Russia could invade Europe within 48 hours

[HAZARD]

Russia could invade Europe within 48 hours.

A former NATO chief has warned Europe could be at the mercy of an imminent attack from Russia with no defence plans to repel an invasion.

General Sir Richard Barrons claimed Russia could deploy warplanes, ships and troops on European soil within 48 hours if it desired, with NATO some months away from an effective counter-strike.

The former chief of Joint Forces Command warned that the failure of countries such as France, Germany and Italy to take the threat of Russian aggression seriously could lead to a loss of land, sea and airspace.

Countries bordering the country, led by president Vladimir Putin, are concerned about the threat from their neighbour, not a priority for southern and central states.

The majority of the EU bloc is focussed on the heightened terror threat and migration crisis gripping the continent.

This is despite Moscow investing in new state-of-the-art equipment set to rival NATO's arsenal.

“If you list all the military capability that Nato has, it has a lot more than Russia, but because most of it exists in this semi-dormant state there is a window of opportunity where . . . Russia could use its smaller forces to tweak Nato in a way to which Nato would be very pressed to respond because it doesn’t have any plans to do that.

“In the absence of consensus, largely between the north, the centre and the south, it drops down to the lowest common denominator and not much will happen.” Sir Barrons told The Times.

Russia's recent annexation of Crimea and military exercises in Ukraine earned it international condemnation, but its provocative behaviour has been unable to galvanise NATO into forming a credible opposition plan against a possible Russian invasion.

There is a proposal to base roughly 1,000 troops in each of the Baltic states and Poland, but the move was criticised for lacking any real military backing, nor outlining any clear rules of engagement should Moscow strike.

But the plans were dismissed by Sir Barrons as a mere window dressing, saying it lacked real “force and resilience”.

Britain is leading the Baltic deployment.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/russia-could-invade-europe-within-48-hours-warns-ex-military-chief/ar-BBwnibL?li=AAgfYrC&ocid=wispr

 

[Running Gator]

I wonder what the US response would be to such an action.  I have no faith our current president or either of his two possible replacements would do a thing about it but talk sternly. 

[HAZARD]

14 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

I wonder what the US response would be to such an action.  I have no faith our current president or either of his two possible replacements would do a thing about it but talk sternly. 

What ever happens, at least the American citizens are still armed. We down under have been disarmed by our government. Have you seen this yet?

Trumps new pro hunting TV ad.

American gun owners and hunters facing a stark choice at the November 8th election.

Vote for Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, whose decades long anti gun campaign just needs one more judge on the US Supreme Court to gut the Second Amendment once and for all.

Or vote for Republican candidate Donald Trump, a CCA permit holder in New York City who has sworn to defend the Second. Trump's son Donald has gone on the record as being grateful the election finishes just before bow season starts, while his other son Eric reloads for more than 40 calibres. Straightforward choice. Mr Trump, arguably the most pro gun and pro hunting presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt, makes this commitment to the hunting fraternity:


I’m so happy and thrilled to have the support of America’s sportsmen and sportswomen. Hunting, fishing, and other outdoor activities are favorite pastimes across America, passed down from generation to generation. Just incredible. Law-abiding gun owners across this nation are at risk. Political correctness, Hillary Clinton, and Washington insiders are trying to take away our Second Amendment rights–and they’re really trying hard, like never ever before. That’s wrong, and it won’t happen when I’m president.

I will protect your rights, I will protect your Second Amendment, and you can trust me 100%. Together, we will make America secure again and we will make America great again.

[Running Gator]

5 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

What ever happens, at least the American citizens are still armed. We down under have been disarmed by our government. Have you seen this yet?

Trumps new pro hunting TV ad.

American gun owners and hunters facing a stark choice at the November 8th election.

Vote for Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, whose decades long anti gun campaign just needs one more judge on the US Supreme Court to gut the Second Amendment once and for all.

Or vote for Republican candidate Donald Trump, a CCA permit holder in New York City who has sworn to defend the Second. Trump's son Donald has gone on the record as being grateful the election finishes just before bow season starts, while his other son Eric reloads for more than 40 calibres. Straightforward choice. Mr Trump, arguably the most pro gun and pro hunting presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt, makes this commitment to the hunting fraternity:


I’m so happy and thrilled to have the support of America’s sportsmen and sportswomen. Hunting, fishing, and other outdoor activities are favorite pastimes across America, passed down from generation to generation. Just incredible. Law-abiding gun owners across this nation are at risk. Political correctness, Hillary Clinton, and Washington insiders are trying to take away our Second Amendment rights–and they’re really trying hard, like never ever before. That’s wrong, and it won’t happen when I’m president.

I will protect your rights, I will protect your Second Amendment, and you can trust me 100%. Together, we will make America secure again and we will make America great again.

I had not seen it yet, more political double talk.  Nobody is trying to take our guns away, that is just a fear tactic.   I do not live in a swing state so we do not get a lot of ads for the national race

[1x1is1]

She would do away with the second amendment if she could.  But she would need more than the Supreme Court backing her.  She would have to get by a Republican Congress and then deal with us.  When guns are outlawed, I will be a proud outlaw.

[Dr3ams]

2 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Russia could invade Europe within 48 hours.

A former NATO chief has warned Europe could be at the mercy of an imminent attack from Russia with no defence plans to repel an invasion.

This should be swallowed with a block of salt. Russia doesn't have the military might for a multi sided massive attack against NATO, nor do they have the resources for a prolonged conflict. If you need an example, look what happened in the Ukraine. If they threw the same arsenal and half witted invasion plans at NATO, they would have their extensions slapped into the dirt.

[Running Gator]

22 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

You asked me to point this out and this is another one of your Liberal Jump the Shark moments.  You can't seriously believe the bolded statement you made.  Liberals hate the fact that the populace is armed and they are constantly trying some slight-of-hand to get rid of guns.  The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because the public outcry would be too strong.  But eventually, they will get the populace dumbed down and pacified enough that they can get the job done.  But a lot more oldsters have to die off first for that to happen.

Sorry, I just disagree.  This is just a right wing conspiracy told to people to make sure they vote for the right party. Guns are too much a part of our culture, they are not going anywhere.  We were told 8 years ago that Obama wanted to take our guns away, and today there are more guns in the country than there was 8 years ago.   

[Running Gator]

Just now, Cobalt1959 said:

Believe what you want. You are going to anyway.

Is there really a chance that Russia will invade Europe?  Where did this hypothesis come from?

No, there is not really a chance because there is nothing to be gained by it.  Now, a couple more of the old Soviet republics might fall back under the wing of the Kremlin, but that is it

[Dr3ams]

2 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:

I wonder what the US response would be to such an action.  I have no faith our current president or either of his two possible replacements would do a thing about it but talk sternly.

Because the U.S. is in NATO, they would have to respond with military force. We do have serious deterrents in Europe. Here in Germany we have nukes on loan from America. The nukes are on a joint base and would be delivered by German Tornados. There are also American nukes in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. There's also England's arsenal. Russia would also have to worry about China's constant eyeballing of Russian territory. If Russia were to attack NATO, it would be a good time for China to invade and capture land they have been lusting after for eons. 

[Running Gator]

6 minutes ago, Dr3ams said:

Because the U.S. is in NATO, they would have to respond with military force. We do have serious deterrents in Europe. Here in Germany we have nukes on loan from America. The nukes are on a joint base and would be delivered by German Tornados. There are also American nukes in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. There's also England's arsenal. Russia would also have to worry about China's constant eyeballing of Russian territory. If Russia were to attack NATO, it would be a good time for China to invade and capture land they have been lusting after for eons. 

Maybe, at least one candidate for president has said that he would not necessarily come to the aide of a NATO country.