…from Sputnik News, Moscow

[ Editor’s Note: Color me baffled. I don’t grasp moving troops from Germany to Belgium and Italy as a redeployment ‘closer to Russian borders’, according to Trump.

What is really behind the Russian border move hype by Trump? It turns out that about 60% of our troops are coming home, and the rest shuffled to interim bases until the future basing is completed in Poland and the Baltic States.

Russia’s main concern will be if some of these troops will be manning mid range nuclear missiles at their new bases. That would be a major provocation and a ‘two-fer’ for Trump, showing he got tough with Merkel and Germany, plus putting US troops and weapons closer that ever before to Russia.

If Biden wins, maybe he would reverse this, as Trump reversed so much of what Obama did just for spite. Expect Russia to counter this move, maybe even putting mid range nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Oh yes, Putin has so far responded to all US aggressive moves. I can’t see this current move going unchallenged when it is a red lineJim W. Dean ]

Jim's Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Jim's work includes research, field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more. Thanks for helping. Click to donate >>

Trump plays musical chairs with US military again

– First published … July 07, 2020 –

In mid-June, US President Donald Trump announced Washington’s readiness to withdraw about 9,500 American soldiers from Germany after accusing Berlin of being delinquent in its defence spending.

The United States plans to withdraw 12,000 military personnel from Germany and deploy them to other locations, Secretary of Defence Mark Esper told reporters on Wednesday.

“The current  [European Command] plan repositions approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany”, Esper said during a press conference at the Pentagon.

According to him, the US troops would begin leaving Germany in just a few weeks and would then be repositioned to Belgium and Italy amid the Pentagon’s plans to deploy some of them closer to Russia’s borders.

Esper stressed that a key aim of the withdrawal is to reinforce NATO’s south-eastern flank near the Black Sea.

He added that some forces could be sent to Poland and the Baltic States “as soon as” Warsaw agrees to sign a defence cooperation deal that is already in place.

In all, 5,600 US troops will be repositioned from Germany to other NATO countries, while 6,400 more are expected to be sent home.

The statement followed German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer saying earlier this month that Berlin regrets Washington’s decision to pull out US troops from Germany, but believes that redeploying them within Europe would show the White House’s commitment to the transatlantic partnership.

On 15 June, US President Donald Trump announced his intent to slash US troops garrisoned in Germany by nearly 10,000 until the European nation pays its “delinquent” NATO support bill.

Each NATO nation is expected, but not required, to spend at least 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defence; Germany dedicated 1.4% of its GDP to military matters last year.

At present, 34,500 US troops are stationed in Germany, along with 17,000 US civilians and 12,000 German citizens who work at the military bases in the country.

Russia-NATO Ties May Worsen After US’ Troop Pull-out From Germany, Moscow Says 

Earlier, in June, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that the already tense ties between Moscow and NATO might become even worse if the US withdraws its troops from Germany to Poland.

“Changes made to the structure of the American military presence in Europe in order to move it closer to the Russian borders will not only worsen the already tense situation in the sphere of global security on the continent, but will also hamper attempts to restart a constructive dialogue between Russia and NATO”, Maria Zakharova stressed.

She added that while redeploying, the US military should also bring its tactical nuclear weapons that are purportedly deployed in Germany with it.

Zakharova expressed concern over the US practice of conducting drills with the use of such weapons with non-nuclear NATO allies, something that she said violates Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provisions.

Biography
Managing Editor
Jim W. Dean is Managing Editor of Veterans Today involved in operations, development, and writing, plus an active schedule of TV and radio interviews. Read Full Complete Bio >>>

Jim W. Dean Archives 2009-2014
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

7 COMMENTS

  1. i could reasonably assume each & every nato/ e.u country, has in turn, reasoned with vlad putin, their inability to argue with america/rothschild eu etc, re. 2p/c GDP & any rules for hating on russia.
    when the SHF, i’d be mortified were any of these countries to go so far as to bomb russian cities. in the interim, they do as there told & collect their desperately needed U.S dollars [to compensate their loss from a dying manufacturing sector…courtesy of the rothschild made billionaires ]

  2. I’m not too sure of the intricacies or the finer detail of these agreements that the US has with these European NATO countries that the US sets up bases in, but surely the host country of these bases must be thinking that if the US starts any sort of military provocation with Russia that Russia will respond by bombing or striking those bases that are actually located within the territory of the host nation therefore putting the lives and environment of the host country at risk. Are these countries comfortable with this? Knowing that in the event of a hot war their land will/may become a nuclear fallout wasteland? How can any of these governments be comfortable with this, using their own people as pawns and targets? I mean really does Merkel really care about the welfare of her own people and keeping the environment they occupy clean and free from any threat of nuclear contamination should a hot war start? It’s alright for her and the elite, they got their fallout shelters and ways and means to escape the consequences, but what about the people that put her there in power in the first place. Am i too deluded to think that any government really has their own citizens best interests at all in times of conflicts or any time in fact? Of course I am deluded.

    • That’s well and good, Cindy, but what’s an alternative? Push back against the banker gangsters and get lumped in with the “axis of evil” countries? Because that worked great for the previous world war’s “axis of evil”…?

  3. Well, that reason Mr.Trump didnt do his homework on geography – it is normal. We don’t even pay attention at such non-essential mistakes )
    The USA troops in EU are always being transfered somewhere around the Union. But it looks more like the placebo effect. Moving the troops closer to the Russian boarder is just giving them the chance to be hit first and very quickly. Are they ready for this? Do they know what to do after strikes? I don’t know. Does EU want to be the target for someone’s stupid ambitions? – I’m not sure.
    There has always been one important fact: Russia has strategic depth on the land. And it always helped. Especially during the WW2.

    • It would go nuclear (tactical nukes) pretty quickly. Americans would never get the chance to set foot in Russia.

    • Highly unlikely, Belarus is very closely allied to Russia and their militaries hold annual war games together. As long as the president of Belarus stays in power, they will remain closely tied to Russia.

    • Ian is right. Belarus differs from Ukraine. And modern status quo of this republic is based on Lukashenko’s domination. If smth gonna change globally in Belarus, theoretically they can follow the steps of Armenia which became anti-Russian (their government). But i’m sure we keep an eye on Belarus, ’cause we can’t let it become Ukie 2.0 project.

Comments are closed.