Wednesday, April 06, 2016

U.S. To Station Armoured Brigade In Eastern Europe In 2017

Obama, Pentagon, NATO rush to shore up U.S. taxpayer gravy-train in the wake of Trump take on NATO relevancy in Europe  

By Andrei Akulov

The US will increase its military presence in Eastern Europe by deploying an additional armored brigade, the US military said on March 30. "This army implementation plan continues to demonstrate our strong and balanced approach to reassuring our NATO allies and partners in the wake of an aggressive Russia in Eastern Europe and elsewhere," General Philip Breedlove, the top US commander in Europe, said in a statement.

Psycho Breedlove
"As part of the US commitment to increased assurance and deterrence," US Army Europe will begin receiving continuous troop rotations of US-based armored brigade combat teams (ABCTs) to the European theater in early 2017, bringing the total Army presence in Europe up to three fully-manned Army brigades, US European Command officials said.

As discussed during the announcement of the fiscal year 2017 European Reassurance Initiative budget proposal, the Army has decided to begin storing static equipment, known as Army pre-positioned stocks, within Europe for contingency operations. 

The service will repair and upgrade its already pre-positioned arms and place them at sites in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Those stocks will be sufficient for another armored brigade to fall in on. 

The rotating brigade will bring its own equipment. The move will add hundreds of the Army’s most advanced weapons systems to beef up the European Command’s combat capability. 

It will also free up an entire brigade’s worth of weapons currently being used by American forces training on the continent to enable more US troops to be rushed in on short notice, if needed.

The rotation period will be limited to nine months. Two brigade combat teams are permanently stationed in Europe – the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (a brigade-sized unit).

An armored brigade combat team comprises about 4,200 troops and includes approximately 250 tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Paladin self-propelled howitzers, plus 1,750 wheeled vehicles.

The military has not disclosed where the rotational brigade will be stationed. This question will be included into the agenda of this summer’s NATO summit in Warsaw.

The US military has about 62,000 permanently assigned service members in Europe.

The active Army only has nine ABCTs, and they already are tasked with nine-month rotations to Kuwait and South Korea to make the planned deployment a serious burden as the service faces its other overseas commitments.

The plans are in line with the decisions taken by a meeting of North Atlantic Council at the level of defence ministers held in Brussels on 10-11 February, 2016. The participants agreed on enhanced forward presence in the eastern part of the Alliance. NATO is to station additional soldiers in six member states in Eastern Europe as part of its anti-Russian strategy. The units would be small, but involved in possible deployment of the alliance’s future "rapid response force." It could involve up to a battalion of 500-1,000 troops sent to each of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. The forces deployed on rotation will include highly-mobile special operations units armed with surface-to-air missiles backed up by ground-attack aircraft and helicopters. The biggest chunk of funding – $2 billion – is for putting a "heel-to-toe" ABCT in theater (on top of the above mentioned Stryker brigade and infantry brigade already stationed permanently). The funding will also cover more aviation in theatre.

Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz has said that talks about deploying American depots for heavy weaponry in Poland are already in progress.

"The US is preparing a network of various activities in which it is extremely important to deploy heavy weaponry in Poland and other countries," said Macierewicz.

But there is no unanimity inside NATO. For instance, Germany traditionally opposes the establishment of NATO military bases in Poland.

And Berlin wants the Russia-NATO cooperation to continue.

The plans are in violation of the Russia-NATO Founding Act (1997) – the only remaining pillar of European security. In that agreement, NATO pledged that, "in the current and foreseeable security environment," it would not seek "additional permanent stationing of substantial ground combat forces" in the nations closer to Russia.

More to that, in its recently released report, the National Commission on the Future of the Army went even further, recommending the Army permanently station an ABCT in Europe because of the "changing security environment in Europe" and the region’s "value as a stationing location for potential contingencies in the Middle East."

Nearly two decades later, the NATO-Russia Founding Act appears all but dead amid the alliance's push to beef up its military presence on its eastern flank.

In his comments on the US plans, Russian permanent representative at the alliance, Alexander Grushko, vowed a "totally asymmetrical" response if the alliance stands by a plan to deploy new armored units to Eastern Europe. "We are not passive observers, we consistently take all the military measures we consider necessary in order to counterbalance this reinforced presence that is not justified by anything," he said

"As of today, assessing as a whole what the US and NATO are doing, the point at issue is a substantial change for the worse in the security situation," the ambassador added.

At the same time, he said that bridges have not been burned between Russia and NATO, leaving the door open for restored cooperation – although he stressed that the alliance should end its policy of confrontation.

"Cooperation will be possible only when NATO countries start realizing that the policy of confrontation contradicts their own national interests," Grushko said. "There are no technological barriers to this cooperation. We hope that sooner or later all the ties which we used to have, and which used to be effective, will be re-established and our cooperation will continue."

Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told Deutsche Welle that Russia had no intention of sending troops to European countries, and urged mass media to stop spreading scare stories about the Russian military ‘threat’. "We should stop the spreading of these scary tales alleging that Russia intends to send tanks to the Baltic countries, to Sofia or Budapest. No one has any intention to do this. There are no such plans. Russia wants no war. Any statements that say that Russia intends to launch a war are simply ridiculous," the official said.

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said the deployment of NATO's forces near Russia's borders has caused concern.

As part of a response, he said, new units in the Western Military District, including two new divisions, will be formed.

The US decision to increase military presence in Europe comes along with the rise of Donald Trump, who has disparaged the NATO alliance as a drain on US resources.

His stance has a lot of supporters in the US.

There are a lot of Americans who realize the negative consequences of US military presence overseas.

The deployment is strongly opposed in Europe where the countries hosting United States troops automatically become targets for retaliatory actions.

The decision is fraught with very serious implications. It will greatly reduce European security and reinforce the growing tensions between Russia and NATO. There is still time to oppose this scenario. US congressmen will become responsible for the consequences in case they approve the plans. They should think twice before the vote. 

Europeans can exert pressure on their respective governments before the next NATO summit takes place this July in Warsaw. The increase of US forces in Europe will plunge the continent into the quagmire of heightened tensions and uncontrolled arms race. All the previous efforts to make the continent a safer place will go down the drain.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

U.S. Weapons, Money, Training Went To Radical Jihadist Groups In Syria

The lid on Obama's CIA/ISIS slowly being pried off exposing the inevitable truth  


Most of the supplies that were supposed to create a stable, moderate and secular opposition to Syrian President Assad failed completely, says Gregory R Copley, editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs. Turkey also plays a major role in that failure, he added.

Senior US intelligence analysts were forced out of their jobs for warning the Pentagon's multi-million dollar 'moderate opposition' training program in Syria would eventually fail.

The Pentagon doesn't seem to be learning from its mistakes, as it just started a new training program for more rebels, purportedly to fight against Islamic State.

RT: Why do you think these experts were fired? Is it just taking out the bearer of bad news?

Gregory R Copley: That is not just taking about the bearers of bad news. The reality is that this is a highly political program, one with which many people in the US armed forces disagree because it involves collaborating with training and arming many Islamist fighters – jihadists – who have in the past supported the Al-Qaeda groups. 

U.S. military personnel now close to mutiny
And of course the Al-Qaeda groups are what spawned ISIS. There is a lot of concern that this kind of support for supposedly non-religious groups was in fact going to the wrong people. And that is exactly what happened. Most of the weapons and money which went into trying to create a stable and moderate and secular opposition to President Assad failed completely. And the weapons, money and activities all went to the radical jihadist groups.

RT: Is it true that intelligence reports on the US-led campaign against ISIS were manipulated? 

GC: There is no question that the reporting on the success and effectiveness of these so-called moderate anti-Assad groups as being widely exaggerated, and this is being used to make the fiction that the Obama administration’s campaign nominally against ISIS is succeeding. In reality, all they were trying to do was support Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in creating forces that would overthrow Assad and not even address the ISIS issue. The only really viable operations which the US is engaged in against ISIS - apart from airstrikes, and even those have been limited - is being in support of the Peshmerga and YPG, the Syrian Kurdish groups. 

RT: Do you think the Syrian government's recent gains against ISIS could force the Pentagon to rethink its support for the rebels?

GC: There is no question that it is causing it to rethink its support. It is also recognizing that the only viable opposition which it has supported against ISIS has been the Kurdish groups and this, of course, led it into direct confrontation with Turkey. 

This is actually the cause of the great schism which is now opening up very widely between President Erdogan of Turkey and President Obama, because Obama has been severely embarrassed, not only by the failure of the coalition to work against ISIS, but because it has shown the US to be supporting Turkey, which literally owes its survival on the border to the continued activities of ISIS. Because once ISIS disappears, the Kurds will be right at the Turkish border and will continue to carry the war back into Turkey, the war which Turkey started in Syria will be carried back into Turkey because of the failure of Erdogan’s plans to save ISIS.

RT: Is it possible to distinguish between moderate rebels and jihadists?

GC: There are of course, and there always have been moderate Syrians who have opposed the Baathist government of President Assad and his late father. The reality is though that most of the moderates have been forced out, a lot of the jihadi groups are not Syrian in origin, have basically pushed the moderate Syrians out of the way – whether they are secular Syrians or religious Syrians have been pushed aside by the jihadi groups which are non-Syrian in origin.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.



The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of



The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.



Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak


 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...



 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.