Posted on 02/15/2015 6:22:35 PM PST by presidio9
'I believe the Russians are mobilizing right now for a war that they think is going to happen in five or six years —not that they're going to start a war in five or six years, but I think they are anticipating that things are going to happen, and that they will be in a war of some sort, of some scale, with somebody within the next five or six years."
So says Lt. Gen. Frederick "Ben" Hodges, commander of U.S. Army Europe....
"Strong Europe!" reads a sign on one of the walls. Next to it is the U.S. Army Europe insignia, a burning sword set against a blue shield. The two signs represent the strategic framework the three-star general has introduced—building on America's decades-long role on the Continent—since taking command last year of the 30,000 or so U.S. soldiers stationed in Europe.
The U.S. military presence in Europe is more vital at this moment than it has been in many years. American engagement is essential if the West is to deter a revanchist Russia that has set out to "redraw the boundaries of Europe," Gen. Hodges says with a native Floridian's drawl....
The Russians have "got some forces in Transnistria," he says of the state that broke away from Moldova in the 1990s. "They've got forces in Georgia. And I think they view China as their existential threat, so they've got a lot of capacity out there." The Russian military is thus already somewhat stretched, and Moscow had to carve out from existing units the battalion task groups currently arrayed near eastern Ukraine. Yet "they are clearly on a path to develop, to increase, their capacity," Gen. Hodges says. Add to this expansion that "they've got very good equipment, extremely good communications equipment, their [electronic-warfare] capability, T-80 tanks." How long will it take for Russia to reach its desired military strength? "I think within another two or three years they will have that capacity," he says.. -SNIP-
“So why did the Soviets not use them in 1989? “
Because nobody was invading them or engaged with their military?
I dont think you understand what tactical nukes are.
“Bibi just gave Jews in Europe the “get out of Dodge” signal”
That should be a big waving red flag. That hasn’t happened since WWII.
So you really are a troll, and now you want to drag one thread into another?
While lying to do it?
Is this the post that you are lying about?
To: DirtyPigpen
This is the same Russia, they just don’t have the power yet that they did, but they are obviously trying to regain that power and strategic positioning.
I oppose that return to the 1980s, you don’t.
You seem pretty passionate in your opposition to helping Ukraine in any way.
72 posted on 2/15/2015, 1:53:28 PM by ansel12
Yep.
Well since I was in the Field Artillery, and carried a nuke clearance for the use of tactical nukes, to use as part of our NATO defenses against Russia, I have heard of them.
Why do you call yourself a Lieutenant?
And why are you always calling for us to submit?
This is the post where you talk about how powerful they were.
ansel12 to DirtyPigpen Some of us were predicting in 1979 that 1984 was roughly the year or period that Russia needed to move, or else they would lose that window.
That period of 1983 1985 was a very tense time to be a part of those NATO forces, the tension was incredible, and Russia was incredibly powerful at the time, with almost 6 sand a half million men, 7 Airborne Divisions, and masses of Air Assault units and Bridge building and Armor units, a vast military force built entirely on attack, attack, attack.
Remember Ralph Peters old fiction work “Red Army”? I read it recently, the Russians win because W. Germany won’t sign off on the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conflict and there is a cease fire right when the American forces are in the process of kicking off an offensive.
Kinda like what your saying...
And what I said.
Sun Feb 15 2015 16:12:28 GMT-0500 (EST) · 69 of 74 DirtyPigpen to ansel12 Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings. On paper the armies of the USSR did look formidable, but hind sight is 20/20. I’m not saying they’d be a push over but they were not what they said they were or what we thought they were. It’s the truth, like it or not. For the most part they were ill trained, ill equipped and not disciplined. They did have some crack troops but they were few and far between.
So why did the Soviets not use them in 1989?
Because nobody was invading them or engaged with their military?
But that's not what the white papers said according to the poster who made that comment. He never said anything about an invasion of the Soviets.
Are you serious? They surrendered and lost their empire, yet in the end, even that could not justify what they knew was certain self destruction.
Yet today their supporters want to try and convince us that any sanctions, or the world supplying equipment to Ukraine, will suddenly make them want to start WWIII.
The idea seems to bounce between arguing that Russia “isn’t invading Ukraine”, to “they will start WWIII and the nuclear holocaust, if anyone complains about their invasion of Ukraine”.
Considering Russia’s dangerously low birth rates (real Russians that is, of course Muslim ‘Russians’ are having children, which only makes the situation worse), they better start removing those Chinese from Siberia soon. In the future they won’t have the manpower to do it.
Do you see why you stalking trolls are discouraged from dragging one thread into another?
To: DirtyPigpen
Some of us were predicting in 1979 that 1984 was roughly the year or period that Russia needed to move, or else they would lose that window.
That period of 1983 1985 was a very tense time to be a part of those NATO forces, the tension was incredible, and Russia was incredibly powerful at the time, with almost 6 sand a half million men, 7 Airborne Divisions, and masses of Air Assault units and Bridge building and Armor units, a vast military force built entirely on attack, attack, attack.
You could feel and see the tension of the soldiers at the Fulda Gap, and Many experts believed that Russia could take Western Europe in weeks.
Now as you support Russia’s military invasion today, you want to try and convince the naive that they were never really the threat that generations of Americans, and world leaders and Presidents said they were.
Another leftist talking point to go with your phony chickenhawk dig at Reagan conservatives, that the left tries to create.
68 posted on 2/15/2015, 12:48:41 PM by ansel12
That would be the absolute most strategically stupid thing the Russians could ever do. There are under 200 million of them, with a long border separating them from 1.6 billion Chinese who have a real estate and resource problem...
Never happen.
With what some people think could be as high as an 18% Muslim population, and with China slowly populating Siberia, Russia is in no position to have their military destroyed over attacking NATO.
The S-— of Obamas ineptitude will hit the fan right when a Republican is Inaugurated.
If you didn’t talk out of both sides of your mouth, in two different threads I would have to drag one into the other.
You are a lying sack of crap and have no credibility as your word has been determined no good.
In one thread I don’t agree with spending our money arming Ukraine so you tell me how dangerous a threat Russia is. Then in another thread you day they suck.
Totally disingenuous. Reagan would not be proud of you.
The prediction is actually not a prediction. Russia is involved in a war right now. At least some people call what is happening in Ukraine war.
we do not need to spend money to arm Ukraine. We have plenty of surplus equipment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.