Sunday, April 19, 2015

Top U.S. Army Commander In Europe: Europe Faces A 'Real Threat' From Russia

Lt-Gen Frederick "Ben" Hodges. NATO

The Telegraph: Europe faces a 'real threat' from Russia, warns US army commander

The commander of the US army in Europe, Lt-Gen Frederick "Ben" Hodges, says that Nato must remain united "as insurance" against Russia

The commander of the US army in Europe has warned that Nato must remain united in the face of a "real threat" from Russia.

"It's not an assumption. There is a Russian threat," Lt-Gen Frederick "Ben" Hodges said.

"You've got the Russian ambassador threatening that Denmark will be a nuclear target if it participates in any missile defence programme. And when you look at the unsafe way Russian aircraft are flying without transponders in proximity to civilian aircraft, that's not professional conduct."

Gen Hodges spoke to the Telegraph on the sidelines of a military debriefing after an exercise to move live Patriot missiles 750 miles across Europe by road and deploy them on the outskirts of Warsaw.

Update: U.S. commander: Russia wouldn't dare take on NATO -- UPI

WNU Editor: His remarks in this Telegraph interview are not going to help in defusing tensions between Russia and the West .... if anything .... they are probably going to intensify them.

8 comments:

Jay Farquharson said...

WNU Editor,

It's funny, but after Iraq, the general concensus on " military " pronouncements, is " bullshit"!

Unknown said...

Jay you took a poll?

Is this the consensus in the military or the general public?

Unknown said...

There are capabilities, limitations and intentions.

caps and lims are what they are. They do not change on a dime but with training, willpower, and budget.

Intentions can change on a dime. Intentions are judge by leader's statements and actions.

Lt-Gen Frederick "Ben" Hodges is not the only one speaking nor is he the 1st. Sequence matters.

Philip said...

Is this the consensus in the military or the general public?

I suppose we should be thankful that Mr. Farquarson didn't use "Vietnam"...

(semi)Seriously, the general's statement is partly political, and wasn't made in a vacuum. That said, there is a threat, albeit a lower level one. For now.

And as an aside, there was a policy paper put out by a realpolitik think tank some months back. The paper advocated the US realigning its diplomatic and defense interests; concentrating in certain areas and significantly reducing or abandoning others. Among the latter were South Korea, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and Ukraine.

Interesting part: the think-tank already has influence with the current administration.

Bob Huntley said...

"probably going to intensify them" is likely the goal.

Unknown said...

Abandon South Korea because they don't carry their weight?

They are too far away?

Are they any further than Japan?

If you give up on Korea you might as well give up on Japan. The Korean Straight is only about 200 kilometers across.

Japan and the U.S. put some strategic depth and some ass behind the South Korean.

Take away South Korea and Japan becomes the front line and the realpolitik pussies will want to abandon it in a generation or less.

Kim Jon Ill did not launch his attack on South Korea without the acquiescence or full support of Stalin and Mao.

Or maybe the U.S. need one less ally or one less free trade partner?

IMO realpolitik is German for saying you are a craven surrender monkey and don not have the temerity to say so.

RealPolitik types feel bad about jokes about the French and the White flags so they want to take on the mantle. Their T level should be checked.they should be checked for depression as well.

Philip said...

First off, I apologize for misspelling Mr. Farquharson's name. The rest of my comment stands.

What their argument is, is that South Korea is more than militarily and economically capable of dealing with North Korea. Ergo, according to the paper, it was a military inefficiency and a diplomatic deficiency.

Unknown said...

- South Korea is not capable of dealing with South Korea if China steps in.

North Korea could launch an all out war without Chinese blessing and take the Chinese by surprise.

Let's take that assumption. NK could devastate and take part of or all of Seoul. Now suppose South Korea takes i back and wants to create buffer north of Seoul. Or lets suppose to take Seoul the encircle it and enter NK. If China says nyet, then what? The South Koreans sit on their hands as a Obama, Hillary or Carter sit on their hands?

Right, wrong or indifferent, there is more than a slim chance that China would back North Korea up diplomatically. This gives NK an advantage.

You would not have to worry about approaching the Yalu. merely approaching or getting close to Pongyang and China might intervene

Doves do not cut it in such world.

NK could devastate Seoul and the South Korean economy and yet be protected form the same happening to them. I do not like those odds.

Personally I liked when we pulled 3,000 troops out of South Korea. It shut up a lot people. All the sudden the tune went from Yankee go home to come back. the the people sending those messages are not all of the same political persuasion. But the those who are anti-American need their comeuppance. People (South Koreans) need to get in their face and buttonhole them.

We could reduce the number of troops there, but we have to mean it when we say South Korea is a valuable ally and we will go to war if their sovereignty is threatened by military or diplomatic action.

We cannot go April Gillespie.

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." - NYT