Top US General Seeks More Troops In Europe To Confront Russia | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


Top US General Seeks More Troops In Europe To Confront Russia

Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, argued that the US needs to send even more troops and warships to Europe to “stay ahead of Russia.”

Even though Russia’s military spending is actually scheduled to decrease in the next few years, Gen. Scaparrotti argued that the “growing” Russian threat justified even more US spending on Europe. This has, of course, been a common argument for Pentagon officials, and is why the US such a massive number of troops in Eastern Europe in the first place.

“I’m not comfortable yet with the deterrent posture that we have in Europe in support of the National Defense Strategy,” Scaparrotti told SASC Chair Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., adding:

“Of concern is my intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capacity given that increasing and growing threat of Russia. I need more ISR.”

The Pentagon seems determined to continue using Russia as an excuse to increase military spending going forward, or eventually start a huge war with a military confrontation there.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

Gen. Scaparrotti, a word, please, here.

What the US does NOT have is a reasonably sane Foreign Policy on Russia, and that has to get fixed, and hopefully soon, before some stupid mistake puts the US into a shooting war with Russia.

Punishing a country for something it did not do (as the US constantly does with accusing Russia of "annexing" Crimea, which never happened?!?), is not sanity.

Walking away from a weapons treaty which was working, is not sanity.

Not insuring that our military has the kind of "top shelf" weaponry that Russia currently does, is not sanity.

And sir, this is primarily due to how DC and the Military Industrial Complex are now intertwined at the hip, with weapons companies believing that their political contributions mean "never having to say they are sorry" , when they sell the military equipment which is outmoded upon delivery; never lives up to the hype; and contains huge cost over-runs.

I do not see Russia as the antagonist here; but I do see Russia being used as the very lousy pretext for some very odd US foreign policy views which do not augur well for peace between the US and Russia.

It appears that for some in Washington, Russia has replaced Emmanuel Goldstein as the country upon which which it focuses its "2 minutes of hate", daily.

But have you ever thought how we could ratchet down world tensions if we
"engaged Russia, rather than enraging its leadership" with, what to me appears to be a number of completely bone-headed foreign policy decisions?!?

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA