Russia Concerned At US Troops in Eastern Countries

[wholagun]

Russia Concerned at U.S. Troops on Its Doorstep

"PA"


Russia is concerned about the possible relocation of American troops in Europe closer to its borders, Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said today.

Ivanov said that Washington had informed Moscow that it was considering moving its military bases from Germany to Poland, Romania and some other European countries but had not yet made a final decision.

The US has sought to assuage Moscow about the move, Ivanov said, but he added that the Russian leadership is still worried.

“Moving any military infrastructure closer to our borders can’t but cause our concern,” he said in the Siberian city of Omsk.

Under former President Boris Yeltsin, Russia strongly opposed Nato’s move to incorporate past Soviet allies in eastern and central Europe, but President Vladimir Putin softened Moscow’s opposition to the alliance’s eastward expansion after signing a partnership agreement with Nato in May 2002.

Russia’s relations with the United States and Nato flourished thanks to Putin’s steadfast support for the US led war in Afghanistan after the September 11 terror attacks, but Moscow warned both Washington and Nato against deploying weapons closer to Russian borders.

In October, Russia’s Defence Ministry released a document saying that Moscow might rethink its nuclear strategy if Nato maintains its current “offensive” military doctrine. Ivanov then also warned that Russia would not rule out the preventive use of force if its interests and alliance obligations demand it.

The Russian statements have troubled Nato officials, who prodded Ivanov for explanations when he attended an alliance meeting last fall. Ivanov said that a possible pre-emptive attack would not involve nuclear weapons and emphasised that Russia remains committed to cooperation with Nato

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2412199

I don't understnad why Russia would be scared its not like US has a priority to go and invade Russia nor does Poland. We really pose no threat to you guys, get real, come on. Your a NATO partner so doesn't the government walk the walk rather then talk the talk. Its small bases not the Cold War type, really no threat to Russia at all.

[Russian Texan]

Where do you get it that someone is scared? Concerned - yes.
Poland invading Russia - that's a good one rofl rofl rofl
I think you'd see a similar reaction from US if, let's say, Russia had it's troops stationed in Mexico or Canada. Then again Cuba comes to mind...
It's all about politics, I don't think that there are a lot of people in either country who believe that war can happen between two.

[koster]

What would've been your reaction, if we have had our bases in places like Canada and Mexico ?
~~~~~
nvm, didn't see Russian Texan's post.

[wholagun]

Where do you get it that someone is scared? Concerned - yes.
Poland invading Russia - that's a good one rofl rofl rofl
I think you'd see a similar reaction from US if, let's say, Russia had it's troops stationed in Mexico or Canada. Then again Cuba comes to mind...
It's all about politics, I don't think that there are a lot of people in either country who believe that war can happen between two.

HHMMMMM,, yeah I guess I see your point.

Mexico!! Be my guest.

[Kitsune]

Think about the Americans creating bases in central Asia! Aserbaijan, Usbekistan, Georgia...these were all parts of the Soviet Union (and Afghanistan was a country they atleast tried to control) now the USA makes her influnece felt here. Lets not forget that this area is one with vast riches (oil !!!) and the Russians have lost it.

This all is seen as quite humiliating by the Russians. Is it truly wise to create military bases in Eastern Europe as well?

[Roger Rabbit]

Right well if Russia and America are going to start bashing each other then can i have NASA's number so i can catch the next rocket to the moon or Mars.

[FallenAngel]

Hmm, Russians in Canada or Mexico?

That actually doesn't seem so bad. ;)

[Dmitri]

So why exactly does US need bases there? They are supposed to be a peace-loving country that only defends itself, now it has bases all over Europe... WHY? :|

[wholagun]

Is it truly wise to create military bases in Eastern Europe as well?

Wise? Well if depends for whom? EU would rather see the US out of Europe. Only now Poland has become on of the last US strong holds (I don't think the honey moon will last long, EU is our best friend).

For Poland its great the US is putting bases in Eastern Europe, security and economically. People take it for granted and don't consider that our hisotry sucks balls when it comes to peace and stability. People just always say we wein about our history, but how would you feel? Although I really hope that EU can someday become what NATO is now, and it is doing that. So that nations will defend each other in case of war and that way avoid costly ones. Isn't there a new clause in the proposed/agreed part of the constitution that states that if a EU state gets attacked that all are obligated to help.

[Loco]

Only now Poland has become on of the last US strong holds (I don't think the honey moon will last long, EU is our best friend).

Although I really hope that EU can someday become what NATO is now, and it is doing that.
I just can´t see the point. Turky is a NATO member and it stopped USA of using its bases for invading IRak since the north, and we know that Greek and Turky, both NATO countries, have been as close as a hair of going to war several times, situation btw that still didn´t happen between EU countries. And as for becoming Poland in a suddenly metamorphosis in a kind of a slave-anglosaxon race, I can´t see how Poland could replace GBritain as the closest USA allied in europe, something more close to a familiar relationship than a politic one. BTW, USA won´t leave bases in Germany, only some of them, and the most important stuff will remain in Germany, talking about central europe. What about Aviano air base in Italy? and what about Rota naval base in Spain? Things don´t change so easy as some journalist would think.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Personally a Russian base in Canada or Mexico wouldnt be so bad. I as a Canadian wouldnt mind it. Its not like we are in the cold war or anything anymore, besides maybe we'd get some cool Russian surplus gear for cheap and maybe they'd make a specialized division for Canadians who want to join ;)

[GazB]

"I don't understnad why Russia would be scared its not like US has a priority to go and invade Russia nor does Poland."

Why do you think the US needs forces in Poland for? Who would they be there to oppose?

Turkey and Norway have opposed changes to the CFE treaty regarding the flanks agreement meaning that Russia is limited to how many troops it can have stationed in Chechnia. If they don't want more troops near their border, for clearly non aggressive (towards them) reasons why should Russia accept the US shifting its forces in Europe?

"HHMMMMM,, yeah I guess I see your point.

Mexico!! Be my guest."

It is not just bases it is direct influence over a country. How many neighbours would the US like to buy Russian military equipment and exercise regularly with them?

"For Poland its great the US is putting bases in Eastern Europe, security and economically."

Security from what? Big bad Russia? So why do you not understand why they care about this?

"I just can´t see the point. Turky is a NATO member and it stopped USA of using its bases for invading IRak since the north,"

Despite actions in Kosovo NATO is supposed to be a defencive agreement. If Turkey was attacked then NATO had to defend it, just as if the US was attacked in Europe then Turkey would have to help. (It only applies in Europe... If the Falkland Islands are attacked then NATO is not abliged to help Britain in spite of the British seeing it as British territory.

[Jack Mehoff]

So why exactly does US need bases there? They are supposed to be a peace-loving country that only defends itself, now it has bases all over Europe... WHY? :|

We have bases on every corner of the earth, whats your point?

[AFACadet]

Why go further east?




Well, why were there US bases in Europe? Because the USSR was our biggest threat and those bases were close to the USSR.

That threat is gone.


The new problem spots are further east.



All of you tell me...

Which is closer to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Is it the UK and Germany or Poland and Romania?

[mustamato]

So why exactly does US need bases there? They are supposed to be a peace-loving country that only defends itself, now it has bases all over Europe... WHY? :|

We have bases on every corner of the earth, whats your point?

That there is no cold war anymore, and that you don´t need them?

[AFACadet]

So why exactly does US need bases there? They are supposed to be a peace-loving country that only defends itself, now it has bases all over Europe... WHY? :|

We have bases on every corner of the earth, whats your point?

That there is no cold war anymore, and that you don´t need them?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Why go further east?




Well, why were there US bases in Europe? Because the USSR was our biggest threat and those bases were close to the USSR.

That threat is gone.


The new problem spots are further east.



All of you tell me...

Which is closer to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Is it the UK and Germany or Poland and Romania?

[Jack Mehoff]

So why exactly does US need bases there? They are supposed to be a peace-loving country that only defends itself, now it has bases all over Europe... WHY? :|

We have bases on every corner of the earth, whats your point?

That there is no cold war anymore, and that you don´t need them?

I think you might want to spend a few days in SK.

Also, you don't need damn cold war to put a U.S. base in Europe. Something like the Balkan already prove my point.

Reasons why we want bases in Europe and around the world:
1)Quick response to that particular region
2)Supply line to middle east and asia

[mustamato]

We have bases on every corner of the earth, whats your point?

That there is no cold war anymore, and that you don´t need them?

I think you might want to spend a few days in SK

SK? http://www.slovakia.sk ?

Have your dollar imperialism... errh I mean military bases spread there as well?

[Jack Mehoff]

South Korea

[AFACadet]

Ummmm... SK as in SOUTH KOREA, aka ROK where they are still in a cold war type stance.

:cantbeli:


EDIT: Darn, beat me too it ;)

[mustamato]

And what should I do there more than buy cheap electronics and take a trip to the north to see how things are going in Pyongyang and whats up with Kim Il-Jong?

[Jack Mehoff]

We have bases on every corner of the earth, whats your point?

That there is no cold war anymore, and that you don´t need them?

I think you might want to spend a few days in SK

SK? http://www.slovakia.sk ?

Have your dollar imperialism... errh I mean military bases spread there as well?

woot imperialism!!! How come Japan and South Korea are so wealthy eventhough they are the hosts of over 100,000 U.S. servicemen for the last 60 years? Should both of them be dirt poor because of American imperialism?

[US_Frogman]

The bases being located further east will be of extreme importance to the war on terror. Many of these eastern countries are breeding grounds for terrorist groups, and putting US bases near these areas makes nothing but sense. It will give us quick response capabilities in the area, and also dramatically reduce the logistical problems associated with this campaign.

[mustamato]

woot imperialism!!! How come Japan and South Korea are so wealthy eventhough they are the hosts of over 100,000 U.S. servicemen for the last 60 years? Should both of them be dirt poor because of American imperialism?

Let me put it like this. The people in Okinawa want you to leave. But you don´t want to. So you stay. It´s the same thing in Guantanamo where Castro want you to leave. But you are not of the same opinion so you stay. I´m quite sure of that there are lots of people that want you to fokk off from Korea as well. Especially considering the brutal military dictatorship in the 80´s that was... surprise surprise... supported by USA. And it´s not like their economy is dependent of you having bases there. I´m sure they would manage just fine without you.

I think it´s a shame that Poland is prostituting itself to be USA´s bitch like this. I like the poles and I like the country, but this is shamefull. It´s even -> :oops:

[mustamato]

The bases being located further east will be of extreme importance to the war on terror. Many of these eastern countries are breeding grounds for terrorist groups, and putting US bases near these areas makes nothing but sense. It will give us quick response capabilities in the area, and also dramatically reduce the logistical problems associated with this campaign.

Ok, let me see if I understood you correctly. I´ll take an example:

Poland lets US establish a base in Poland. CIA suddently thinks that there are Al-Qaida in Poland but the polish governemt thinks that is just bull**** and does nothing about it. So what is the next step? US military operations on polish soil without the approval of the polish authorities? A campaign?

[Jack Mehoff]

woot imperialism!!! How come Japan and South Korea are so wealthy eventhough they are the hosts of over 100,000 U.S. servicemen for the last 60 years? Should both of them be dirt poor because of American imperialism?

Let me put it like this. The people in Okinawa want you to leave. But you don´t want to. So you stay. It´s the same thing in Guantanamo where Castro want you to leave. But you are not of the same opinion so you stay. I´m quite sure of that there are lots of people that want you to fokk off from Korea as well. Especially considering the brutal military dictatorship in the 80´s that was... surprise surprise... supported by USA. And it´s not like their economy is dependent of you having bases there. I´m sure they would manage just fine without you.

I think it´s a shame that Poland is prostituting itself to be USA´s bitch like this. I like the poles and I like the country, but this is shamefull. It´s even -> :oops:
I agree that America should leave Japan and South Korea since they don't want us there anyway, the younger native people especially. But when N. Korea and China decide to go postal and attack those two countries and i want YOU to pick up a gun and defend for ROK and Japan, deal?

[US_Frogman]

"I´m sure they (ROK) would manage just fine without you."

If the US left South Korea the North would take it in a week.

[mustamato]

I agree that America should leave Japan and South Korea since they don't want us there anyway, the younger native people especially. But when N. Korea and China decide to go postal and attack those two countries and i want YOU to pick up a gun and defend for ROK and Japan, deal?

Yep it´s a deal. Maybe China will invade Taiwan which would raise the prices on electronics that breaks after a weak anyway and cheap clothes which seams that always breaks in the ass in embarassing situations, but I think I could live with that. It´s not like Hong Kong are doing very bad because the chinese took over it from the brits. Actually it´s going even better. Just look at China today and their major cities, it´s like New York skyline in every one of them. They are a capitalistic superpower to count with in the near future. So them attacking south Korea is just naive.

North Korea will soon be liberated by itself. They don´t have the resources to attack anyone. Actually US bases in the southern parts of Korea is one big reason for them to not cool down. It´s you americans that are hindering the uniting of the korean people. Without you there, there would not be much reason for Kim Il-Jong to build more nukes...


If the US left South Korea the North would take it in a week.

Yeah because they have so much resources and so modern equipment...

http://exploze.wz.cz/awar/talib_force/tank/t-54.jpg

vs.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/k-1_2.jpg

[Jack Mehoff]

Of course, it's all the Yanks fault again to keep ROK from becoming a communist

[US_Frogman]

mustamato Wrote:
"North Korea will soon be liberated by itself. They don´t have the resources to attack anyone. Actually US bases in the southern parts of Korea is one big reason for them to not cool down. It´s you americans that are hindering the uniting of the korean people. Without you there, there would not be much reason for Kim Il-Jong to build more nukes"

You have no idea how much I'd love for my countrymen to be able to leave places like Japan and Korea. US soldiers can be put to much better use then staring down the North at the DMZ all day. But you must be extremely naive to believe that the abandoning the ROK would lead to anything but an invasion from the North.

[Jack Mehoff]

I agree that America should leave Japan and South Korea since they don't want us there anyway, the younger native people especially. But when N. Korea and China decide to go postal and attack those two countries and i want YOU to pick up a gun and defend for ROK and Japan, deal?

Yep it´s a deal. Maybe China will invade Taiwan which would raise the prices on electronics that breaks after a weak anyway and cheap clothes which seams that always breaks in the ass in embarassing situations, but I think I could live with that. It´s not like Hong Kong are doing very bad because the chinese took over it from the brits. Actually it´s going even better. Just look at China today and their major cities, it´s like New York skyline in every one of them. They are a capitalistic superpower to count with in the near future. So them attacking south Korea is just naive.

North Korea will soon be liberated by itself. They don´t have the resources to attack anyone. Actually US bases in the southern parts of Korea is one big reason for them to not cool down. It´s you americans that are hindering the uniting of the korean people. Without you there, there would not be much reason for Kim Il-Jong to build more nukes...


If the US left South Korea the North would take it in a week.

Yeah because they have so much resources and so modern equipment...

http://exploze.wz.cz/awar/talib_force/tank/t-54.jpg

vs.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/k-1_2.jpg

Dude, wtf? Have you ever serve in the military? Have you ever been in Asia? Do you have any buddies serve in SK? I think i rather trust my personal experience than from a hippy armchair commando from Europe.

I guess my LDS mission oversea taught me a lot of things.

"con cac may thang cho"

[AFACadet]

You're my hero, mustamato!
woot :hug: ;) :D :) :lol: ;) :D :) :hug: woot ;) :hug: woot woot p-)

[Jack Mehoff]

I'm not sure if mustamato have enough balls to pick up a gun and defend Japan and S Korea

[US_Frogman]

What your really failing to take into account mustamato, is the fact that where N. Korea goes, China goes. I dont think that the ROK could hold off a dedicate attack from the North (not including China) even with the modern equipment we've given them. But if China chose to assist the North, which they most likely would, all the M1's in the world couldnt save the South.

[AFACadet]

What is there? Like a couple hundred M1s to thousands and thousands of T-55s in the area?

[Jack Mehoff]

Not to mention NK has more artillery pieces than anybody else along with their 1 million men army

[duck]

It's enough for the PRK to capture Seoul in a surprise attack. Imagine heavy artillery, lethal gas, saboteurs, assassins, thousands of tanks attacking, all on a few hours notice. If they can capture enough American and Japanese civilians they are already on the safe side. Their primary target is not all-out war but to take thousands of hostages in Seoul to use as a bargaining chip. So they should be prevented from reaching Seoul at all costs, even if it means using tactical nukes against the armored divisions.

Btw, China considers PRK a liability, not an asset. They've probably toyed with the idea of staging a coup a few times now.

[mustamato]

What your really failing to take into account mustamato, is the fact that where N. Korea goes, China goes.

Maybe when Mao was still alive. Today? No way. What you fail to see is that China is not a marxistic country that adores papa Stalin anymore. Welcome to the new millenium man, this is the new China:

http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/08/08072001/shanghai.jpg


Dude, wtf? Have you ever serve in the military? Have you ever been in Asia? Do you have any buddies serve in SK? I think i rather trust my personal experience than from a hippy armchair commando from Europe.

Yes I have. Does Thailand count? No I don´t. And I don´t think your personal experience includes fighting of millions of starving and badly equipped north koreans? Or maybe I have missed something lately...

What´s your point?

[SFontaine]

What would've been your reaction, if we have had our bases in places like Canada and Mexico ?

Russia has no reason to be anywhere in the area though.

[mustamato]

What would've been your reaction, if we have had our bases in places like Canada and Mexico ?

Russia has no reason to be anywhere in the area though.

And US bases in Poland are necessary because of...?

[ArmedPacifist]

I don't really understand the necessity of moving the bases. I'm sure there are bigger priorities right now.

[US_Frogman]

I dont know where youve gotten this idea that the N. Korean military is nothing but rusting tanks and starving, poorly equipped soldiers. The N. Korean military is one of the most powerful military machines in the world. Old Kim puts all of N. Korea's money into two things, himself and the military. N. Korea has over 1 million soldiers who are heavily equipped. They do not only have surplus T55s and T62s. Most of their frontline brigades are equipped with T72 and T80 MBT's. They have more artillery then any other nation in the world. Their air force may be outdated, but the sheer number of airframes they posess makes it formitable as well.

[AFACadet]

What would've been your reaction, if we have had our bases in places like Canada and Mexico ?

Russia has no reason to be anywhere in the area though.

And US bases in Poland are necessary because of...?





So why exactly does US need bases there? They are supposed to be a peace-loving country that only defends itself, now it has bases all over Europe... WHY? :|

We have bases on every corner of the earth, whats your point?

That there is no cold war anymore, and that you don´t need them?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Why go further east?




Well, why were there US bases in Europe? Because the USSR was our biggest threat and those bases were close to the USSR.

That threat is gone.


The new problem spots are further east.



All of you tell me...

Which is closer to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Is it the UK and Germany or Poland and Romania?

All I have to say is WOW. :cantbeli:

[Jack Mehoff]

Yes I have. Does Thailand count? No I don´t. And I don´t think your personal experience includes fighting of millions of starving and badly equipped north koreans? Or maybe I have missed something lately...

What´s your point?


rofl I dont know where the hell you get the words starving and badly equipped rofl. N Korean people maybe be starving to death because almost all of their resources pour into their military.

You sure hell make up a lot of things for a hippy in a neutral country. Like i mention earlier, internet and cable TV doesn't make up for experience.

[mustamato]

I dont know where youve gotten this idea that the N. Korean military is nothing but rusting tanks and starving, poorly equipped soldiers. The N. Korean military is one of the most powerful military machines in the world. Old Kim puts all of N. Korea's money into two things, himself and the military. N. Korea has over 1 million soldiers who are heavily equipped. They do not only have surplus T55s and T62s. Most of their frontline brigades are equipped with T72 and T80 MBT's. They have more artillery then any other nation in the world. Their air force may be outdated, but the sheer number of airframes they posess makes it formitable as well.

North Koreas conventional capabilities according to Mr mustamato

Tanks are obsolete crap. They even have T-34´s! About 600 pieces T-62 (probably okey), and about 2200 pieces of T-54/55 (well, probably good infantry supporting guns but useless as MBT´s, even a Bradley with depeleted uranium-ammo can take them out with their cannon). The only impressive things is the numbers. I don´t really know where you got T-72 and T-80 from though. I know that South Korea is using T-80U. A curiousity is that ROK got a 105 mm gun to their K88 MBT instead of a 120 mm, and why? Well because the grenade will pierce the armour of those north korean tanks anyway.

Other armour are acceptable. When it comes to battlefield taxis it doesn´t matter if they are 30 or 40 years old. However here in Sweden we have MT-LB´s bought from Bulgaria, their steel sucks and a 5.56 AP can pierce their armour. So their real value against heavy shrapnel are doubtfull. The same goes probably for the north korean APC´s. They have about 2500 of them.

Artillery. The backbone of the North Korean armys firepower. Enormous amounts of artillery and rocket artillery. The problem here is mainly the age, and the lack of range (10-15 km for the lighter and a little more for the heavier) This means that they are seriously outgunned by modern 155 mm guns that has ranges of 30-40 km, not to mention MLRS with 100+ km. However their artillery is a major threat yes.

Air Force Could be dangerous in the ground-strafing role, but they would be shot down immediately anyway.

Summary: Despite my negative comments above it must be admitted that they have a lot of equipment, and could simply by the use of the bug-technique in Starship Troopers be lethal. But I keep thinking of the Iraqis prior to the first Gulf War that was theoretically the worlds fourth largest army. Yeah right...

Main source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/

Did I forget something?


You sure hell make up a lot of things for a hippy in a neutral country. Like i mention earlier, internet and cable TV doesn't make up for experience.

Hm, you do know that we have mandatory military service here? But no I have not been in combat, but neither have you, so... but you have a another flag on your arm so that makes you so much better or what?

[Seiyuuki]

Doesn't one of the military in Europe has its own labor union?

[garyfanclub]

You sure hell make up a lot of things for a hippy in a neutral country. Like i mention earlier, internet and cable TV doesn't make up for experience.


Hm, you do know that we have mandatory military service here? But no I have not been in combat, but neither have you, so... but you have a another flag on your arm so that makes you so much better or what?

Correct! For once you get something right Mustamato. :cantbeli:

[Ichhabe]

For those "in the know": IF North Korea decides to attack the South...
How long do they need to preapare for the attack? Like mustering the artillery, infantry and so on to their forward staging point initial to the attack? Or are they already there? :)

Excuse my ignorance, but I can't follow all the developments way up here in the corner of Europe.

[Roger Rabbit]

With Mustamato's indepth intelligence analysis of the North Korean Military then he must be working for MI6 or the CIA.

As has already been found out, a few men with some explosives, RPGs and AKs can be far more effective than a lot of old tanks. Just because you see the NK military in a poor state doesn't mean they don't pose a great risk.

[M1A2U2]

By the way your whole logic about the NATO charter and being attacked is wrong. It doesnt only apply to europe it applies to any homeland country. The falklands was a colony

[StarvingStudent47]

Russians: Don't worry. We're just trying to move as close to Anna Kournikova and T.a.T.u. as possible woot

[GazB]

"We have bases on every corner of the earth, whats your point?"

The point is that it is like a prison... everyone agrees more is better, but no one wants them in their town.

"All of you tell me...

Which is closer to Iraq and Afghanistan?"

You already have bases in Iraq, and people in Afghanistan. Most of your heavy equipment will always go by sea anyway. The existing bases in Germany were accepted by all.


I think you might want to spend a few days in SK.

Also, you don't need damn cold war to put a U.S. base in Europe. Something like the Balkan already prove my point.

Reasons why we want bases in Europe and around the world:
1)Quick response to that particular region
2)Supply line to middle east and asia

There are existing arms agreements that limit where Russia and other former Warsaw Pact and NATO forces can be based. By shifting your forces you are violating the spirit of those agreements.

" imperialism!!! How come Japan and South Korea are so wealthy eventhough they are the hosts of over 100,000 U.S. servicemen for the last 60 years? Should both of them be dirt poor because of American imperialism?"

I am sure your investment and assistance is appreciated, however their neightbours would not agree. In the past you could say... so what. Who cares what NK or China think about a US presence. In this case however it is Russia... you know... supposed to be an ally now... but the fact that they are only allow a relationship with NATO and not actually allowed to join means they are still on the outside. Moving troops East, extending NATO east is just going to give idiots like Zhurunovsky (spelling) enough power to bring back the cold war. Is that really what you want?
They might be poor at the moment, but their nukes still go bang! Putin would never deal with Al Quada, but Zhurunovsky might...

"Many of these eastern countries are breeding grounds for terrorist groups, and putting US bases near these areas makes nothing but sense."

What evidence do you have? I would suggest there are more muslims in the west at the moment than in Eastern Europe.

"If the US left South Korea the North would take it in a week."

hahahahaha... what with? The South currently spends more than twice as much a year on defence and has twice the population. The only reason the UN got pushed back from the chinese border was because of all those chinese soldiers that mounted human wave attacks till they pushed them back to their satisfaction. I doubt an invasion by the north will get the same chinese support again... china's economy is too tied to the US for that to happen.

"Without you there, there would not be much reason for Kim Il-Jong to build more nukes... "

It is only fear of US invasion made very real by invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that prompts the NK nuclear program.

"But you must be extremely naive to believe that the abandoning the ROK would lead to anything but an invasion from the North."

What are they to invade with? Their ancient T series chinese tanks? On paper they might look competant, and being Korean I am sure they would fight hard and well, but the technology difference is worse than in Desert Storm between the world and Iraq.

"What your really failing to take into account mustamato, is the fact that where N. Korea goes, China goes."

BS. The Chinese are not going to risk losing their good economy for NK.

"What is there? Like a couple hundred M1s to thousands and thousands of T-55s in the area?"

At what range can a T-55 penetrate the frontal armour of an M1? At what range at night can a T-55 see an M1 and vice versa. Even with T-72s, which at close range with the correct ammo could take on an M1A1 how well did the Iraqis do? With no TI sights their visibility is about 1.5km... less than half the range a M1 can see them.

You get a pistol and I'll get a rifle and we can stand 300m apart... you put on a blindfold and see how often you get me and how often I get you.

And of course it is artillery that wins wars... look at the US... dropping F-22s and F-35s and AWACs and JSTARS assets so they can build new artillery pieces... towed at that.

"Yes I have. Does Thailand count? No I don´t. And I don´t think your personal experience includes fighting of millions of starving and badly equipped north koreans? Or maybe I have missed something lately... "

His point is that he has stood on the wall between the two countries. I am sure they are taught a very balanced view when standing there told that invasion could come at any time... I am sure the guards at guantanimo are saving the world too... give them half a chance and those damn cubans would invade the US in a heart beat... :-)

"Most of their frontline brigades are equipped with T72 and T80 MBT's."

Bull. The South Koreans have more T-80s than the north does. It was a debt relief thing.

"Their air force may be outdated, but the sheer number of airframes they posess makes it formitable as well."

Airframes just mean lots of targets if they are not up to scratch... and they are not. Look at how many airframes the israelis faced and face.

"All I have to say is WOW. "

The difference in savings is not large enough to warrant the possible negative outcomes. Certainly this will boost spending on military things in Russia. It might also destroy the CFE treaty and reduce cooperation between NATO and Russia. Just so you can reduce the last leg of a journey from the US to Iraq. (Note making the base closer to the east just makes it further from the US... the overall distance doesn't change.

"How long do they need to preapare for the attack? Like mustering the artillery, infantry and so on to their forward staging point initial to the attack? Or are they already there?"

Most of NKs artillery is towed... a lot of trucks woud have to appear from nowhere if they wanted to move them forward in a hurry.

The fact is that most are dug in in defencive position in very rough ground that has been hardened with concrete. th French with their maginot line were better placed to invade Germany than NK is to attack and invade SK. Why do you think they think they need nuclear weapons?
Do you know their offensive capabilities better than they do?

"As has already been found out, a few men with some explosives, RPGs and AKs can be far more effective than a lot of old tanks. Just because you see the NK military in a poor state doesn't mean they don't pose a great risk."

To invade a country you need more than assault rifles and RPGs. Look at what the US goes through everytime it needs to invade a country.


"By the way your whole logic about the NATO charter and being attacked is wrong. It doesnt only apply to europe it applies to any homeland country. The falklands was a colony"

Then why wasn't NATO called to assist the US when it was attacked in 11/9? NATO is an organisation designed to defend Europe from the Warsaw Pact. It didn't want to get involved in Northern Ireland through Britain, or Algeria through France.

[SOG]

What would've been your reaction, if we have had our bases in places like Canada and Mexico ?
~~~~~
nvm, didn't see Russian Texan's post.

during the cold war i woudla **** meself. now, who cares. intermingle.

one of the things i would like to address really quick is WHY we are THINKING about moving our bases, some from germany.

this came down from the recent iraq conflict. france germany and russia held a lot of iraqs national debt. those three countires were quite worried that us going in there would destroy more or less the system that was in place and which basically was paying those three countires.

now while the US did come in and toss iraqs old government and yes BUSH did ask those three countires to forgive some of or all thier debts to iraq etc which i think is @!&^!! crazy of bush to ask.

anyway, when we went in to iraq, france and especially germany were quite volumous of thier opinions of the US. they didnt care about the iraqi people, just that they get thier money back. a extensive campaign run in france and germany set many people against a issue they knew little about.

the USA in retaliation is threatning to pull multi billion dollar bases from germany and spread them to NOW friendlier countries. this is the reason why we are seaking to move our bases. basically, another game of childish pinching between nations. this has nothing to do with global conquering spreading americas legs all over the globe.

the USA has already given contracts for building and other products to our now "nicer" allies and has taken them away from germany and france. the USA's retaliation against russia seems much less since they just acted like they didnt give a **** per say. i forget the exact stats (i tried to find em in de archives) but i think the order of what iraq owed the three countires was france the most, then germany then russia.(i cant positively remember) each debt owed was in the billions.

so that is why we are looking to move our bases. this was actually reported on...... right when the iraqi attaki war started..... and ive been wondering when and if we'd do it or not. pinch! ow!

[Kitsune]

The Iraq debts were as much the main reason for Germany to be against the war, as the interest in oil was the main reason for the USA to want it... ;)

[usa320]

Hows this sound- we get to put our bases in Eastern Europe, seeing as they are grateful for the sacrifices weve made for them in the past and they are good allies.

In return, the Russians can take our bases in Western Europe, more specifically France and Germany. It will be easier for them to adjust, seeing as about 90% of em seem to be communists.

What is with all the communism in Europe lately?

They were all happy when the wall fell, now half those people are communists anyway,.

Anyway, i think its a good tradeoff.

[Russian Texan]

Personally I think that every military should stay in its own country. It would eliminate a lot of existing and potential problems, plus save lots of money that can be spent on a manned mission to Mars :)

An interesting article which shows why Russia might not trust US:


Russian helicopter detonated depth charges near U.S. submarine


A Russian helicopter dropped depth charges close to an American Los Angeles-class submarine in the Barents Sea last December. The American vessel was within four miles of a Russian Typhoon submarine in the process of launching 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as part of a destruction routine under the START arms control treaty.
According to the Washington Post, Russia has complained to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow about a submarine incident that occurred in the Barents Sea on December 3 or 4 last year. The Russians had announced the planned destruction of 20 ICBMs. The procedure was unusual because missiles are usually taken apart and cut up. The explosion methods was cheaper, according to the Russians. On the downside, the explosions lead to the release of some 80 tons of toxic rocket fuel chemicals into the environment. The 20 ICBM rockets were SS-N-20s, a three-stage, solid-fuel missile deployed on Typhoon submarines in the Northern Fleet.

Seven U.S. inspectors aboard a hydrographic vessel near the Typhoon submarine observed the destruction. The Washington Post reports that another submerged submarine appeared on the scene. Russian navy official said it was a Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered submarine, apparently gathering data about the launches. The Los Angeles-class has one reactor and carries nuclear weapons. A Russian vessel signaled the submarine to get out of the way, but it did not respond. After that, a helicopter dropped and detonated depth charges and the submarine retreated, according to the [Russian] navy officials.

The U.S. Navy has refused to comment on the alleged incident, but indicated that the submarine was not American. The Russian officials said they were sure it was a U.S. submarine.

[Whistler]

"Many of these eastern countries are breeding grounds for terrorist groups, and putting US bases near these areas makes nothing but sense."

What evidence do you have? I would suggest there are more muslims in the west at the moment than in Eastern Europe.

The Russians themselves have been saying it for years!

"There are muslim extremists in Chechnya, INVADE"

"There are muslim extremists in Dagestan, INVADE"

etc.

So unless Russia is lying, than I don't blame the US for wanting bases there. They are fighting the same enemy, I don't know why Russia and America still can't get along.

[Whistler]

"By the way your whole logic about the NATO charter and being attacked is wrong. It doesnt only apply to europe it applies to any homeland country. The falklands was a colony"

Then why wasn't NATO called to assist the US when it was attacked in 11/9? NATO is an organisation designed to defend Europe from the Warsaw Pact. It didn't want to get involved in Northern Ireland through Britain, or Algeria through France.

Uhh... Nato was involved after Sept 11.

One of the big things in the months after Sept 11 was that Nato was "contributing" by having NATO owned E-3 Sentries overflying the US.

And look at Afghanistan, that was a big NATO issue too.

Nato doesn't only do Europe anymore.

As for Northern Ireland and Algeria, maybe Britain and France didn't WANT Nato help there?

[Tengu]

I dont see the harm of a base in those countries. Russia shouldnt worry, they are now a democracy just like us. Maybe old habits die slow :p .
There are now us soldiers here in my town who just got back from iraq and i dont mind.
Doesn't one of the military in Europe has its own labor union?yes, i believe the dutch army

[perdurabo]

what the hell are we talking about? that one squadron of f-16 from states will station at some airfield in poland? so what? they arent going to invade russia so wat is problem? maybe rusia is planing to invade us again?:) and american base in poland would destroy that plans?:) some one in moscow drank to much vodka:)
(i m litle bit pissed about this i wanted to post some flames but i resist myself)

[Russian Texan]

Perdurado, I was trying to resist but I couldn't - you were born as a retard and chances are you'll die as one also (sorry, it's just a first thing that crossed my mind after reading your post).
Now, on a second thought, I would like to apologize for calling retarded perdurado a retard and promise to never comment on your intellectual abilities regardless of whatever nonsense you post.
Please forgive me, I realise that your thinking process and ability to read are severely hampered by the effects of Chernobyl fallout back in your childhood days.

[perdurabo]

call me whatever you want
but
1.USA is independent country right/
2.Poland is independent coutry still ok?
3.if they want to do something on they own playground where is place for russia? it's buisnes of this two countrys not some third so .....

thread was about rusias concern about moving few bases to C&E Europe it go OT but my post was in topic so .....

RT i should say something to you but i don't want to start flaming. :)

[Russian Texan]

call me whatever you want
but
1.USA is independent country right/
2.Poland is independent coutry still ok?
3.if they want to do something on they own playground where is place for russia? it's buisnes of this two countrys not some third so .....

thread was about rusias concern about moving few bases to C&E Europe it go OT but my post was in topic so .....

RT i should say something to you but i don't want to start flaming. :)

Well duh...
My post was propmted by the fact that the reason for the Russian government reaction was explained several times in this thred and you still don't get it.
In the end - no matter how much Russia is upset about it, it is still going to happen. So what's the point of arguing?
Do I think it is the good thing for Poland short term - yes(economically wise), longterm - no, especially considering Poland wants to be/will be part of the EU and EU is trying to move away from US influence.

[GazB]

"this came down from the recent iraq conflict. france germany and russia held a lot of iraqs national debt. those three countires were quite worried that us going in there would destroy more or less the system that was in place and which basically was paying those three countires. "

Yeah, those countries ONLY didn't support the US... just like the US ONLY went in for the Oil.

"a extensive campaign run in france and germany set many people against a issue they knew little about. "

the people of France and Germany and many other countries on this planet didn't believe Bush's BS before any campaign to change their minds was started. The only campaign I saw was from the US and it wasn't anti war.

"the USA in retaliation is threatning to pull multi billion dollar bases from germany and spread them to NOW friendlier countries. this is the reason why we are seaking to move our bases."

Yes, that is true. An immature tit for tat arrangement to reward those that will follow the US blindly no matter what the facts are. I guess that is why 60% of Americans still think the war in Iraq has something to do with 11/9.

"basically, another game of childish pinching between nations. this has nothing to do with global conquering spreading americas legs all over the globe. "

It is refreshing to see an American admit something like that. Of course the reasoning will not matter to those affected, and the results will no doubt be the same as if there were some aggression in this.

"The Iraq debts were as much the main reason for Germany to be against the war, as the interest in oil was the main reason for the USA to want it..."

That might be true at government level but at the level of the people the US just didn't justify this Imperialist nation building that it seems to like now. What was the rush? There are still huge problems in the Balkans and Afghanistan not to mention africa that are not likely to get fixed now that Iraq fills our screens, and for what? So US soldiers can be shot at and killed on a daily basis.

"What is with all the communism in Europe lately?"

Of course. Don't come in and strip Saddam of those tons and tons of WMDs that you have found or you are a communist.


The Russians themselves have been saying it for years!

"There are muslim extremists in Chechnya, INVADE"

"There are muslim extremists in Dagestan, INVADE

Chechnia and Dagestan are both part of Russia... the Russians can no more invade them than the US can invade Alaska.

"As for Northern Ireland and Algeria, maybe Britain and France didn't WANT Nato help there?"

The NATO agreement has nothing to do with options... NATO signatories are obliged to help. Do you really think the British would turn down help from the Americans in the Falklands war? They went down there without AEW assets and were very vulnerable. If they had lost air crontrol they would have been screwed. 20 Harriers fighting 200 aircraft was bad enough.

"what the hell are we talking about? that one squadron of f-16 from states will station at some airfield in poland? "

With the CFE agreements and all the agreements between NATO and Russia there was an agreement not to move bases East.

Personally if I was a Russian I would like them moving there... I would use it as an excuse to rip up the CFE treaty which was a pain in the butt anyway, and increase defence spending... not having some equipment in service was hurting its export sales figures.

"1.USA is independent country right/
2.Poland is independent coutry still ok?
3.if they want to do something on they own playground where is place for russia? it's buisnes of this two countrys not some third so ..... "

Both USA and Poland are part of NATO and have agreements and the US has seperate agreements with Russia. This new basing of forces in Poland violates some of those agreements.

[SOG]

"a extensive campaign run in france and germany set many people against a issue they knew little about. "



the people of France and Germany and many other countries on this planet didn't believe Bush's BS before any campaign to change their minds was started. The only campaign I saw was from the US and it wasn't anti war.

you just proved my point ;)

in the US before and a bit after the war the news media covered anti war protesters everywhere. groups of a few dozen to groups of a hundred to groups of a thousand. i was getting bored of the repetitive coverage. every day experts were pulled in and columnists i had never heard of all to give thier "professional" anti war stance. did you catch any of this coverage over the period of a few months? this was all over cnn nbc msn fox abc cbs, didnt catch any of it? so again, YOU did not catch ANY anti war sentiment from the US? how interesting considering the RAIN of anti war protesting and speakers on a month before and a few months after the war started on ALL US news channels.

campaign: an organized course of action for a particular purpose, esp. to arouse public interest.

what did french and german media do?

"a extensive campaign run in france and germany set many people against a issue they knew little about. "

and what media portrayed ALL americans as having a single war mongering opinion?



The only campaign I saw was from the US and it wasn't anti war.

hmmmm....... sounds like the coverage you saw from the US was "edited".

IMO the US gets very "specific" coverage in foreign countries seems like?


It is refreshing to see an American admit something like that. Of course the reasoning will not matter to those affected, and the results will no doubt be the same as if there were some aggression in this.


well the problem is people always come pointing fingers at the US like we are the only ones who do it or want it. money? every government wants loads of it. business? thats what a government is. business practice? you put in what you get out. put into germany, get out nothing? move business. all governments do it. IMO all governments are created as equal assholes. just the size of the pie that determines the head asshole i guess.

[Whistler]

Chechnia and Dagestan are both part of Russia... the Russians can no more invade them than the US can invade Alaska.

You dodged my point. Nice try.

You said that there is no such thing as Muslim extremism in Eastern Europe.

Russia has been saying for years that there is a huge problem of Muslim extremism in Eastern Europe.

So what will it be?

[Kingpin]

Chechnia and Dagestan are both part of Russia... the Russians can no more invade them than the US can invade Alaska.

You dodged my point. Nice try.

You said that there is no such thing as Muslim extremism in Eastern Europe.

Russia has been saying for years that there is a huge problem of Muslim extremism in Eastern Europe.

So what will it be?


When dealing with US always remember that Texas was Mexican state some time ago. :) That's why we very concerned about any US move near our borders.

Russia isn't saying that there is huge problem of Muslim extremism in Eastern Europe. Russia saying that Eastern and Western Europe are safe heaven for muslim extremism.

[REMOV]

I think it´s a shame that Poland is prostituting itself to be USA´s bitch like this. I like the poles and I like the country, but this is shamefull.Pardon? Can you explain me your words in normal language? What does it mean that any country prostituting itself to another?!

[REMOV]

Both USA and Poland are part of NATO and have agreements and the US has seperate agreements with Russia. This new basing of forces in Poland violates some of those agreements.It is very interesting, GazB. So tell which agreements would be violated (some examples) when some US bases appears in Poland?

[StarvingStudent47]

I think it´s a shame that Poland is prostituting itself to be USA´s bitch like this. I like the poles and I like the country, but this is shamefull.Pardon? Can you explain me your words in normal language? What does it mean that any country prostituting itself to another?!

He is saying that Poland is just doing whatever the USA tells it to in exchange for money/favors. That Poland is letting America violate it (in an almost ****** way) by letting some American forces station there. Apparently he feels it is shameful to have some American soldiers in Poland. Which means Japan should be ashamed, and South Korea should be ashamed, and for that matter Americans should be ashamed because the Luftwaffe trains in Arizona.

[REMOV]

And US bases in Poland are necessary because of...?Because of Polish defence politics, and historical backgroud. Poles just don't trust European defence power, especially against Russia. And the country is still between Germany and Russia, nobody moved it to some remote, peaceful place like Sweden, which afraid only aggression of very pissed off seals or walruses. And every European war sooner or later appears in Poland, every army goes to the Weat or East must come by Polish lowlands. Our history taught us this. Mustamato, when your countrymen must fight for their freedom for nearly 200 years with everybody, maybe you could understand the principles of Polish defence policy, and bonds with the USA.

We had bad recollections with some defence pacts with France and United Kingdom in the past (i.e. during WWII). And the Poland joined to NATO becouse this is US-led pact, thats why. Yeah, naturally, Poland is an European country and will participate in European Union, but when comes to defence...

[REMOV]

He is saying that Poland is just doing whatever the USA tells it to in exchange for money/favors.Not favors, just build a defence and feeling of safety we always want. It the last 200 years the Poland has FULL INDEPENDENCE for only ca. 35 years. Now, try to understand how strong Poland react at any dangers. Well it also explains why we are so carefully about this EC...

Only just 50 years ago Poland fought bloody wars with Russia and Germany - both countries in 1939 invades Poland. The country which suffered most in proportion to its population was Poland, with 6,028,000 deaths, equivalent to 17.2% of its population (there is no family that didn't lost someone during the WWII). And now Poland is still between Germany and Russia and we should trust Europan defence based mainly on German and French units? Yeah we got a defence pact with the French and United Kingdom in 1939, check the term: "Strange war" or "Drolle de guerre". If any European defence pact would act like this from 1939 then we choose the USA as ally.

http://www.nato.int/sfor/indexinf/166/p12b/b02122a.jpg


That Poland is letting America violate it (in an almost ****** way) by letting some American forces station there. This is matter of national defence. You can't understand? Yeah, maybe you (and your relatives) never was forced to fight for your country.

Apparently he feels it is shameful to have some American soldiers in Poland. You know, and Poles will welcome them with pleasure. Because they are very important part of Polish future independence. Something like insurance. Which country would be stupid enough to attack another with US bases? We invited them, not like a occupants of any kind, but just powerful ally.

You know I don't want to see any enemy bombers above my head during my lifetime, like my grandfathers saw. And they have Russian red stars and Germans crossed. For them this memory is very hard to forgot, I assure you.

[StarvingStudent47]

REMOV,

You totally misunderstood me. I LOVE POLAND. POLAND KICKS ASS. I want Poland and the USA to be better friends. I want GROM to do exercises in the USA and the USAF to do exercises in Poland. I totally sympathize with your security concerns and I agree that closer ties with the USA is the best way to solve them.

I was explaining what Mustamato's comments meant, but that doesn't mean I agreed with them!!! I disagreed 100%!!! But I guess "tone of voice" doesn't carry well on the internet, making misunderstandings easy...

By the way, I'm 1/4 Polish (Polish Jew). Just for the record ;) You think Jews don't understand what it means to be caught in the meat-grinder between Russia and Germany? Trust me. We understand.

USA and Poland :hug:

[REMOV]

You totally misunderstood me.Oh... your right, my fault. Sorry.

I totally sympathize with your security concerns and I agree that closer ties with the USA is the best way to solve them.You're right. The problem is that is so many different hidden conflits even in modern Europe and some of them are still unsolved (German 1945s refugees, for instance). Also lost of people remember past events very well, betrayals, wars, executions etc.

The united Europe woundn't appears in 10 years because of some Brussels administrative decisions, it is long process, most of them is building of common trust. But still particular intrest of some nations are above the rest. And nobody knows what is common international policy of EU. The product of compromise of all nation intrest?

And tell me how Eastern European countries could trust each other when a leader of one of the greatest countries in Europe, said that they cannot have their own international policy and they lost opportunity to said nothing. Boy, this guy who published again Larry Bond's "Cauldron" book in 2003 made a good deal.

But I guess "tone of voice" doesn't carry well on the internet, making misunderstandings easy...Right, sometimes it happens...