UK Deploys Troops Over 'Russian Aggression'

[Turborama]

Source: Sky News

The UK is to station troops in the Baltic in order to counter "Russian aggression".

The "small number" of UK armed forces will be deployed in the long term in the Baltic states and Poland in addition to the Baltic Air Policing detachment.

RAF Typhoon fighters have already been deployed in eastern Europe for some time and have been called into action in recent months as Russian jets have entered European airspace.

Russia responded to the announcement by saying such a move would be regrettable and would amount to Britain using an alleged Russian threat as camouflage to press ahead with NATO expansion.

It said that any move would be met with "parity".

Read more: http://news.sky.com/story/1565898/uk-deploys-troops-over-russian-aggression

---

The vote on replacing Trident is on the horizon. Excuse my cynicism of the Tories' motives.

[uhnope]

1. any help the Baltic countries can get is surely appreciated

It must be terrifying to be a former vassal state from the USSR on the border of Russia right now. Putin has not only invaded the former USSR state of Ukraine as part of his dream of expansionist "New Russia", but his rule at home is becoming more tyrannical and more deranged, like the nutty dictators of the old days or like North Korea. Not to mention his new enthusiastic use of his military to bomb the enemies of his war criminal ally, Syrian dictator Assad.

[MBS]

3. " " " " " n/t

[uawchild]

2. Pardon my ignorance

Besides occupying a population that would absolutely hate them, starting a war with NATO, and being condemned by the entire world.... what exactly would Russia get out of invading these small countries with absolutely no natural resources?

They would bring down WWIII level of whoop ass on themselves for what again?

[snooper2]

6. Putin is just playing wag the dog, Ukraine has stalled- Russian Economy sucks- Look over there!

Nationalism

RUSSIAN PRIDE- Look at our jets dropping bombs!

Ignore the fact that you don't have a decent job and nothing is being done about the 100 krokodil addicts living in the apartment complex next door.

[uawchild]

7. good point!

Yes, I agree, Pootie is playing wag the dog, but in Syria, not the NATO member Baltic States.

The Baltic States are safe behind NATO's nuclear umbrella and our overwhelming conventional military strength. But I can understand why people from former soviet occupied countries might still have fears, its just that I think those fears are way way over blown.

It's important that our foreign policy be based on reality and not the scarred psyche of former soviet satellite states. Some of those countries would just love to have a war to punish Russia for past misdeeds, but I don't think that revenge is a good basis for peace in the current time.

[ColesCountyDem]

8. " ... scarred psyche of former soviet satellite states ...."?

How about vivid memories of conquest, brutal repression and more? The Baltic nations' desires to become part of NATO is hardly the result of "scarred psyche of former soviet satellite states", but well-founded fears.

[uawchild]

12. I, of course, agree with your point, but did you miss mine?

I agree that the Baltic States were wise to seek NATO protection based on the past misdeeds and oppression of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Any sane person would agree with that. Did you catch my point that the Baltic States continued fears are the issue? I feel that the Baltic States are now secure as Nato Members and are as safe as every other member state. The US will simply not tolerate ANY Russian aggression against a Nato member. I feel Russia is not stupid enough to commit national suicide by attacking NATO.

But to have the corporate media fan the flames of fear and war mongering that they are in imminent danger is very very counter productive. We spend enough on the military right now, we have adequate strength in Europe to defend ALL Nato members. And, sorry, but I do feel there are Eastern european countries, well large segments of their populations in any case, that have scarred psyches from past oppression that do want more then protection, that they want revenge. I, personally, think that countries playing to those fears for political purposes are being counter productive to the cause of peace. Again, I respect your points and hope that I have made my actual point clearer.

I hate military adventurism. I hate large countries throwing their military weight around like they run the world. I also hate the military industrial complex fanning fears just to make more money.

[ColesCountyDem]

13. I didn't miss your point at all-- I disagree with it.

The danger presented by a militarily-resurgent Russia, under Putin, are not over-stated, in my opinion, and the coverage given to this danger does not rise to the level of fear- or war-mongering

[uawchild]

15. thank you for a nice discussion of differing views.

I am sorry, i was thrown by your non-sequitor of why the Baltic States wanted to _join_ NATO. It wasn't a point I was discussing.
But thank you for the opportunity to exchange our views and to make our points. I understand the fears, I really do.

[ColesCountyDem]

16. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and welcome to DU.

[NuclearDem]

11. Putin has invaded two former Soviet states in the past decade.

The Baltics have every right to be nervous.

[ColesCountyDem]

14. This^^^^^^^! n/t

[NuclearDem]

10. A landbridge to Kaliningrad and one of the Russian Empire's most important seaport.

[Yupster]

19. There are large Russian minorities in each of the Baltic States

so one thing Putin would get would be bringing these Russians back into the fold away from where they can be persecuted by the evil Letts, Lithuanians and Estonians.

2. It would allow Russia territory to connect to the Russian enclave around Kaliningrad (the old East Prussian capital of Konigsberg) which is now hundreds of miles from the rest of Russia.

3. It would give Russia some nice warm water ports like Tallin, and Klaipeda.

4. It was part of the Soviet Union so it should be again.

I don't know if it would bring down any whoop ass on anyone. It would likely start with riots by the Russian minorities and then when the local police cracked down, the Russian army could come in to protect the minorities.

Are we going to start a war over that?

I doubt it, but we would certainly issue a strongly worded communique.

[gordianot]

4. Your choice China in the South China Sea, Russians in Syria. incursions in Turkey, the Baltic's.

What could possibly go wrong? North Korea is due for some attention getting.

[uawchild]

5. don't buy into the hype

I just don't take all the corporate media fear-war mongering that seriously. Our country has the world's largest military, add in the NATO allies and you have an unbeatable military colossus. Russia is little more than a Canada on steroids, resource rich, but a second fiddle to its larger neighbor to the south, ( i.e. China in russia's case). China likes doing business with the US, it invests capital in the US and gives loans to the US. China likes the status quo just fine. There might be minor regional border spats, mostly over resource rich areas, but no major war is going to happen.

[uhnope]

17. I hope yr right but..,.

but Putin was able to invade, occupy and annex a sovereign country while the world sat by and watched, and now he's able to prop up a war criminal in Syria.

True, the NATO line would be crossed (and that would be huge) if he tried something in the Baltics or Poland, but I'm really not sure that the world would go to war with Russia if he took over parts of those countries, waiting a few years between each invasion and occupation.

[rockfordfile]

9. Careful

[Turborama]

18. Just as I thought: "Britain plans to deploy Trident for first time since Cold War"

Britain plans to deploy Trident for first time since Cold War in face of Putin aggression
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/610983/Britain-deploy-Trident-Vladimir-Putin-aggression-Cold-War-Russia-NATO