The NATO - Russia Thread

[Ulmita]

Its worth noting that yet again the Obama Administration has chosen not to retaliate in anyway. Because of course they would. Heaven forbid he ever throws a punch in anger.

205 days left until that weak son of a bitch is gone.

And then the crazy hawk lady is in right? God help us all

[Skroe]

And then the crazy hawk lady is in right? God help us all

She's not crazy. She's tougher than the current clown who doesn't believe in power politics because it personally offenders his sensibility. That's the key difference. The current President is one of the few major national leaders in the world who genuinely believes that compromise and cooperation is possible in every case because everyone is driven by pragmatic interests that can be bargained with. He defaults to seeking win-wins, no matter the evidence against that, because he believes it is universally possible. It's extraordinarily naive. But that's what you get when one of your chief foreign policy advisers is an ex-science fiction writer (Ben Rhodes). There is actually a guy in power who genuinely believes the Star Trek crud that 16 year olds who want to jointly explore space have shat all over internet forums for years now. To that I say, God help us all.

You'd think his experience with Republicans, who have spent 8 years trying to destroy him on ideological grounds, would have long since disabused him of this notion. But not so. As we've seen from his foreign policy interviews the last 2 months, the White House team, led by Barack Obama, lives in it's own little weird world.

The irony is the people who aren't based at the White House have done a genuinely exemplary job preparing for the future. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter should be asked by Clinton to stay at his job. The Pacific Pivot and European build-up are proceeding well. The new Army Chief of Staff is just what the force needs. Congress+Obama's 2012-present modernization scheme is quickly bearing fruit. The NATO Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, General Scaparrotti, got the job because he is held to be one of the Pentagon's best multilateral and operational planners (also selecting an Army General at this point, rather than a Navy Admiral, Marine or the third Air Force General in 15 years, is symbolic of where the US thinks it needs to focus it's reorganization attention).

It's extremely schizophrenic. At least in 205 days, Obama's successor won't have an organizational mess on her hands, even if Obama's utterly failed to confront the realities of the deteriorating global security situation during his reign of error.

[Ulmita]

She's not crazy. She's tougher than the current clown who doesn't believe in power politics because it personally offenders his sensibility. That's the key difference. The current President is one of the few major national leaders in the world who genuinely believes that compromise and cooperation is possible in every case because everyone is driven by pragmatic interests that can be bargained with. He defaults to seeking win-wins, no matter the evidence against that, because he believes it is universally possible. It's extraordinarily naive. But that's what you get when one of your chief foreign policy advisers is an ex-science fiction writer (Ben Rhodes). There is actually a guy in power who genuinely believes the Star Trek crud that 16 year olds who want to jointly explore space have shat all over internet forums for years now. To that I say, God help us all.

You'd think his experience with Republicans, who have spent 8 years trying to destroy him on ideological grounds, would have long since disabused him of this notion. But not so. As we've seen from his foreign policy interviews the last 2 months, the White House team, led by Barack Obama, lives in it's own little weird world.

The irony is the people who aren't based at the White House have done a genuinely exemplary job preparing for the future. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter should be asked by Clinton to stay at his job. The Pacific Pivot and European build-up are proceeding well. The new Army Chief of Staff is just what the force needs. Congress+Obama's 2012-present modernization scheme is quickly bearing fruit. The NATO Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, General Scaparrotti, got the job because he is held to be one of the Pentagon's best multilateral and operational planners (also selecting an Army General at this point, rather than a Navy Admiral, Marine or the third Air Force General in 15 years, is symbolic of where the US thinks it needs to focus it's reorganization attention).

It's extremely schizophrenic. At least in 205 days, Obama's successor won't have an organizational mess on her hands, even if Obama's utterly failed to confront the realities of the deteriorating global security situation during his reign of error.

Obama in my opinion is one of the best American Presidents ever. He showed the world that diplomacy is as strong if not stronger than war.
He was measured and responded when he had to, proportionally having as a priority peace.

He is awesome imo. From the other hand i really don't like Clinton. She will start major shit when she gets elected, i am sure.

1000 times better have the retard as president, thus your negativity will stay within your country, rather the hawk who will for sure start several wars, first being by sending ground troops in Syria.

[Slant]

Obama in my opinion is one of the best American Presidents ever. He showed the world that diplomacy is as strong if not stronger than war.
He was measured and responded when he had to, proportionally having as a priority peace.

He is awesome imo. From the other hand i really don't like Clinton. She will start major shit when she gets elected, i am sure.

1000 times better have the retard as president, thus your negativity will stay within your country, rather the hawk who will for sure start several wars, first being by sending ground troops in Syria.

If she's smart, she'll not do that. It won't solve anything, cost countless additional lives of US troops and the US won't be able to win that scenario.

[Skroe]

Obama in my opinion is one of the best American Presidents ever. He showed the world that diplomacy is as strong if not stronger than war.
He was measured and responded when he had to, proportionally having as a priority peace.

He is awesome imo. From the other hand i really don't like Clinton. She will start major shit when she gets elected, i am sure.

1000 times better have the retard as president, thus your negativity will stay within your country, rather the hawk who will for sure start several wars, first being by sending ground troops in Syria.

Well you can keep him. You're not likely to see a President like Obama again for some time. Even within the Democratic Party he is isolated. Or let me put it this way, when Defense Policy and Spending bills pass Congressional Committees by votes of 26-0, 60-2, and wider congress by veto-proof majorities, and then the White House turns around and threatens a veto anyway, there is a major disconnect between what the President believes and what everyone else does. He lives in a fantasy land.

Clinton starting major shit? I'm counting on it. Vladmir Putin and Xi Jinping have been playing 3D Chess for years now, while Barack Obama has sat in the back of the room playing with his crayons and a coloring book about a happier world. I'm looking for the next President to, metaphorically, take some of those crayons and stab Putin and Xi Jinping in the eyes with them. In Clinton, we'll get that. It's time for the richest, most powerful country in the world to remind certain peoples of the reality they live in.

As for Syria, there is a snowball's chance in hell of ground troops in Syria. The US Military wants a freer hand, and has for two years (as opposed to dropping leaflets on ISIS telling them to abandon their vehicles before we bomb them, because Barry O. doesn't want to actually kill even the monsters of the world). But there is zero support for a large scale military incursion into Syria. Zero. Especially among the Army.

I think this would have come through in all the threads we've had. The Pentagon is hyperfocused on modernization and contingency planning in Europe and Asia-Pacific. Or let me put it another way. The War against ISIS currently costs about $7 billion a year. Cheap for us. You do something bigger and Syria, and that turns into about $60 billion a year. This at a time, the Pentagon is looking for change between the seats to pursue it's operational needs WHILE modernizing, simply because Barack Obama refuses to increase the defense budget without raising domestic spending by an equal amount, which nobody in Congress wants, and his successors won't want, but he does, because at the end of the day, he doesn't care about international security issues nearly as much as he does grandma's pills or inner city education (a good President cares about all three equally). In real terms, due to cuts and inflation, the Defense budget is about 25% smaller (with about a 20% smaller force) than it otherwise would be had Barack Obama actually followed Robert Gates' 2010 10 year funding plan, all done on the back of 5 years of compounded 5-10% cuts. But Barack Obama of course, lied about this in 2010, just as he lied about trading Nuclear Modernization in exchange for passing NewSTART - oh yes, he's trying to weasel out of that too (too late as it turns out).

So no. We're not going to invade Syria under any circumstance. Not with the Active Duty Army contracting to 450,000 by FY2017 from 490,000. I said, years ago in these forums, that due to doing the modernization that was skipped because of the expensive and protracted Iraq War, the US military is unlikely to deploy like it did in the 2000s until at least the late 2020s. I still think that is the case, however you can throw in it will take, according to Pentagon estimates, 3 years to "stand up" the force back to where it was Pre-Sequestration, and probably a couple years after that to fully de-Obamaize the Armed Forces. So really, factoring in next year's budget fight, we're looking at 2022 before the US military is capable of doing what you suggest without imposing significant stress on itself. And the best Modernization stuff doesn't even start arriving until after 2024.

You could see air strikes on Syria, or elsewhere. Something cheap. But heavy Armor rolling into Damascus? Never going to happen. The Pentagon must spend its money elsehwere and the Generals are firmly against it. Hell if "President Trump" ordered an invasion of Syria, you'd either see mass resignations, or Generals clenching their teeth and staying on just to make sure it doesn't get fucked up, but doing it basically against their better judgement.

[zmp]

Of course. The Mediterranean is russian waters, after all.

Incorrect. Mediterranean is part of the world and everyone knows the world belongs to the USA. Everyday when we wake up, we should thank the Americans for allowing the rest of us insignificant people to breathe air.

[May90]

One of those American diplomats said somebody killed his dog. Now I feel sad. If it is true, that was a massive dick move.

More than a dick move... The dog didn't have anything to do with it. I'd say it was a horrible crime, but I really doubt the criminal will ever be caught.

Its worth noting that yet again the Obama Administration has chosen not to retaliate in anyway. Because of course they would. Heaven forbid he ever throws a punch in anger.

205 days left until that weak son of a bitch is gone.

Not reacting to a bully is the best way to make sure that the bully loses.

[Slant]

Not reacting to a bully is the best way to make sure that the bully loses.

Meh, this may work on the school yard, but I have a feeling that this strategy doesn't play the same on a global scale. At some point you need to step in and put a stop to bullying. Preferably before catastrophes happen.

[Ulmita]

Who is the bully here i am confused. Russia or USA?

[Kellhound]

There s a difference between being ukrainian as a citizen or ethnically, citizenship means much less in this case. In Russia we have even different words for that, rossiyanin that means you are citizen of russia, and russkiy that means you are ethnically russian.

Russian citizenship = real legally binding construct
Russian ethnicity = nebulous non-legal non-binding construct

The modern world doesnt care about your ethnicity by and large, just your citizenship.

- - - Updated - - -

US guided-missile destroyer Gravely showed who is the boss to the Russian frigate Yaroslav Mudry in the Mediterranean.

So the ships were on a collision course and the US ship accelerated and turned to avoid it.

[May90]

Meh, this may work on the school yard, but I have a feeling that this strategy doesn't play the same on a global scale. At some point you need to step in and put a stop to bullying. Preferably before catastrophes happen.

Well, those diplomats are on the Russian territory, so there is only so much you can do anyway to prevent bullying. I'd say the US might pull all diplomats out, cut official contacts with Russia and communicate through a third party, like they did with Iran and North Korea.

[Berengil]

Well you can keep him. You're not likely to see a President like Obama again for some time. Even within the Democratic Party he is isolated. Or let me put it this way, when Defense Policy and Spending bills pass Congressional Committees by votes of 26-0, 60-2, and wider congress by veto-proof majorities, and then the White House turns around and threatens a veto anyway, there is a major disconnect between what the President believes and what everyone else does. He lives in a fantasy land.

Clinton starting major shit? I'm counting on it. Vladmir Putin and Xi Jinping have been playing 3D Chess for years now, while Barack Obama has sat in the back of the room playing with his crayons and a coloring book about a happier world. I'm looking for the next President to, metaphorically, take some of those crayons and stab Putin and Xi Jinping in the eyes with them. In Clinton, we'll get that. It's time for the richest, most powerful country in the world to remind certain peoples of the reality they live in.

As for Syria, there is a snowball's chance in hell of ground troops in Syria. The US Military wants a freer hand, and has for two years (as opposed to dropping leaflets on ISIS telling them to abandon their vehicles before we bomb them, because Barry O. doesn't want to actually kill even the monsters of the world). But there is zero support for a large scale military incursion into Syria. Zero. Especially among the Army.

I think this would have come through in all the threads we've had. The Pentagon is hyperfocused on modernization and contingency planning in Europe and Asia-Pacific. Or let me put it another way. The War against ISIS currently costs about $7 billion a year. Cheap for us. You do something bigger and Syria, and that turns into about $60 billion a year. This at a time, the Pentagon is looking for change between the seats to pursue it's operational needs WHILE modernizing, simply because Barack Obama refuses to increase the defense budget without raising domestic spending by an equal amount, which nobody in Congress wants, and his successors won't want, but he does, because at the end of the day, he doesn't care about international security issues nearly as much as he does grandma's pills or inner city education (a good President cares about all three equally). In real terms, due to cuts and inflation, the Defense budget is about 25% smaller (with about a 20% smaller force) than it otherwise would be had Barack Obama actually followed Robert Gates' 2010 10 year funding plan, all done on the back of 5 years of compounded 5-10% cuts. But Barack Obama of course, lied about this in 2010, just as he lied about trading Nuclear Modernization in exchange for passing NewSTART - oh yes, he's trying to weasel out of that too (too late as it turns out).

So no. We're not going to invade Syria under any circumstance. Not with the Active Duty Army contracting to 450,000 by FY2017 from 490,000. I said, years ago in these forums, that due to doing the modernization that was skipped because of the expensive and protracted Iraq War, the US military is unlikely to deploy like it did in the 2000s until at least the late 2020s. I still think that is the case, however you can throw in it will take, according to Pentagon estimates, 3 years to "stand up" the force back to where it was Pre-Sequestration, and probably a couple years after that to fully de-Obamaize the Armed Forces. So really, factoring in next year's budget fight, we're looking at 2022 before the US military is capable of doing what you suggest without imposing significant stress on itself. And the best Modernization stuff doesn't even start arriving until after 2024.

You could see air strikes on Syria, or elsewhere. Something cheap. But heavy Armor rolling into Damascus? Never going to happen. The Pentagon must spend its money elsehwere and the Generals are firmly against it. Hell if "President Trump" ordered an invasion of Syria, you'd either see mass resignations, or Generals clenching their teeth and staying on just to make sure it doesn't get fucked up, but doing it basically against their better judgement.

Skroe, I hesitate to move in Ulmita's direction at all, because it's obvious that he's a diehard Putinista. But, as regards Pres. Obama, I'm proud to have voted for him twice. To me, he was refreshing as hell after the neocon nonsense of the 8 years previous to his term.

My question: Surely you believe that diplomacy and compromise are preferable to armed force? Perhaps our difference on this is a matter of degrees. Obviously in some situations, force is needed. My view is that force (like the One Ring) should be used only " at the uttermost end of need".

And money spent on war is money not spent on domestic interests.

I simply hesitate at the idea of gladly and happily using force. Having to start shooting is a sign you have failed, imo.

[Skroe]

Skroe, I hesitate to move in Ulmita's direction at all, because it's obvious that he's a diehard Putinista. But, as regards Pres. Obama, I'm proud to have voted for him twice. To me, he was refreshing as hell after the neocon nonsense of the 8 years previous to his term.

For the record, I voted for Obama twice as well. The first time reluctantly. I remember how and why.

I'm from Massachusetts and grew up with, in and around a lot of what people would call "the elite". Back in 2007/2008, I knew exactly what Obama was. Another Harvard guy who thinks he's a lot smarter than he actually his. Really, people of that mold are slick and clever, but easily find themselves way out of their depth. Obama isn't half as intellectual as he would like people to believe. You live in the upper middle class in this area, you know see this all the time. I voted for him reluctantly, after supporting McCain originally, for the following reasons

(1) Sarah Palin was unacceptable in every sense of the word.
(2) The McCain running for President wasn't the McCain I liked, much as the Romney who ran in 2012 wasn't the Romney who was a rather awesome governor for my state.
(3) The straw that broke the camel's back is when in a moment of great crisis, Bush and Congressional Democrats (voting against their principles)agreed to the bailouts and House Republicans defeated it on the grounds of small government ideology. This when Western Capitalism was burning to the ground. Such a rigid, principles-before-country party deserved to be punished.

I turned on Obama pretty quick in 2009 because I strongly diskliked Obamacare and thought he was spending all his political capital on healthcare for a mere 10% the population with it while unemployment and the economy continued to worsren (which as history has validated, is essentially what happened). But I relented starting in 2010-2012, because the Tea Party showed up and took everything I disliked about (3) above and amplified it even further. And then Republicans started to hold the country, the economy, the debt, hostage once a year for a few years. In that environment, it became very easy to like Obama. Coupled with Romney's terrible 2012 campaign, I voted for Obama gain pretty enthusastically.

When did I turn against him for good? 2013. Syria. The red line. For the record, if you look through my post history here pre-August/September 2013, I thought that the US bombing Syria was a very, very bad idea. The Syria black hole at the time was severely screwing with pretty much everyone we didn't like in the world and was acting as a highly effective form of proxy warfare on our part. It decimated the Iranian Quuds force and killed experienced leaders and sapped billions from Iranian coffers. It robbed Russia of an ally in Assad. A huge number of terrorists flocked there rather than dispersed around the world (which is desirable). And Russia... pre-Ukraine it's foreign ministry was pretty much a single issue government agency, and that issue was Syria. It dominated Russian diplomatic resources for three years and left then unable to respond to other US actions.

But then Obama runs his mouth at a press conference. And let's be clear. That is exactly what he did. He talked recklessly because instead of being ambigous to a reporter, he gave a direct answer. And then one setting that red line, he refused to enforce it. That's unacceptable. Whatever my beliefs about how wise getting involved in Syria was - as I repeatedly said, Russia and China matter far more - American credibility is the bedrock of the international western global security regime.

Barack Obama, being the slick son of a bitch he is, managed to rationalize to himself and to his staff that in fact, it is the Washington foreign policy Establishment that is obssessed with "American credibility" and that it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Even as recently as the last two months, he and Ben Rhodes were defending this bizarro point of view. Unfortunately for Obama, facts in the world since he let Assad waltz over the red line have only reinforced the importance of American - or any other country for that matter - credibility. If a national leader says we will do X, X has to happen, or everything else that national leader says has been thrown into doubt.

From a foreign policy perspective, since the Obama let Assad walk over the red line without real consequences, he has been essentially a ghost when it comes to other country's foreign policy. That happened less than a year into his second term, and almost immediately allies around the world have been planning for the post Obama-era. Think about it from Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, our Arab Allies and NATO's perspective: if Obama promised to hold Assad to account, and then didn't, what should they make of the American promise to defend all those countries? Obama nuked American credibility that day, that we're still recovering from (though it's come a long way). That is the day I decided his presidency is over. I don't regret voting for Obama the first time. But the second time? Without the adults (Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panneta, David Petreus) in the room? A room now dominated by Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes among other terrible figures? I deeply regret that.

My question: Surely you believe that diplomacy and compromise are preferable to armed force? Perhaps our difference on this is a matter of degrees. Obviously in some situations, force is needed. My view is that force (like the One Ring) should be used only " at the uttermost end of need".

Diplomacy and armed force are different sides of the same coin. Armed Force is policy by another means, as the old saying goes. Obama's failure is he refuses to use America's immense leverage. That's not to say we should bomb everyone (or anyone) simply to get our way. But even in a diplomatic fashion, Obama has turned the other cheek so many times because of his fucking beliefs, it's gone so far beyond trying to fasely prove that dipolmacy and war are some kind of either or option. it never has been and never will be.

You want an example? A new one? Russia is violating NewSTART, the treaty Obama negotiated. The US has cut it's warhead targets to about the 1550 target it is supposed to, years ahead of schedule. Russia is producing a new generation of nuclear weapons and is growing it's arsenal, to 1880 warheads, and for the first time under either the NewSTART or START I regime, refusing inspectors, and falsifying weapons they do allow to be inspected, saying they are one type of weapon when they're not. The current thinking is Vladmir Putin could leave NewSTART entirely in 2018, having manuevered the US into cutting its arsenal to its lowest point ever while growing his own.

What's the administrations response" Silence and denial, because Mr. Nobel Peace PRize can't have his denuclearization legacy blow up in his face. Congress wants to hold hearings on NewSTART violations and has inserted language into the 2017 NDAA to deny funding to future NewSTART compliance until the US verified Russia is complying with NewSTART. Incredibly, the administration has threatened to veto it. And it gets better. The cost of NewSTART for Obama was signing onto the Bipartisan, 20 year nuclear modernization program - Obama gets his treaty and the US gets to replace it's 1980s era arsenal with a 21st century one, complete with a new bomber, a new submarine, a new silo based missile, a new air launched cruise missile, new facilities, and a new bomb (but notably: no new actual warheads, which arent needed anyway really... just old warheads in new delivery systems). What is he trying to do now? Go back on it. Fortunately with 205 days left and nuclear modernization being popular in congress (Diane Fienstein just lost her attempt to cancel the new Air Launched Cruise missile), it ain't happening.

This is the thing about Obama that makes me throughly dislike him. Whose team is he playing on exactly? His own or Americas? That's not a ridiculous question. If he, as President of the United States, makes a deal on behalf of the Untied States, with another country, and that country renegs on it's deal, it's not the President of the United States' job to give the other country wiggle room. He's not the mediator between America and that other country. It's his job to be our advocate and tell that other country "you violate your side of our agreement? We'll violate ourside". This is Obama's pattern of behavior with many countries and many situations. He does not believe in imposing consequences for being crossed.

And money spent on war is money not spent on domestic interests.

Not at all. The US Federal budget is about $3.8 trillion a year. $680 billion of that is on defense. The rest is on domestic spending.

However that's part of the picture. Folks always forget you not only pay Federal Taxes, but also State Taxes and Local Taxes. State and Local constitute another $2.9 trillion in spending. Most infrastructure and educaiton spending in this country, for example, is state and local, paid for by state and local taxes, decided by state and local representatives. All put together the US has $6.7 trillion a year in government spending at all levels, with about $800 billion directly and indirectly Defense related. By contrast we spend several times that on healthcare. We spend over a trillion dollars on education (again, the Federal Department of Education budget is not "education" spending because Local taxes pay for local schools).

The whole either-or spending nonsense is just politics by another means. The US can easily afford anything and everything it wants. People just don't wan to pay for it. "Books not bombs" for example, actually makes no sense, because it's state and local taxes that pay for books, but federal taxes that pay for bombs. The States? They don't have any defense spending to speak of. There is simply no competition.

And furthermore the US's international position guarantees the quality of life that allows Americans to enjoy those domestic interests. Let me put it another way: with our global Network of alliances, paradoxically, we certainly have a smaller armed forces and spend less than we would if we weren't engaged in such "entanglements".

I simply hesitate at the idea of gladly and happily using force. Having to start shooting is a sign you have failed, imo.

Nobody is happy about it, but it is not a sign you failed. It is policy by another means.

You know what phrase I hate? WHen reporters as Presidents or their subordinates if they "take _______ off the table". No President, negotiator, leader, anyone... should ever answer that. Nothing... truly nothing... should ever be off the table. That kind of strategic ambiguity creates leverage, which helps in those diplomatic negotiations you're talking about. And you know what? That's how Presidents have acted for decades.

Until this one. I've actually lost count of the number of times Barack Obama or his staff publicly "took something off the table". Even a massive invasion of Syria - something again, I do not want, and have never wanted. Obama is a damned foolk, truly a damned fool, for saying basically "never" to that from the outset. It telegraphs his and this country's investment in Syria for the whole world to see, and allows our enemies to adjust their approach accordingly. Even if Obama never intends to send the 3rd infantry division to Damascus, he should, under any circumstances, say that. He's only depriving himself of useful leverage in negotiations.

My fear is, it's going to take another massive regional war that does use 250,000 US ground troops to remind the human race that yes, when the President of the United States says "X", he or she means "X". That was never a question... until Barack Obama decided he was above the basic rules of the international geopolitical game. It takes years and dramatic action to build credibility. It takes a day to lose it all. That is the lesson of Barack Obama's tenure.

And that is why I'll jump for joy when that slick son of a bitch goes back to being a dad of little consequence. He gets to sit at home and watch his successors reject his course. It'll be Jimmy Carter Redux. Maybe he'll go build houses in Chicago or something.

[Cybran]

President Trump will normalize relationships with Putin and shut down the NATO freeloaders.

[Slant]

Well, those diplomats are on the Russian territory, so there is only so much you can do anyway to prevent bullying. I'd say the US might pull all diplomats out, cut official contacts with Russia and communicate through a third party, like they did with Iran and North Korea.

That would put a stop to bullying.

The other alternative is to expose the scheme. I so wish they'd have showed a picture of poop on the carpet. Undoubtedly, though, Putin would pretend the USA is shitting on Russian carpets and ask for them to pay the cleaning bill or something like that.

[Ulmita]

That would put a stop to bullying.

The other alternative is to expose the scheme. I so wish they'd have showed a picture of poop on the carpet. Undoubtedly, though, Putin would pretend the USA is shitting on Russian carpets and ask for them to pay the cleaning bill or something like that.

Apparently they are bullying them all over Europe, so it would be better if they left Europe all together =)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...275_story.html

[Slant]

Apparently they are bullying them all over Europe, so it would be better if they left Europe all together =)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...275_story.html

Well, there is a reason why Hamburg is actually blocking an entire street for the US consulate here. It's bullshit for the city, though, as it's a natural shortcut from south to north. Bloody annoying, I can tell you.

[Skroe]

The US is returning to Iceland and will be basing P-8 Poseidon there.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...a-us/86552180/

REYKJAVIK, Iceland — Washington and Reykjavik have signed a deal authorizing the occasional return of US forces to Iceland — a NATO member with no military of its own — amid rising tensions with Moscow, Iceland's foreign ministry said Thursday.

"The security environment in Europe, including in the North Atlantic, has changed for the past 10 years, and Icelandic and US authorities agree on the need to reflect this in a new declaration," Iceland's Foreign Minister Lilja Alfredsdottir said in a statement. "In particular, we want, in this new declaration, to highlight the rotational presence of US military forces in Iceland, which constitutes a gradation in our cooperation."

The United States has guaranteed Iceland's defense since 1951 following an agreement between the two countries.

During World War II, the Keflavik military base was a key US base and it remained important to the NATO alliance during the Cold War.

Its usefulness to the alliance then dwindled over the years, prompting Washington to withdraw its armed forces in 2006.

The missions come amid rising tensions with Moscow and world powers' increasing interest for the Arctic region and shipping routes.

But in the past two years, the US military has run surveillance missions in NATO airspace operated from Icelandic territory.
Suspected Russian submarines have been observed in the North Atlantic, off the coasts of Britain and Norway, and in the Baltic Sea.

The US-Iceland declaration signed this week also says the two countries will "explore increased cooperation, including possible joint exercises, training activities and personnel exchanges" in search and rescue operations among other things.

In its 2017 budget, Washington has allocated $21.4 million to upgrade the Keflavik base with the aim of stationing P-8 reconnaissance planes there, according to specialists citing US military sources.

Thank you Putin.

[caervek]

We should offer to let Putin take Iceland in exchange for Russia paying off Icelands debt haha.

[Ulmita]

Apparently the incident with the American and Russian ships was started by the Russians when they shadowed a carrier outside Syria.

So the news is that there was another similar incident Yday.

Quoting Military Times Article:

Russian Frigate Again Plays Games With US Ships


WASHINGTON — The same Russian frigate that, according to the US Navy, spent more than an hour June 17 maneuvering erratically and unsafely near a US aircraft carrier and destroyer in the Mediterranean Sea was at it again Thursday, this time near a different carrier. And this time, the ship’s reputation as a dangerous driver was anticipated.


The Yaroslav Mudryy, a Project 1154 Neustrashimy-class frigate wearing pennant number 777 was, according to a US Navy report, conducting shadowing operations of the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike group as the flattop was flying combat operations against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq.
The Russian frigate closed on the cruiser San Jacinto, operating as the carrier’s air defense commander, in an action a Navy message characterized as “abnormal, [un]safe and unprofessional.”


A copy of the message was obtained by Defense News.





The message details how the Yaroslav Mudryy was observed by the San Jacinto to be approaching “with ten personnel topside and weapons uncovered but unmanned.” The message did not specify what particular weapons were uncovered as the frigate closed to within 150 yards of the San Jacinto.


It is also not clear how close to the carrier the incidents took place, although it does indicate the Russians were “within line of sight’ of the strike group.
A message from the San Jacinto noted “the behavior of FF-777 [the Yaroslav Mudryy] was expected and pre-briefed based on interactions with USS Gravely earlier in the month,” referring to the June 17 incident when the destroyer Gravely interceded between the carrier Harry S. Truman and the Mudryy.


“The actions of FF-777 were abnormal as they displayed maneuvers rarely seen by professional mariners at sea combined with an aggressive approach of [the San Jacinto],” the message continued.




In this still image from a Russian video posted on YouTube, the US destroyer Gravely moves in front of the Russian frigate Yaroslav Mudryy during an hour-long incident in the Mediterranean Sea June 17.



While the cruiser was “never threatened by the erratic maneuvers of FF-777,” the message noted coming to within 150 yards before turning away “is a high-risk maneuver, highly unprofessional and contrary” to international regulations for preventing collisions at sea.


The Yaroslav Mudryy, after the close approach, took station in the San Jacinto’s wake about 3,000 yards astern of the cruiser and, according to the message, began broadcasting “do not cross my bow,” an action the US characterized as “inconsistent with the spirit of the [Incidents at Sea] agreement,” a longstanding agreement between the US and Russia to deal with such situations.


After following in the cruiser’s wake, the Yaroslav Mudryy, according to the message, returned to “routine, safe and professional” operations.