Timoschuk
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Russian-Ukrainian confrontation has given NATO a good reason to expand its presence in the countries of Eastern Europe.
Representatives of the block say that the increase in the number of contingents is a consequence of Russian aggression and is aimed at protecting the member countries of the alliance.
Although the issues of creating forward presence forces on the eastern flank were discussed by the leadership of the NATO countries back in 2016. In 2017, four multinational battlegroups were formed in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. All of them are coordinated from Szczecin (Poland). A year later, the headquarters in the Polish Elblag began to function.
In April of this year, it was decided to increase the number of battle groups to eight. New formations numbering from 600 to 2000 people were deployed in Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania. The total numberof newly created units is 10,232 people.
As a result of the June summit in Madrid, the number of NATO response forces was increased to 300,000 people. Of these, 40 thousand can be transferred to anywhere in Europe within 15 days. Now, for the first 100,000, the response time has been reduced to 10 days.
In addition, any NATO country should be able to expand the strength of the Armed Forces by 500,000 people within six months.
Up to 30 reconnaissance and fighter planes are constantly in the air. Another 130 are on high alert. About 140 warships are on duty at sea.
The United States is the main contributor. The number of the American contingent in Europe has grown from 60 to 100 thousand people. Moreover, 65% of the personnel are there on a permanent basis. Accordingly, the military budget has grown by almost 25% compared tol ast year.
Sooner or later, the Ukrainian conflict will end, and American troops in Europe will remain on a permanent basis. And the increased budget will not be reduced. It turns out that Stoltenberg achieved his goal – to increase the role of NATO and increase the military spending of the member countries of the alliance.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Russo-NATO war in Ukraine, is now reminiscent of the Great War (1914-1918). The Russians have been using massive artillery barge’s to decimate the Ukrainian Conscripts that are been used as cannon fodder by their NATO Commanders. In late November 2022, Ursula von der Leyen (President of the European Commission) said “…more than 100,000 Ukrainian military officers have been killed so far.” This was a headline by the CNBC new channel “Trenches, mud and death: One Ukrainian battlefield looks like something out of World War I” by Holly Ellyatt – Nov 30. NATO is fighting a War of Attrition against Russia… Read more »
The Russians will not continue with this Attrition warfare, as if favours the economic might of the collective west. Nonsense, the west is collapsing economically.
Russia will be forced to launch a winter offensive in early 2023. How do you know this? Russia is systematically wiping out NATO.s weaponry without taking large casualties.
I am well aware that Russia is destroying the Ukrainian military, with a 10 -1 loss ratio in favour to Russia, as it is destroying the Ukrainian cannon fodder which includes thousands of foreign mercenaries. Ukraine has lost over 100,000 combat troops in the conflict so far, but this is only the first round of the Russo-NATO War. This is a War of Attrition, and a plethora of NATO’s military equipment has been destroyed, but NATO’s man power remains intact, as they are only sacrificing Ukrainian cannon fodder at the moment. The problem for Russia is that they have spent… Read more »
Nonsense. NATO does not have the capacity nor the industrial base to fight a conventional war against Russia, You know nothing about Russia’s stockpiles only what you read in the UK. Dude you are dreaming about Russia’s demise but believe me we will nuke you first when things go nuclear.
“Dude you are dreaming about Russia’s demise but believe me we will nuke you first when things go nuclear.”
Do you seriously think I am on the side NATO (Synagogue of Satan) in this conflict? I have been protesting their illegal wars since the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, back in 1999, and I was against the Gulf War of 1990–1991.
Today, I take a rational and levelheaded look at conflicts, rather than getting emotionally involved in them, like Football hooligans do when it involves their team.
Great. At least you have a moral compass if not the understanding of military industrial capacity. Remember that Russia never outsourced its production to China.
NATO/USA might resort to try a first strike on Russia. That is their only chance to beat Russia. How bad will it (a) be, and (b) look for the USA to get beaten out of Europe with its tail between its legs. I can’t see the US doing that. Maybe Russia will be forced to nuke the UK as a warning to the US. So many ways this can go badly wrong.
Thanks a bunch, I live in the UK, but if it means getting rid of the Yanks and it’s proxies, I don’t mind being barbecued.
NATO, Is this the bunch of clowns who got their collective back sides kicked in Afghanistan. They certainly are a rapid force, couldn’t get out of there fast enough , They are fighting Russia in Ukraine and still getting their proverbial’s kicked. Don’t think President Putin will loose any sleep.
Now that China,and to a lesser extent, Iran have become dependent on Russian resources and have formed alliances with Russia it remains to, be seen what they will do if Russia is jeopardized to the extent that Russian resources might fall under us/nato control. Are China and Iran already supplying Russia? I wouldn’t be surprised. Would they increase that kind of commitment to the extent that us/nato falters even more severely or to a ‘terminal’ extent? What do you think?
“……if Russia is jeopardized to the extent that Russian resources might fall under us/nato control.”
If it ever got to that stage, the Russians would certainly launch their Intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it would be goodnight Irene for the world.
That is so mindbogglingly disastrous. I understand it as a threat. Would anybody sane actually consign all/most other life on this planet to extinction even if they could live in a bomb shelter? Is living in a bomb shelter (for a while) better than allowing your people the option of living as a subject of your enemy? The absolutely mindboggling part of this is that we are thinking in these terms as a potential reality.
Would anybody go so far, YES the Yanks, won’t hesitate if they are loosing, no doubt about it. The US is full of mad men, who think they can survive a nuke war.