Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Lithuanian%E2%80%93Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Brigad
e

Recent actions by Russia seem to have caused Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine to dust off defunct plans to create a joint force for peacekeeping duties, an idea that had gotten shelved several years ago.

What's interesting is that these three nations more or less correspond with the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia's 16th century nemesis. What's more interesting is that it seems more aimed at NATO ("look what we have to do when you don't give us the protection we need" than it is at Russia, who in a straight up fight could steamroll all three of these countries combined if it had to.

I think it's more to protect themselves in the mean time. Obama has put more US troops into the respective countries and has increased the amount of F16's that patrol them.

NATO would descend on Russia if they attacked one of them 3 but I reckon it's something for defending the initial attack. If they're more solidified as a group they are more coordinated to defend themselves.

It's worth noting that Ukraine isn't part of NATO, so it's very unlikely that the USA would intervene in the event of a Russian invasion unless Russia's actions threatened NATO states directly.

NATO's worst fear is that Russia will attempt a stealth invasion of the Baltic States as they did with Ukraine, because if there's no hard evidence (legally-damning evidence, which is different from conjectural "anyone who has a brain understands this" evidence like Russian supplying tanks to Donbass Rebels that were never in the Ukrainian inventory) then going to war with Russia over some small countries when the European member states are nowhere close to being on a war footing will seem like too big a cost. At the same time, NATO simply couldn't afford not to respond with force or else the entire spirit of the alliance would be dispelled.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's worth noting that Ukraine isn't part of NATO, so it's very unlikely that the USA would intervene in the event of a Russian invasion unless Russia's actions threatened NATO states directly.

NATO's worst fear is that Russia will attempt a stealth invasion of the Baltic States as they did with Ukraine, because if there's no hard evidence (legally-damning evidence, which is different from conjectural "anyone who has a brain understands this" evidence like Russian supplying tanks to Donbass Rebels that were never in the Ukrainian inventory) then going to war with Russia over some small countries when the European member states are nowhere close to being on a war footing will seem like too big a cost. At the same time, NATO simply couldn't afford not to respond with force or else the entire spirit of the alliance would be dispelled.

Yeah true missed Ukraine on your first message. Apologies for that.

Yeah it's sort of a damned if you do damned if you don't sort of thing. To be honest I reckon with the Russian economy tanking. If they don't own up to what they have done in part and try to help with the ceasefire (as much as they said they have helped) we haven't seen any change. Then I reckon Putin will just stay quiet.

Originally posted by One_Angry_Scot
I think it's more to protect themselves in the mean time. Obama has put more US troops into the respective countries and has increased the amount of F16's that patrol them.

NATO would descend on Russia if they attacked one of them 3 but I reckon it's something for defending the initial attack. If they're more solidified as a group they are more coordinated to defend themselves.

Indeed. These plans are aimed more at rebuffing an initial attack more than anything else and is by no means a substitute for NATO. Though I am not really sure how Ukraine will play into this, if at all.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
the European member states are nowhere close to being on a war footing will seem like too big a cost.

The European Union entering an open war would advance federal cooperation in the region by at least 25 years. It's well worth the investment for the pro-Europe hounds that are seeing their influence menaced by nationalist ambitions.

So don't count warring states out just yet.

Originally posted by Bentley
The European Union entering an open war would advance federal cooperation in the region by at least 25 years. It's well worth the investment for the pro-Europe hounds that are seeing their influence menaced by nationalist ambitions.

So don't count warring states out just yet.
I think it's silly for the European states not to at least seriously plan for the contingency of a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe.

An issue of Die Welt straight up accused the German government (and public) of being naive for not believing that there might come a point where Germany will have to go to war with Russia.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think it's silly for the European states not to at least seriously plan for the contingency of a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe.

An issue of Die Welt straight up accused the German government (and public) of being naive for not believing that there might come a point where Germany will have to go to war with Russia.

I don't think Russia will invade. While I agree with you on the Baltic States needing to solidify etc.

Putin runs a huge propaganda machine. He goes into Crimea. His ratings shoot up to over 90%. A lot of it is just posturing so Putin can act like he is defending against "enemies of the motherland" which gives him points back home.

The concern though is that to maintain that kind of volatile popularity Putin will have to keep upping the ante and doing other provocative things or possibly even pushing Russia back into a new Cold War.

WTF?! WHY I LEARNED ABOUT THAT FROM HERE?! When they are to be positioned in my city?!

IT's stupid. It's bad. I don't want it here! GO AWAY!

Link to article seems to have been removed by Wikipedia.

HERE


KMC link error


hm.. it still adds a </br>

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Link to article seems to have been removed by Wikipedia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29284548
And from Russia's RT: http://rt.com/news/189176-ukraine-poland-lithuania-military/

But seriously WHY THE FCK OUR STUPID TV DID NOT MENTION IT IN A SINGLE TINY WORD?!?!?!?!?!

Sounds like a failure of the Polish press...I mean, I can't imagine the news is all that busy in a country like Poland.

erm.. aour prime minister just got promoted to the chief of some european union thing (too lazy to look out proper english term) and our whole gov is getting replaced.. so it is a bit busy oh.. about our national team won world championships in valleyball.

so please don't look down on us

The problem here is that Ukraine is not a part of NATO nor EU, iirc.

They will have trouble from gaining support from those governing alliances.

Originally posted by Clovie
WTF?! WHY I LEARNED ABOUT THAT FROM HERE?! When they are to be positioned in my city?!

IT's stupid. It's bad. I don't want it here! GO AWAY!

Getting a case of the NIMBY, aren't we?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Getting a case of the NIMBY, aren't we? what;s nimby?

Originally posted by Clovie
what;s nimby?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

Of course. Americans are placing their CIA prisons here, and we are blamed, nazies builded their concentration camps on the grounds of present Poland and we are blamed, now some weird formation will be said to be formed here and we get bombed As if we had too little issues on our own.
Why aren't Americans keeping their stuff at their own country and Chinese at theirs and Russian at theirs?

And if anything bad happens will gona be left on our own as has been always

Originally posted by Clovie
Of course. Americans are placing their CIA prisons here, and we are blamed, nazies builded their concentration camps on the grounds of present Poland and we are blamed, now some weird formation will be said to be formed here and we get bombed As if we had too little issues on our own.
Why aren't Americans keeping their stuff at their own country and Chinese at theirs and Russian at theirs?

And if anything bad happens will gona be left on our own as has been always

I don't think anyone in their right mind would blame Poland for what the Nazis did. As for these CIA prisons in Eastern Europe: I keep hearing about them, but has anyone actually seen or pinpointed one?

Yeah, in a perfect world everybody would just keep to their own turf, but it's not a perfect world. You want protection from Russia, correct? Well, you're going to have to accept the fact that military bases and formations are needed for that.

No, I don't think that Poland would be abandoned in a case of attack. That would be a massive blow to NATO and would basically be admission of defeat to Russia. Either way, I don't think this will ever happen, but it's better to have military bases and formations and not need them than need them and have them.

but there is a lot of people not in their right mind and with hardly any history knowledge.. and they assume that if the museum of the camp is here, so the camp was also ours
and as for prisons, there was one here, and one guy who was talking about it died in a supossed suicide


and as for those kind of guarancees... before WWII we also had them, and somehow no one did a thing untill they didn't get attacked and aftet the war we were left under soviets so yeah...

Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine, the new Axis of Evil.

GO AWAY with statements like that. some idiot will believe in what you say and we will be even more screwed than we already are...

Originally posted by Clovie
GO AWAY with statements like that. some idiot will believe in what you say and we will be even more screwed than we already are...

Easy, seems like someone needs a hug or something.

Originally posted by Clovie
but there is a lot of people not in their right mind and with hardly any history knowledge.. and they assume that if the museum of the camp is here, so the camp was also ours
and as for prisons, there was one here, and one guy who was talking about it died in a supossed suicide


and as for those kind of guarancees... before WWII we also had them, and somehow no one did a thing untill they didn't get attacked and aftet the war we were left under soviets so yeah...

We had people over here talking about CIA prisons as well, but nobody has so far been able to provide any kind of conclusive proof nor has there been any "suicides".

The situation before the beginning of WW2 and the situation now is quite different. There was no NATO or EU back then, not to mention the degree of integration that we have today. The USA was not very involved in European affairs back then either. There were no nuclear weapons. The game has changed drastically since WW2.

Originally posted by Robtard
Easy, seems like someone needs a hug or something. yep

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
We had people over here talking about CIA prisons as well, but nobody has so far been able to provide any kind of conclusive proof nor has there been any "suicides".

The situation before the beginning of WW2 and the situation now is quite different. There was no NATO or EU back then, not to mention the degree of integration that we have today. The USA was not very involved in European affairs back then either. There were no nuclear weapons. The game has changed drastically since WW2. And where you are? As far as I'm concerned they admitted having those prison here. and we have to pay some fee cause of that, no idea why though

I guess.. maybe.. but what happened to criam looks a bit like what happened to austria in 1936.

Originally posted by Clovie
yep

And where you are? As far as I'm concerned they admitted having those prison here. and we have to pay some fee cause of that, no idea why though

I guess.. maybe.. but what happened to criam looks a bit like what happened to austria in 1936.

Lithuania. I've never heard of anyone admitting to having CIA prisons(not that I think it's impossible). Do you have a link to a source of some kind?

Yes, it's alarming what happened and is still happening in Ukraine, but Ukraine is not a part of NATO or the EU.

sorry, it's in polish
http://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/kraj/1587189,1,wiezienia-cia-w-polsce-trybunal-orzekl-ze-mamy-zaplacic-100-i-130-tys-euro.read

english wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site

Originally posted by Clovie
sorry, it's in polish
http://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/kraj/1587189,1,wiezienia-cia-w-polsce-trybunal-orzekl-ze-mamy-zaplacic-100-i-130-tys-euro.read

english wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site

Thanks. I've always had the suspicion this might be the case.

And i think in the same area was the training facility for our intelligence.

Originally posted by Clovie
Of course. Americans are placing their CIA prisons here, and we are blamed, nazies builded their concentration camps on the grounds of present Poland and we are blamed, now some weird formation will be said to be formed here and we get bombed As if we had too little issues on our own.
Why aren't Americans keeping their stuff at their own country and Chinese at theirs and Russian at theirs?

And if anything bad happens will gona be left on our own as has been always
My impression of the Polish government (and the last few governments before it) is that it's taken a hawkish stance against Russia and has been the most vocal proponent of the installation of an American missile defense system on Polish soil, even more so than the US government itself.

Whether this actually reflects the will of the Polish people is another matter.

While you have reason to be concerned by this, I think in the event that Poland gets attacked it won't matter whether there's a base of any kind near your town or not--if you live near the border you'll be in danger.

100km and our gov does what's good for them and not whats good for people like giving themselves extra premias and more taxes for us

Originally posted by Clovie
100km and our gov does what's good for them and not whats good for people like giving themselves extra premias and more taxes for us

Most politicians are bastards like that. Still, trying to secure their country as much as possible against Putin's misguided ambitions is probably for everyone's best.

I guess, but I'm not sure if what they are saying is truth... Our politicians are saying various things and later pretend they didn't say it... and they used to be on a good terms with russian gov, just after maydan.. when they went there and started saying crap or even more getting selfies.. that was too much

Originally posted by Clovie
I guess, but I'm not sure if what they are saying is truth... Our politicians are saying various things and later pretend they didn't say it... and they used to be on a good terms with russian gov, just after maydan.. when they went there and started saying crap or even more getting selfies.. that was too much

Once again, that's what many politicians do. Even if they were friendly with Russia in the past, they can no longer afford that. I think even slimy politicians had to at that point admit that Russia could very well represent a real threat to Poland.

Funny thing. Some of our politicians(including our parliament speaker) also went on a trip to Maidan that was not authorized by the President, the parliament, the prime minister, or anyone else for that matter. They went there to pretend like they're some kind of important freedom fighters, took selfies, and just made things awkward for everyone involved. Clowns.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29401840

Russia has an interesting idea of diplomacy.

"Yeah we're ready to start talking and being best buds again, as soon as y'all stop being poopfaces."

It's like the USA and EU adding additional sanctions on the same day that the ceasefire went into effect. Makes it obvious that neither side is interested in dialogue but in the other's capitulation.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Once again, that's what many politicians do. Even if they were friendly with Russia in the past, they can no longer afford that. I think even slimy politicians had to at that point admit that Russia could very well represent a real threat to Poland.

Funny thing. Some of our politicians(including our parliament speaker) also went on a trip to Maidan that was not authorized by the President, the parliament, the prime minister, or anyone else for that matter. They went there to pretend like they're some kind of important freedom fighters, took selfies, and just made things awkward for everyone involved. Clowns. Yep, same as ours.. plus there went offical gov delegation, with foreign affairs minsiter



Again can't find anything in english. Our TV said that Spiegel (German journal) said that NATA don't have enough army to keep all it's participants safe. TA DA! told ya that they won't help us if something happens!!

Originally posted by Clovie
Yep, same as ours.. plus there went offical gov delegation, with foreign affairs minsiter



Again can't find anything in english. Our TV said that Spiegel (German journal) said that NATA don't have enough army to keep all it's participants safe. TA DA! told ya that they won't help us if something happens!!

It's unfortunate that you can't find it in English because I'm pretty sure there must be some kind of a misconception. NATO has a larger and a more technologically advanced military than Russia and that's what really matters. It's not about protecting every centimeter of every NATO member nation's soil, it's more about letting any potential enemies know that NATO will respond with full force to any military aggression on their part. And seeing how NATO's military spending constitutes about 70% of the whole world's military spending, the response would be very devastating indeed.

" It's not about protecting every centimeter of every NATO member nation's soil"

I'm 100km from border. it matters to me.


found it!
http://rt.com/news/191328-nato-gernmany-obligations-unable/

Originally posted by Clovie
" It's not about protecting every centimeter of every NATO member nation's soil"

I'm 100km from border. it matters to me.


found it!
http://rt.com/news/191328-nato-gernmany-obligations-unable/

I understand your concern as I myself live about 30km from the border, but protecting every centimeter is simply not realistic and nobody can really do that, including Russia.

Thanks for the link. That article is really only about Germany not being fully prepared to respond to an emergency. It's not exactly good news, but as long as the USA and the UK are capable of a full response, there's not much to worry about.

USA is far far way and they are busy fighting islamic terrorists.. and UK almost just got divided on its own..


I just don't wanna war. and I don't trust in those sweet words, they say it now, and if something happens that will say they don't have army, time etc.
so we always loose.

Originally posted by Clovie
Yep, same as ours.. plus there went offical gov delegation, with foreign affairs minsiter



Again can't find anything in english. Our TV said that Spiegel (German journal) said that NATA don't have enough army to keep all it's participants safe. TA DA! told ya that they won't help us if something happens!!
While it's true that NATO as it is wouldn't be able to outright stop a full-on Russian invasion of Eastern Europe (it would be a long fight, even assuming it stays conventional, but at the end of the day Russia isn't the Soviet Union and it couldn't hope to build up and maintain the kind of force that it would take to keep Europe under thumb--they'd get halted somewhere in Germany and then ground to dust by superior NATO airpower), the idea that it wouldn't rise to the defense of Poland is ludicrous.

NATO would be compelled to rise to Poland's--or Estonia's for that matter--defense simply because if it didn't, the alliance would cease to exist as anything but words on paper. The way an alliance works is that you can't pick and choose who you do and don't defend. Hence why NATO is so cautious in incorporating countries like Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance--those countries have a damn good chance of getting attacked by Russia, in which case NATO would be compelled to go to war with Russia, something nobody wants.

If the last thirty years have said anything, it's that major nation states no longer have the stomach to go to war with each other. The last example of two major modern nations actually going to war with one another (so, not counting border skirmishes or undeclared conflicts) was the Falklands Conflict, and that was in 1982. That's not to say it can't--or won't--happen again in the future or in our lifetimes, but the inertia against it is incredible.

THats logical but i still don't trust them. and that's why i shouldn't watch news.. it's too stressfull for me

Originally posted by Clovie
USA is far far way and they are busy fighting islamic terrorists.. and UK almost just got divided on its own..


I just don't wanna war. and I don't trust in those sweet words, they say it now, and if something happens that will say they don't have army, time etc.
so we always loose.

The USA is far away, yes, but it has military bases all over the world(many of them close to Poland) and its Air Force and Navy can reach any place in the world in a matter of days. And only a small fraction of the USA's forces are fighting the Islamists.

As for the UK: the division didn't happen and it was democratic and peaceful. I think it has very little bearing on the UK's obligations to NATO.

No sane person wants war. Omega Vision explained this already, but NATO means much more than sweet words.

Originally posted by Clovie
THats logical but i still don't trust them. and that's why i shouldn't watch news.. it's too stressfull for me

Yea, watching the news right now is a real health hazard for people who have high blood pressure or other cardiovascular problems.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
While it's true that NATO as it is wouldn't be able to outright stop a full-on Russian invasion of Eastern Europe (it would be a long fight, even assuming it stays conventional, but at the end of the day Russia isn't the Soviet Union and it couldn't hope to build up and maintain the kind of force that it would take to keep Europe under thumb--they'd get halted somewhere in Germany and then ground to dust by superior NATO airpower), the idea that it wouldn't rise to the defense of Poland is ludicrous.

NATO would be compelled to rise to Poland's--or Estonia's for that matter--defense simply because if it didn't, the alliance would cease to exist as anything but words on paper. The way an alliance works is that you can't pick and choose who you do and don't defend. Hence why NATO is so cautious in incorporating countries like Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance--those countries have a damn good chance of getting attacked by Russia, in which case NATO would be compelled to go to war with Russia, something nobody wants.

If the last thirty years have said anything, it's that major nation states no longer have the stomach to go to war with each other. The last example of two major modern nations actually going to war with one another (so, not counting border skirmishes or undeclared conflicts) was the Falklands Conflict, and that was in 1982. That's not to say it can't--or won't--happen again in the future or in our lifetimes, but the inertia against it is incredible.

The EU comission tasked with the investigation concluded that Georgia attacked Russia.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The USA is far away, yes, but it has military bases all over the world(many of them close to Poland) and its Air Force and Navy can reach any place in the world in a matter of days. And only a small fraction of the USA's forces are fighting the Islamists.

As for the UK: the division didn't happen and it was democratic and peaceful. I think it has very little bearing on the UK's obligations to NATO.

No sane person wants war. Omega Vision explained this already, but NATO means much more than sweet words.
Maybe the US should not put missile shield with first strike capabilities to protect Europe from ''Iran".

Thanks for your input.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
The EU comission tasked with the investigation concluded that Georgia attacked Russia.
That's not at all what it said. The report concluded that Georgia was primarily responsible for the war by provoking the Russians to action by conducting serious military operations on the Russian border against South Ossetian rebels within Georgia's own territory. "Primarily responsible for the war" and "attacked Russia" are not merely semantically different--they're operatively and factually different.

The same report also assigned blame (albeit secondary) to Russia for its posture and actions in the prelude to the conflict.

It would be as if Turkey had gone to war with Syria in 2012 after those stray shells landed in Turkish territory. Syria would have been responsible for the war, but you could hardly say that Syria "attacked" Turkey.

The direct threat to Russian security was even less than that in the case of South Ossetia. Russia simply refused to allow its pet breakaway region to be conquered by Georgian forces. Attempting to present it as Russia acting in self-defense is as ludicrous as saying that the Iraq War was about America protecting itself from terrorism.

I find it highly improbable that Georgia with its under 40,000 active military personal would "attack" Russia.

If you read Nikolai Gogol, you'll see that going back as far as the 1830s Russia was already a nation and culture founded on paranoia and a bizarre combination inferiority-superiority complex. The leaders of the Russian Empire were convinced that other nations were jealous of them and scheming to undermine and conquer them. This probably goes back to cultural memory of the Tatar yoke. Russians seem to pride themselves first and foremost on what invasions they've repulsed.

More and more young Russians lionize Stalin because he defeated Hitler and saved the Motherland, ignoring the fact that he was completely unprepared for Barbarossa and was more or less hiding under his bed when German forces approached Moscow, to say nothing of his many other "virtues."

What was it in the early days of the Eastern front, 1 rifle for every 3-4 Russian solders?

The Russian Army was so ill-prepared that those who did have weapons often abandoned them or surrendered without much of a fight. When the T-34 was first encountered, it was a shock to the Germans, but it didn't become a pressing issue because many of the first T-34s the Wehrmacht encountered had been abandoned by their crews wholly intact.

I recall reading that in the opening hours of Barbarossa, Stalin was so confused at what was going on that he issued orders to his generals to tell their soldiers not to shoot at the Germans because they had a non-aggression pact.

Did he think Hitler sent the largest invasion force ever in history just to talk?

Very recently I read something (might have even been on this forum) that suggested that Stalin didn't see it coming because he'd had his intelligence service monitor the Germans for preparations for winter conditions, and since the Germans invaded without having prepared for the winter none of the Russians saw it coming.

That was actually smart thinking on Stalin's part then, there's no way he would have expected Hitler to pull a Napolean

i seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that stalin dismissed intelligence pointing towards an upcoming attack prior to barbarossa because he didn't think hitler would be so foolish as to take on a two front war.