US paratroopers to train Ukraine army as Russia complains

[jakeXT]

Source: BBC

About 300 US paratroopers have come to western Ukraine to train with Ukrainian national guard units, the US Army says.

..


The US Army said the US paratroopers were part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

The training will take place at Yavoriv, near Lviv in western Ukraine. The US forces will begin training three battalions of Ukrainian troops over the next six months, the statement said.

The brigade trained with Ukrainian forces in international exercises in Ukraine last September.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32349308

[DetlefK]

1. Actually, those US paratroopers are on VACATION in Ukraine.

They are volunteers. The US is in no way responsible for what those soldiers are doing in their spare time.

[Nihil]

4. + lots ...

[joshcryer]

5. +1

Just a vacation.

[newfie11]

2. Russia has a right to complain

If that was reversed and Russia was training military on our doorstep I don't think we would be so kind!

What the hell are we doing!!! Does the MIC want WW3?
Oh and I'm sure we are supplying arms to keep this going!

[okaawhatever]

14. AYFKm? Your comment is beyond absurd. But a few examples of Russia's agressive military

posturing:

From 2008 US News & World Report

MOSCOW—Somewhere in the North Atlantic, a squadron of Russian warships is steering toward the Caribbean. Led by the nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great, the ships are on their way to joint naval exercises with Venezuela. U.S. officials say they'll be watching when the vessels finally arrive in a few weeks.

Russia has beefed up its presence in Latin America in recent months, inking military and business deals amid a drive to reassert its status as a major world power

The upcoming naval exercises will be the first time since the end of the Cold War that Russia has had a major military presence in the Caribbean. They follow a training visit to Venezuela by two Russian bombers in September. Russia will also provide Venezuela with a $1 billion military loan, and President Hugo Chá vez, who has visited Russia twice since June, has said Russian and Venezuelan oil and gas producers will form a global energy "colossus."

Russia is partly motivated by a desire to regain the global influence it lost after the Soviet collapse. In this vein, it has also been fostering ties with Iran, resumed the long-range air patrols over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans that ended with the Soviet Union, and even dispatched a warship to Somalia.

From the Panama Post:
There have been reports of increasing Russian military cooperation with countries in Latin America that are hostile to the United States, mainly Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. This includes agreements between Russia and the above named countries that would enable Russia to place their naval logistic facilities in Venezuelan, Cuban, and Nicaraguan territory.+

According to Russia’s Secretary of Defense, those facilities could serve long-range aircraft. The motive, according to Russia expert, Stephen Blank is that Russia seeks access to ports and air bases for refueling purposes as well as great power influence

ndeed, in 2008, Russia offered Venezuela US$1billion in credits to buy Russian weaponry and nuclear cooperation. At the same time, the Russian and Venezuelan navies conducted joint exercises.

Medveded, himself, acknowledged that his 2008 trip to Latin America was out of geopolitical considerations. According to a recent article by Joseph Humire, it is estimated that the sale of Russian weapons in Latin America over the next decade will add up to $50 billion dollars. To date, Venezuela has bought the bulk of that weaponry, including surface-to-air missiles now positioned in Caracas.

That is the tip of the iceberg. And about training militaries on our doorstop.....really?....ever heard of Cuba?
....

[newfie11]

15. Yes I was alive during Cuba

Ever hear of "NORTHWOODS"?

We are not always the good guys and history , if you would look, proves it.

We have no business is the Ukraine! We have no business sending troops to the Ukraine!

If Russia sent troops to MX America would go ballistic and rightly so.

As far as Venezuela and Russia so what!
We certainly have not been good neighbors to Latin American and history proves that.

So what if Russia has a warship in INTERNATIONAL WATERS, so do we!

For that matter look at the bases America has all over the world and tell me Russia is a threat!

Sorry I'm not buying your propaganda. How many wars are we fighting and for how long? Why did we invade Iraq, kill their leader when they were no threat to U.S.?
I don't agree with you and if you don't agree I don't care!

[okaawhatever]

17. I get that you're anti-American and pro-Russian, but guess what. Russia has been

even worse neighbors than we. You dismiss Russia and Venezuela, you dismiss the fact that Russia had ships in Cuba a couple of months ago for "training" (no closer than Donbass to Moscow).

It is Russia who has ignored the soverignity of its neighbors, not us. You say we don't have the right to help Ukraine defend itself when it has been attacked by a foreign country, but act as if Russia has the right to invade another country? You've been reading too much propaganda comrade.

Russia has been a much worse actor than the US ever has. Ukraine has the right to ask for our help and our right to give it. Russia did not have the right to give surface to air missiles to the terrorists (or was it more little green men) to shoot a passenger jet out of the sky.

[newfie11]

19. I didn't dismiss anything

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

You aren't reading.
Since it's obvious your not comprehending anything, your on ignore

[snooper2]

32. yo newfie, you should tell Pootie War Is a Racket

[damyank913]

3. This is inconceivably stupid...

...do they really think this would slow the Russians down. The world needs to see that this area is in Russia's sphere of influence PERIOD. There is nothing short of world intervention that would change events there. Sending troops usually leads to more troops. It's called "Mission Creep" and it almost always happens.

[hack89]

6. So powerful countries have spheres of influence where they have carte blanche

to bully their neighbors? Where they can start civil wars and invade countries with impunity? Is that really what you think?

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. Wow, you just described the last two centuries of US Latin American policy.

[hack89]

11. So a Russian Monroe Doctrine should become the recognized norm in Europe?

simply accept Russian dominance over all of its former empire? Or should it be condemned just like US policy in Latin America?

[newfie11]

16. So very true!!! Nt

[damyank913]

24. If you say that is what I'm saying then what are you saying?

That the US should intervene in another unstable region by sending our youth into harms way again? That the US should have "carte blanche" to act ANYWHERE it pleases? Or anywhere that it perceives there's injustice? Like some kinda goddamn super hero. How many American lives is this move worth? Do you have skin in the game? I've worn the uniform; as have my sons and I'm tired of war. Near or far-I'm tired of it. THAT is what I'm saying.

[hack89]

25. Who should stand up to Russia?

Putting aside a multitude of treaty obligations, what are the only countries with the right to stop Russia from regaining their lost empire?

[damyank913]

27. "Foreign Entanglements"

Beware the military industrial complex. They won't be the ones fighting-they'll be the ones profiting.

[hack89]

29. Care to answer my question?

it is not a hard one.

[damyank913]

30. There is no objective answer to your question. It's the kind of question used to manipulate.

The US can defend itself WHEN NECESSARY. Anything else is imperialism. You ever ask yourself why we were in Libya? The answer is commerce. It's always about commerce. You really think our politicians actually care about what transpires overseas? Only within the framework of campaign contributions can this be understood. Why do you suppose these huge defense contractors and oil companies contribute to both Dems and Reps? Follow the money.

[hack89]

31. So if Russia decides to reclaim its former European states

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)

we should just stand back, because honoring our treaty promises is just imperialism?

You really believe in a dog eat dog realpolitik, don't you? If Russia can get away with then they deserve to keep it.

[damyank913]

33. Since you seem to be saying the same thing ad infinitum...

Lets approach this from a logistics standpoint.
For the US to send troops to every part of the world where one culture wants to dominate another; it would need to quadruple the size of it's Army, Navy and Air Force (that probably isn't enough). Where will these servicemen come from? Do you want to bring the draft back? That's what it will take. Who will pay? Are you willing to pay the extra taxes needed to make that happen? Or is this only about Russia to you? What about the injustices in Africa? China? Yemen? Iraq...?
If the US has to be the worlds policeman then the world should pay the freight. Otherwise, bring our boys back home. We're asking too much from them as it is.

[hack89]

34. We are talking about a 60 year treaty obligation

in a region where we would be fighting with allies using a military infrastructure that has been in place for a very long time.

We are not talking about policing the entire world. We are talking about Europe, and Russian and NATO, and long standing treaty obligations.

Can we please stay on topic?

[damyank913]

35. Now we're talking about NATO? When did Ukrain join NATO?

Those aren't NATO forces. They're Americans. I've always been on topic.

[hack89]

36. But the Baltics are.

and Russia is threatening them. Is it ok to defend them because they are NATO and let Russia invade Ukraine because it is not?

Why aren't you comdemning Russia in any of this? Do you think their behavior is justified?

[damyank913]

37. The US is complying with it's treaty obligations.

Do I think Russia is wrong? Yes I do. But I'm not Russian. Technically, the case can be made that this is akin to the US Civil War. The Ukraine was part of Russia for 80 or 85 years-as long as the US govt was in existence at the time of our war. We can't control this. Sending troops to act as bait is immoral. If they get between the belligerents involved then we'll be filling body bags and sending more troops. We'll have "rules of engagement", they won't. What could possibly go wrong?

[HereSince1628]

7. IMO its about providing security for the IMF loans to Ukraine

On it's own Ukraine hasn't much to collateralize those loans

Loans are risky in the midst of the proxy civil-war which if lost would move even more Ukrainian assets into the control of the Russian economy.

[Telcontar]

8. PEACE IN OUR TIME!

Sounded great when Chamberlain said it. Perhaps the unpleasantness of the 1940s could have been avoided, if only people had respected Germany's legitimate sphere of interest.

[christx30]

18. And then Germany used that sphere

of influence to invade Poland.

[Telcontar]

21. Poland is legitimately in Germany's sphere of interest

Why, only a few years back, much of Poland was actually part of Germany! East Prussia was wrongfully taken from the Germans. All Germany want's is a fair and open plebiscite so that the native German-speakers can have the option to reunite with their mother country! Heir Hitler is only doing what he thinks best for the Germans suffering oppression by the Polish fascists.

Do I really need to put this here?

Yeah, probably. I find many pearl clutchers suffer from a lack of appreciation for sarcasm. Substitute Putin, Crimea, and Ukraine in the above as you see fit.

[jakeXT]

20. The Brits always wanted others to do their dirty work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

[Telcontar]

22. Morgenthau Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

Probably would have sparked a third world war. Glad this didn't go into action.

[jakeXT]

23. Wall Street won

On one level this was a conflict between powerful individuals: White in Washington (Morgenthau soon retired), versus the banker McKittrick and the lawyer Allen Dulles, both of whom returned after World War II to Wall Street. But it was also an institutional conflict between Washington and Wall Street, because each center was initially united behind conflicting visions for the future of Germany, and also for the future of the pre-war international banking system uniting Germany and America – at the heart of which was the BIS. Another way to say this is that it was a contest between the conflicting visions of the state (Washington) and the deep state (Wall Street).

In this contest, as in many others at this time, Washington lost, and Wall Street won.9

...

The Dulles brothers, as lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell, had played key roles in the inter-war western financing and refinancing of German debt. A primary bank in these transactions was the British merchant bank J. Henry Schröder and its American subsidiary the J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation, where Allen Dulles served as director and his brother as attorney. A web of international banking connections was created between the wars; and much of this web “was connected to the BIS [Bank of International Settlements], via the Dulles brothers and their friends on Wall Street and in London and Germany.”14

Roosevelt New dealers like Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and his assistant White intended to dismantle this complex network with German banks and corporations after World War II: in particular, they “loathed the BIS, seeing it, correctly, as a channel for the perpetuation of Nazi economic interests in the United States.”15 Their principal target was the wartime BIS president Thomas McKittrick (formerly of the Boston banking firm Lee, Higginson)– rightly so, in the opinion of Adam Lebor, who writes that “many of the things that McKittrick was doing, such as gold and foreign exchange deals with the Reichsbank after Pearl Harbor, were treasonable.” Lebor adds that McKittrick, a personal friend of Allen Dulles, came to New York and hired an attorney “to persuade the Treasury to unblock the BIS’s funds. His choice was never in doubt: John Foster Dulles.”16

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/4109

[damyank913]

26. Chamberland was wrong. That was a completely different set of circumstances.

Read your history.

[NuclearDem]

28. You're right.

This is probably more accurate to what you're getting at.

[NuclearDem]

9. "Russia's sphere of influence PERIOD."

Take that imperialist bullshit and get out.

[DashOneBravo]

13. Actually it's not

U.S. paratroopers have a long history of being deployed in small groups to act as a buffer.

[Octafish]

12. Stepping in the worst Big Muddy you ever heard of...bits from NYT...

U.S. Army Trainers Arrive in Ukraine

by Andrew Roth
The New York Times, APRIL 17, 2015

EXCERPT...

The White House rebuffed a request for weapons from President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine in September, announcing an additional $53 million nonlethal aid program instead. Mr. Obama has signaled privately that he is reluctant to arm Ukraine despite increasing pressure from both parties in Congress.

Russian officials regularly blame the West for provoking the conflict in Ukraine, and in February, Mr. Putin said he had proof that the West was already providing weapons to Kiev. State and pro-Kremlin news networks have broadcast many lurid and dubious accounts of Western interference, including breathless stories of dark-skinned and English-speaking paramilitaries terrorizing local residents in eastern Ukraine.

In a statement, Maj. Jose Mendez, an operations officer for the 173rd Airborne, said the training would focus on “on war fighting functions, as well as training to sustain and increase the professionalism and proficiency of military staffs.”

Several dozen British soldiers began conducting military training last month, and Canada and Poland have pledged to send military trainers this year.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/18/world/europe/us-army-trainers-arrive-in-ukraine.html?_r=0

Obama's almost all alone on this. The Pukes and PNAC Dems are gung-ho for war.