicles, air support and high-tech intelligence centers arriving in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

The three other battle groups will be headed by Britain, Canada and Germany, with other NATO members, including France, also making their contribution. They are expected to be operational by June.

The buildup near Russian borders is explained by NATO as being due to the need to reassure the bloc’s eastern European allies in view of Russia’s reunification with Crimea, Moscow’s alleged involvement in the Ukrainian conflict and what NATO calls overall “aggressive” behavior by Russia.

Russia has repeatedly criticized NATO’s buildup in Eastern Europe, which it views a threat to its national security. In February, Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed NATO for endangering global peace by trying to provoke a conflict with Moscow through its “newly-declared official mission to deter Russia.”

Earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Meshkov warned that “the steps by NATO gravely increase the risk of incidents” between the alliance and Russian forces.

Apart from the buildup on its borders, Moscow is also concerned by the new U.S. ground-based missile defense system in Eastern Europe and increased presence of NATO vessels in the Black Sea.

Read also:
Canadian military works to iron out challenges ahead of Latvia deployment, by Murray Brewster, CBC News, Mar 21, 2017

New U.S.-led force to ‘deter Russia’ in Poland beginning April 2017, by Robin Emmott, Reuters, March 20, 2017

UK troops deployed in Estonia to ‘defend NATO’ from Russia, RT.com, March 18, 2017


NATO logic: British troops in Estonia good, Russian soldiers in Russia bad

Commentary by Bryan MacDonald on RT.com‘s ‘Op-Edge’, March 20, 2017

Supporters of NATO believe American, British and German soldiers being sent to Russia’s borders is “defensive” but the Kremlin’s counter moves are aggressive. This delusion could be dangerous.

George Bernard Shaw was probably second only to William Shakespeare among English-language dramatists. In 1914, he was one of the most famous people in Europe. The Irishman’s play, Pygmalion, had been a massive success in Berlin, London, and Vienna. As a result, newspapers, and magazines were lining up to publish his journalism. Until he started to reject the conventional wisdom which presented the nascent war between Britain and Germany as a noble cause, that is. In an interview with the American journalist, Mary Boyle O’Reilly he held the two sides were equally culpable for the conflict, and suggested how “the soldiers should shoot their officers and go home.”

All of a sudden, work dried up, and he found himself blacklisted in the mainstream media. Thus, he used The New Statesman, a new journal in which he held a substantial shareholding, to publish his now legendary ‘Common Sense about the War’.

His thoughts were mostly prescient. Especially when pointing out how “France and England have to live with Germany after the war, and to cripple Germany by exactions and humiliations would be a serious mistake.” Of course, the failure to heed this warning created the conditions for the rise of Adolf Hitler and an even more dreadful conflict a quarter century later.

The establishment reaction to his polemic was startling in its venom. Herbert Asquith, the Prime Minister’s son, called for Shaw to be shot. Meanwhile, his rival, J. C. Squire wanted him “tarred and feathered.” And H.G. Wells and GK Chesterton publicly shunned him.

The reason for the preamble is to outline how “group think” can lead to the black-balling of even great minds and the famous. It makes people afraid to stick their head above the parapet, even when they know their conviction to be true. We are seeing it today in Western hysteria about Russia and continuing silence as NATO marches ever close to the country’s frontiers.

Ostmark von Deutschland

Especially this weekend, as cheerleaders for the Western military club celebrated the deployment of British soldiers to Estonia, far from their homeland. The move follows a German placement to Lithuania and America stationing troops in Latvia.

The London media greeted the move with suitably aggressive headlines. The Independent went “First of 800 UK troops arrive in Estonia to face off against Putin as part of NATO show of strength.” The Mirror splashed: “British troops join showdown against Vladimir Putin as they travel to the frontline in Russia.”

Yet, despite this jingoism, the US-led club describes all this as a defensive move. Which Moscow, given it employs consular staff who study the UK press reaction and rhetoric of its political class, increasingly finds hard to believe. So, the mood in the Kremlin has, somewhat justifiably, shifted to sense a provocation.

Thus, it was hardly a huge surprise when the German spy chief, Bruno Kahl, announced that Russia had apparently doubled its military presence on its Western border. Students of Russian history were especially aware of its people’s paranoia about attacks from that direction. Information surely known to Western governments, unless their diplomats are fast asleep in Moscow.

Different rules

But what was astonishing was NATO’s response. Der Spiegel reported how Kahl suggested that Russia’s alleged move “can’t be seen as defensive.”

So, let’s get this straight. According to NATO logic, Russia’s reinforcement of its frontiers, following an American-British-German deployment right up against them is construed to be an act of pugnacity. However, the original stationing of these foreign troops is supposed to be entirely benign? It seems this is a classic example of what happens when propaganda goes too far.

Moscow let the Baltics go more than 25 years ago, and since then acquiesced to their assimilation into both the European Union and NATO. Indeed, there were no attempts at all to scupper their plans by military means. Furthermore, the Kremlin has given repeated assurances of how it has no interest in invading these states.

Nevertheless, Western media – and the think tank racket – have conducted a relentless messaging offensive in recent years, suggesting that Putin covets these territories. But nobody is ever able to give a convincing reason for why Moscow would risk nuclear annihilation to acquire three countries which have defensive guarantees from the United States. And for what? There are no valuable resources to exploit, just a small, and ever dwindling, population – the majority of which is extremely hostile to Russia.

Talk the talk

The current situation seems to be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Constant media promotion of the “Russia will invade the Baltics” line has forced politicians – most of whom have very little knowledge of the region – to be seen to do something. At the same time, local leaders benefit electorally by using the “Russian threat” to distract from their own ineptitude as the Baltic economies struggle and corruption remains rife.

For its part, Moscow has publicly voiced its concern, especially given it “has no information about how and when the build-up will end,” according to Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Meshkov. “And who said that it will end with this?… for the first time since World War Two we see German soldiers along our borders.” That last line is worth repeating a few times because Berlin sending troops to Russia’s frontier is like a red rag to a bull.

Relentless agitprop has led us to this point where Western soldiers are right up against Russia, and Moscow has been forced to answer the challenge, even if only to placate domestic opinion, which is understandably concerned.

The whole affair is nonsensical. And of no benefit to either side. Indeed, you can be pretty confident that if Shaw were around now, he’d call for the Western soldiers involved to shoot their officers and go home. Additionally, you can be equally sure of how the Herbert Asquith’s and J.C. Squire’s of today, would insist he be “ostracized.” After all, we’ve already heard that sort of toxic language directed at this very network.

Bryan MacDonald is an Irish journalist who is based in Russia.

*****

EDITOR’S NOTE: We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.

Recent Posts
Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Translate »