NATO SECGEN Says RF 'Fundamentally Changing' Balance of Nuclear Power in Europe

[ArmyATC]

NATO SECGEN Says RF 'Fundamentally Changing' Balance of Nuclear Power in Europe<i></i>

Russia’s provocative rhetoric and its dramatic expansion of flights by nuclear bombers are deeply troubling and dangerous, the Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said on Wednesday.

Russia’s plans to deploy nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad – near Poland’s border – and its threat to move nuclear forces in Crimea would “fundamentally change the balance of security in Europe,” Stoltenberg warned, in a speech during a visit to Washington.

Russia’s nuclear sabre-rattling is unjustified, destabilising and dangerous

Jens Stoltenberg

In blunt language, the Nato chief delivered a scathing critique of Russia’s behaviour over the past year – including Moscow’s armed intervention in Ukraine – and vowed the transatlantic alliance would redouble its commitment to “collective defence”.

“Russia’s recent use of nuclear rhetoric, exercises and operations are deeply troubling,” he told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

The Russian president Vladimir Putin’s “admission that he considered putting Russia’s nuclear forces on alert while Russia was annexing Crimea is but one example,” the former Norwegian prime minister said.


'Deeply troubling, redoubling the collective defense, fundamentally changing..' Sounds like O's 2008 platform. Now I want my mommy



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/nato-chief-says-russian-nuclear-threats-are-deeply-troubling-and-dangerous

 

[jayfeather31]

NATO SECGEN Says RF 'Fundamentally Changing' Balance of Nuclear Power in Europe<i></i>

Russia’s provocative rhetoric and its dramatic expansion of flights by nuclear bombers are deeply troubling and dangerous, the Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said on Wednesday.

Russia’s plans to deploy nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad – near Poland’s border – and its threat to move nuclear forces in Crimea would “fundamentally change the balance of security in Europe,” Stoltenberg warned, in a speech during a visit to Washington.

Russia’s nuclear sabre-rattling is unjustified, destabilising and dangerous

Jens Stoltenberg

In blunt language, the Nato chief delivered a scathing critique of Russia’s behaviour over the past year – including Moscow’s armed intervention in Ukraine – and vowed the transatlantic alliance would redouble its commitment to “collective defence”.

“Russia’s recent use of nuclear rhetoric, exercises and operations are deeply troubling,” he told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

The Russian president Vladimir Putin’s “admission that he considered putting Russia’s nuclear forces on alert while Russia was annexing Crimea is but one example,” the former Norwegian prime minister said.


'Deeply troubling, redoubling the collective defense, fundamentally changing..' Sounds like O's 2008 platform. Now I want my mommy



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/nato-chief-says-russian-nuclear-threats-are-deeply-troubling-and-dangerous

And they say we aren't in a cold war... someone prove me wrong but... wouldn't the actions of Russia and the United States instigate a new Cold War?

 

[ArmyATC]

And they say we aren't in a cold war... someone prove me wrong but... wouldn't the actions of Russia and the United States instigate a new Cold War?

In early February 2015, NATO diplomats said that concern was growing in NATO over Russia's nuclear strategy and indications that Russia's nuclear strategy appeared to point to a lowering of the threshold for using nuclear weapons in any conflict.[59] The conclusion was followed by British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon saying that Britain must update its nuclear arsenal in response to Russian modernization of its nuclear forces.[60] Later in February, Fallon said that Putin could repeat tactics used in Ukraine in Baltic members of the Nato alliance; he also said: "Nato has to be ready for any kind of aggression from Russia, whatever form it takes. Nato is getting ready."[61] Fallon noted that it was not a new cold war with Russia, as the situation was already “pretty warm”.[61]

In March 2015, Russia, citing NATO's de facto breach of the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, said that the suspension of its participation in it, announced in 2007, was now "complete" through halting its participation in the consulting group on the Treaty.[62][63]

Early April 2015 saw the publication of the leaked information ascribed to semi-official sources within the Russian military and intelligence establishment, about Russia's alleged preparedness for a nuclear response to certain inimical non-nuclear acts on the part of NATO; such implied threats were interpreted as "an attempt to create strategic uncertainty" and undermine Western political cohesion.[64] Also in this vein, Norway’s defense minister, Ine Eriksen Soreide, noted that Russia had "created uncertainty about its intentions".[65]



1) lowering threshold for nuclear war

2) withdrawel from major Post Cold War Treaties

3) policy of creating uncertainty in matters of nuclear exchange

4) a Wkipedia entry

No, I agree, we're in a new Cold War. I also agree with our British counterpart SECDEF Fallon that it is getting pretty "warm"


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_II (see cites in source)

 

[Xexmi]

We cannot just focus on the negatives though. There has been several attempts at creating better relationships including a phone line to reduce mis-communications. I personally don't think we're in a new cold war, there is plenty of negatives but the few positives make a greater impact.

 

[DirtyDevil69]

And they say we aren't in a cold war... someone prove me wrong but... wouldn't the actions of Russia and the United States instigate a new Cold War?

I do believe we were never officially out of the Cold War. The USSR may have collapsed but the West and East have still been fighting to gain alliances and then some.

Mean while the United States is still at war with North Korea because theirs only a Cease Fire their. Never an officially signed Treaty. Wouldnt that be the same with russia? what signified the cold war was the Nuclear Arms race and all that fun stuff but nothing ever signified the end. To me, personally, that means its still going on.

 

[ArmyATC]

Russia's New Arms Control Plan

Russia has erected 40km of fortified walls, and more than 100km of defensive trenches on its border with the rebel Ukrainian regions of Lugansk and Donetsk.

“The engineering fortification of the state border is aimed at ensuring stability in the Rostov region, and preventing the illegal circulation of firearms,” Russia’s border service said in a statement.

The government agency said that it intercepted over 60 illegal weapons shipments across the border since the beginning of the year. In doing so, it confiscated 40 firearms, 200 grenades, 100 shells and 40 landmines.

The border service said it had to arrest more than 400 people for either illegally crossing the border or approaching the secure zone next to it, and open fire on five occasions. Occasional media reports have surfaced in recent months about spillover from the restive region, locked in a stand-off with the central government in Kiev for the past year, including a report of a Donetsk man illegally trying to cross into Russia in a Soviet-era off-road vehicle.

Read more
3 civilians, including 11yo killed by Ukrainian army shell in Donbass - reports

Following the announcement, Kiev accused Russia of trying to seal in Russian fighters who have been drawn to the ranks of the rebel republics. Moscow strenuously denies that there are any Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine.


Imagine the US building a 100 km ditch and a 40 km fortified wall in New Mexico to prevent illegal immigration and collect firearms. Absurd. What about the other 100s of km? And the only arms being reportedly sent to this region is RF military armor and personnel. Something is up with this. I don't know the terrain where this has been constructed, but I do know a 100 km trench would slow down heavy armor going INTO Russia.

They couldn't be worried that Ukraine or NATO would seriously invade Russia. So what are they doing, and why? Very strange.

http://rt.com/news/262257-border-trench-russia-ukraine/

 

[TheCow]

Imagine the US building a 100 km ditch and a 40 km fortified wall in New Mexico to prevent illegal immigration and collect firearms. Absurd. What about the other 100s of km? And the only arms being reportedly sent to this region is RF military armor and personnel. Something is up with this. I don't know the terrain where this has been constructed, but I do know a 100 km trench would slow down heavy armor going INTO Russia.

They couldn't be worried that Ukraine or NATO would seriously invade Russia. So what are they doing, and why? Very strange.

Think Russia may be worried that NATO will send or is secretly sending lethal aid to Ukraine? As you mentioned, the trench would help defend against heavy armor (by which I am presuming you refer to mechanized troops) entering Russia. The only reasonable way for Ukraine to obtain large numbers of quality mechanized troops would be to be given them.
As mentioned in this thread on the board, Russia is massing rather heavy weaponry on Ukraine's border. If they fear a NATO-backed invasion from Ukraine, which has been making comments about this being a 'real war' with Russia (per this thread as a reference), and thus could feel led to counterattack, then that could be a reasonable explanation of the facts.

Thing is, Russia doesn't actually think that NATO or the US would give Ukraine big-time lethal aid, right? That would rather escalate an already tense situation, and I would hope that Russia knows that NATO is loathe take that kind of a chance.

 

[ArmyATC]

Imagine the US building a 100 km ditch and a 40 km fortified wall in New Mexico to prevent illegal immigration and collect firearms. Absurd. What about the other 100s of km? And the only arms being reportedly sent to this region is RF military armor and personnel. Something is up with this. I don't know the terrain where this has been constructed, but I do know a 100 km trench would slow down heavy armor going INTO Russia.

They couldn't be worried that Ukraine or NATO would seriously invade Russia. So what are they doing, and why? Very strange.

Think Russia may be worried that NATO will send or is secretly sending lethal aid to Ukraine? As you mentioned, the trench would help defend against heavy armor (by which I am presuming you refer to mechanized troops) entering Russia. The only reasonable way for Ukraine to obtain large numbers of quality mechanized troops would be to be given them.
As mentioned in this thread on the board, Russia is massing rather heavy weaponry on Ukraine's border. If they fear a NATO-backed invasion from Ukraine, which has been making comments about this being a 'real war' with Russia (per this thread as a reference), and thus could feel led to counterattack, then that could be a reasonable explanation of the facts.

Thing is, Russia doesn't actually think that NATO or the US would give Ukraine big-time lethal aid, right? That would rather escalate an already tense situation, and I would hope that Russia knows that NATO is loathe take that kind of a chance.

Agree, Obama has signed lethal aid bill already, but has sat on it. Pretty good indication of where NATO stands on the issue. But Ukraine, they are desperate. No telling whose even in charge over there.

Russia's official position is, of course, to secure the Rostov Oblast. At the same time, they ship in military personnel and hardware that makes it less secure. Probably just making sure no suicide missions creep into the region. I want to see a map of where this is.

For example, if it protects the reinforcements, obviously that's what it's for. If it protects against a bunch of crazies making a bee line for Moscow, that is another. I can't find where this is supposedly located.