Canada considers European troop commitment as CSIS warns Russia is 'mobilizing for war'


#1

This comes just days after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) quietly released an open-sourced global security analysis warning, among other things, that the hard-line policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin are becoming more deeply entrenched and that Moscow is retooling its military for a fight . . .

The Rand Corporation, a non-partisan U.S. think-tank, released a report last winter suggesting the proposed NATO force would simply be a speed bump for the Russian army should fighting take place. It said the Baltic states — Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania — could conceivably be overrun within 60 hours unless the West was willing to station several, heavily armoured brigades in the tiny nations . . .

“Russia is not modernizing its military primarily to extend its capacity to pursue hybrid warfare,” the 104 page (CSIS) report said, referring to the Kremlin’s use of irregular tactics to take over Crimea. “It is modernizing conventional military capability on a large scale; the state is mobilizing for war.”

cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-baltics-troops-russia-1.3635139

Get ready for WWIII with Hillary Clinton and the Media at the helm.


#2

The Americans have gone back on their promise to not expand NATO. Now after expanding NATO, contrary to what they had promised they would not do, they and their allies claim that Russia wants war?


#3

It’s quite terrifying that North Americans actually buy into all of this anti-Russia/anti-Putin propaganda and mind-control. All hope evaporates, because if people are this oblivious to reality, then we’re lost. Morale plummets when we come to the inescapable conclusion that whoever owns the media owns the humain brain, and thus owns humans themselves. It’s a strange feeling, isn’t it? To just sit back and watch as false patriotism grows all around you and talk of war spreads, all while knowing that nothing you say will open anyone’s eyes to the plain truth. It’s disheartening.


#4

What America - and France, and Britain - agreed to was that only German local defense forces would be stationed in the former DDR, and German local defense forces in the DDR would not be equipped with nuclear weapons:

[quote=Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, Article 5]ARTICLE 5

(1) Until the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces for the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin in accordance with Article 4 of the present Treaty, only German territorial defence units which are not integrated into the alliance structures to which German armed forces in the rest of German territory are assigned will be stationed in that territory as armed forces of the united Germany. During that period and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, armed forces of other states will not be stationed in that territory or carry out any other military activity there.

(2) For the duration of the presence of Soviet armed forces in the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, armed forces of the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will, upon German request, remain stationed in Berlin by agreement to this effect between the Government of the united Germany and the Govenments of the states concerned. The number of troops and the amount of equipment of all non-German armed forces stationed in Berlin will not be greater than at the time of signature of the present Treaty. New categories of weapons will not be introduced there by non-German armed forces. The Government of the united Germany will conclude with the Governments of those states which have armed forces stationed in Berlin treaties with conditions which are fair taking account of the relations existing with the states concerned.

(3) Following the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, units of German armed forces assigned to military alliance structures in the same way as those in the rest of German territory may also be stationed in that part of Germany, but without nuclear weapon carriers. This does not apply to conventional weapon systems which may have other capabilities in addition to conventional ones but which in that part of Germany are equipped for a conventional role and designated only for such. Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there.
[/quote]

It’s also worth noting that this treaty was signed with a country that no longer exists, and whose last leader agrees that it only blocked the DDR from having permanent NATO forces and/or nuclear weapons stationed within its former borders.

Nobody in 1990 foresaw the dissolution of the Soviet Union or the total collapse of the Warsaw Pact, so there was never any reason to mention - or even imagine - Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, etc, joining NATO.


#5

From the article,

The U.S., Britain and Germany publicly committed to the force on Tuesday, but federal sources said that while Canada has not yet made a decision, an answer could come soon and that Canada “supports what NATO is doing in the region.”

Up to 4,000 troops are envisioned for the force, but the number coming from Canada, along with the type of equipment and vehicles that would be involved, is still being assessed.

So, Canada is ready to commit so few troops that they would have trouble securing a EuroCup game. Go Canada!


#6

Let’s not pretend that Russia is the only party preparing for war or that they have not been provoked. The Warsaw Pact alliance disappeared years ago and NATO has done nothing but expand. Putin is no Hitler in spite of the efforts of the Western media to fit him with a black hat.


#7

Does Germany have nukes?


#8

They have direct control of 20-60 B61s provided by the United States under the NATO nuclear sharing agreement, though the PAL (Permissive Action Link) codes must still be supplied by the US for them to be used.


#9

Beyond that, though, the German Military is functionally useless.

spiegel.de/international/germany/ramshackle-army-at-odds-with-berlin-s-global-aspirations-a-994607.html

They’re now trying to catch up on maintenance and getting more tanks. Poland right has as many Leopard 2’s as Germany does (and most of Poland’s actually work), and Poland also has a bunch of T-72s and upgraded variants. If Poland wanted revenge, they could conquer Germany right now.

One could also ask anybody who worked with them in Afghanistan how useful they were. Wasn’t the soldiers’ fault, but everybody I know who did said they might as well have stayed in Germany for all the fighting they did.


#10

Yes, there is a concerted anti-Russian campaign launched by the media. It tried to downplay the extremist activists during the Euromaidan. It happened during the Cold War. Now, people are trying to compare Russia with the Soviet Union.

“Russian aggression” is a complete fiction. I do not see how Putin’s actions are any more “aggressive” than US policy in Central America during the Cold War or support for the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Putin did not lavish the Donbass separatists with much support compared to the Muhaheddin.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.