More NATO aggression in Eastern Europe

[Dawn Cannon]

Using the preposterous pretext of 'Russian aggression', NATO is putting in motion a dangerous dynamic in Eastern Europe that has every possibility of spiraling out of control.

During a press conference in Brussels, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a polite yet unmistakable command to NATO’s 28 member states that they will be expected to contribute their share to the ongoing militarization of Eastern Europe.

“I expect ministers to agree to enhance our forward presence in the eastern part of our alliance,” Stoltenberg said. “This will bolster our collective defense, and at the same time send a powerful signal to deter any aggression or intimidation.”

Stoltenberg passed around the battered hat after the Pentagon announced it would quadruple military spending in Europe to $3.4 billion for the so-called European Reassurance Initiative.

"We're taking a strong and balanced approach to deter Russian aggression," US Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the Economic Club of Washington last week. "We haven't had to worry about this for 25 years, and while I wish it were otherwise, now we do."

The result of this massive increase of spending will be more military hardware, more troops, more provocative exercises on Russia’s western flank and much more tension between Moscow and NATO - which once upon a time promised Russia it would not expand “one inch east” following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In an apparent attempt to preempt criticism of the reckless plan, the NATO chief added: “We don’t seek confrontation with Russia. We do not seek a new Cold War.”

Yet even that massive buildup of military muscle in Eastern Europe was seen as not enough by some Western think-tanks, which had hoped for permanent American bases as opposed to a “rotational presence”.

"The U.S. initiative still seems to fall short of the expectations of Poland and the three Baltic states for a permanent presence of U.S. combat units on their soil," Lukasz Kulesa, research director at the European Leadership Network, a London-based think tank, told AP. "The Americans talks about weapon pre-positioning and a 'persistent' rotational presence, not 'bases.'"

That complaint ultimately boils down to a matter of semantics, since it certainly will not matter to Russia if the NATO troops amassing on its border are “permanent” or “rotational.” The fact is, from Russia’s point of view, foreign troops are there; they will have a constant presence regardless as to how they are defined. And that is how NATO - not Russia - is aggravating tensions with Russia.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/332059-na...astern-europe/

[Ray Allan]

Refusing to admit any more non-White rapeugees past their borders is a start for some of these Eastern European countries. The next thing they need to do is get governments in power that will have the balls to get out of NATO. I wonder what would happen if say Poland or Greece decided to pull out? Give the NATObots in their countries 30 days to evacuate? Would NATO start bombing them like they did to Serbia?