US may send 50 troops to Europe in response to Russia's NATO demands

January 24 2022 63

The United States is considering the option of sending additional military contingents to Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries. According to The New York Times, the White House can send between 1 and 5 troops to these regions, and if necessary, this number will be increased tenfold to 50 soldiers.

On Saturday, January 22, United States military officials offered the president various options for deploying new American units in Europe. Joseph Biden is expected to make a final decision on the matter in the coming days. At the same time, according to sources, the deployment of US troops on the territory of Ukraine is not planned.

According to experts, such measures by Washington may be a response to Moscow's demands for NATO to refrain from expanding at the expense of the former Soviet republics, as well as from deploying troops in these states. That is, Washington, apparently, is ready to sharply increase the degree of tension between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance, and to do so in a provocative manner.

Earlier, the press secretary of the President of the United States, Jen Psaki, during a press conference, noted that she did not exclude a face-to-face meeting between Beiden and Putin. According to her, the administration of the American president will determine whether such a meeting would be an appropriate next step in the course of security discussions between Russia and the North Atlantic alliance.

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

+2

24 January 2022 12: 15

Few! We need 5 lyam!
1. Uneven
  
  -8
  
  24 January 2022 12: 45
  
  More than enough to scare the Kremlin...
  1. tulip
    
    +2
    
    24 January 2022 14: 55
    
    The Kremlin is not afraid)
    1. Uneven
      
      -2
      
      24 January 2022 15: 08
      
      Do you have reason to believe that the Kremlin will behave differently than usual?
      1. tulip
        
        0
        
        24 January 2022 17: 06
        
        I have more than reason)
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        24 January 2022 17: 13
        
        The fact that "there is" you personally, I absolutely don't care. As for the Kremlin, in such situations one cannot expect anything more powerful from it than a dash into the bushes...
        
        tulip
        
        0
        
        24 January 2022 17: 26
        
        thanks for the Crimea))) I'm eating the last hedgehog, Russia will fall apart, Ukraine will fall over the mustache))
        
        Uneven
        
        -6
        
        24 January 2022 18: 10
        
        NATO would not shine in Ukraine if the Kremlin had not swallowed the Crimean bait...
        
        tulip
        
        0
        
        24 January 2022 20: 53
        
        yeah, keep watching, your opinion is very important to us
        
        bobba94
        
        0
        
        24 January 2022 21: 29
        
        Ohrefiget ...... The Kremlin swallows the bait, first it swallowed the Crimea, then there will be Donetsk and Luhansk, then Kherson and Zaporozhye, and at this time NATO is bathing in the sun in Ukraine, it feels good, it shines, it is in demand ..... .
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        25 January 2022 08: 36
        
        Regarding "then" and "then" you obviously got excited ...
        
        mr parker
        
        +2
        
        24 January 2022 19: 53
        
        Russia collapse? What does your psychiatrist think about this?
        
        tulip
        
        0
        
        24 January 2022 20: 54
        
        of course it will fall apart, as the moon falls to the Earth it will fall apart)))
        
        Uneven
        
        -3
        
        25 January 2022 08: 46
        
        Judging by your comments, it is these specialists that you consult on international issues. It is not clear only - why are you imposing such an approach on your opponents?
  2. sH, arK
    
    +1
    
    24 January 2022 17: 18
    
    Maintaining a database on the territory of the "former Soviet", including the territory of the Tribaltic - the best option for Russia! This does not mean that it is good and wonderful, of course not! But here, as in the saying - if "a fight is inevitable - strike first", so here it is important not only to strike first, but to choose a place for a fight! And with the place, or rather its choice - everything is wonderful with us! Short logistical leverage - the most important advantage! So, if we fight, we have every reason to count on a successful outcome. This is subject to the localization of the conflict.
    1. Uneven
      
      -5
      
      24 January 2022 18: 14
      
      That's just with the "grounds" - the Kremlin has a bummer ... But no one is forbidden to dream!
      1. sH, arK
        
        +2
        
        24 January 2022 21: 00
        
        Well, this is from your ignorance of military specifics. In order to make a projection of force, multiple superiority is needed on the Russian border, which is not even close! Comparing budgets, and even more so "inflated" by various stupidities of GDP in the context of the war, is an exciting, but ineffective exercise!
        Motivation and confidence in actions are much more important - and here Russia has the whole deck in its hands.
        It is not GDP and budgets that are fighting, but soldiers and weapons - and the combination of these factors is clearly on the side of Russia now!
        
        Uneven
        
        -4
        
        25 January 2022 08: 42
        
        Absolutely right! What could be the motivation of the Kremlin mercenaries - contract soldiers who are being led to slaughter on foreign territory? Only one is to survive.
Nikolay Moroz

+3

24 January 2022 12: 20

You can at least send the entire State Department .. but early .. late .... no matter how much they want .. THEY will have to leave .. there is no other option .. or die .. so it’s better less .. Schaub not to break off the Boeing chassis.
DV tam 25

0

24 January 2022 12: 21

They will devour local Arabs in Europe). They'll have to work. In the sense of the Arabs)))))
And how many mestizos will appear ... all sorts of Latino-Arab-Negro-Tehas)))))
Alexey Davydov

0

24 January 2022 13: 02

Quite expected and natural.
This suggests that the creation of mutual military-technical threats will only lead to an arms race that will please the American and British military-industrial complex and prepare the world for a slide into a global war. He will surely slip. One of the parties will not survive the race, and the state of the world, from the abundance and variety of threats, will already lose all value.
It is necessary to threaten the States not with weapons, but with the war itself. Global. Thermonuclear. And now, while the world has not changed irreversibly.
Since the issue is a cornerstone for us and the world, we cannot look back at the opinion of China, which, in relation to competition with the States (and us too) in the field of nuclear weapons, may have its own tactics and strategy that do not take into account our interests
1. Uneven
  
  -3
  
  24 January 2022 15: 11
  
  The US is not afraid.
  1. Alexey Davydov
    
    +2
    
    24 January 2022 15: 13
    
    So we will destroy you
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

+1

24 January 2022 13: 18

Quote: Alexey Davydov
It is necessary to threaten the States not with weapons, but with the war itself. Global. Thermonuclear.

Well, they threatened. And if there is no reaction - to start a world war? And there will be no reaction, except for screams.
1. Alexey Davydov
  
  +2
  
  24 January 2022 13: 30
  
  Start off. A nuclear war on their territory is the only thing they are truly afraid of.
  For us, this is the last chance to survive - if they stop her by signing our demands.
  It is quite reliable, this option. As far as it is now generally possible.
  All other roads lead straight to the same global nuclear war, or surrender to the "mercy of the winner."
  There is no other option in reality
  1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
    
    0
    
    24 January 2022 13: 34
    
    Your position is clear. And even understandable. But no one will sign anything. And if he signs, they will not comply.
    It seems to me that the path of crushing Ukraine is more correct, and then, depending on the level of confrontation, threaten NATO. Against the backdrop of Ukraine divided into parts, the threat will be more understandable.
    1. Alexey Davydov
      
      +1
      
      24 January 2022 13: 47
      
      After we start "crushing" Ukraine, they will slam this mousetrap, which they carefully prepared to tie our hands.
      We need something completely different - that they readily agree to all our security requirements. They did it willingly, seized on our fair proposals. If they do not want the destruction of their world, they will readily sign, and will comply with them.
      The world order will break and change
      1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
        
        +2
        
        24 January 2022 13: 54
        
        Well, okay. We will wait until they sign willingly and admit that our proposals are fair. Yeah. Today we are enemies and cattle for them, and tomorrow they will bring us the keys to the apartment where the money is, on a silver platter.
        
        Alexey Davydov
        
        0
        
        24 January 2022 14: 09
        
        If they want to live, they will bring it. No, we'll destroy it. Physically. Let's do a good deed. The Lord has left us no other way
        
        Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
        
        +2
        
        24 January 2022 14: 12
        
        I would not be so categorical. And there is something to lose. And it is possible and necessary to work with your head against the background of an ultimatum. I don't think we have desperate people in power. And this is good.
        
        Alexey Davydov
        
        +2
        
        24 January 2022 15: 28
        
        This is not despair, this is a sober perception of reality and the prospects for its development. This is the only way to see real possibilities in this reality.
      2. Uneven
        
        -4
        
        24 January 2022 15: 22
        
        Desires do not always coincide with opportunities. In addition, the West has real opportunities to "destroy the world of the Russian Federation", while Russia does not have them.
        
        Alexey Davydov
        
        0
        
        24 January 2022 15: 29
        
        Why is it not? Well, post it. If there is - what
    2. Uneven
      
      -3
      
      24 January 2022 15: 14
      
      The problem is that there is no one and nothing to "crush".
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

+3

24 January 2022 13: 20

All these threats to send American soldiers to Europe are insignificant.
Expensive and not sure why. US interests in Europe are not threatened. And why then spend?
1. Alexey Davydov
  
  0
  
  24 January 2022 13: 37
  
  Shatov's interests are threatened by our very survival, which will simultaneously mean the destruction of their hegemonic positions. Too much they staked, and tied to our defeat
  1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
    
    0
    
    24 January 2022 13: 49
    
    And how will 50 Americans in Europe change that picture?
    Will Russia immediately collapse as soon as the Americans begin to cross over to Europe?
    Why would they make senseless gestures? Moreover, it is very costly.
    1. Dear sofa expert.
      
      0
      
      25 January 2022 13: 37
      
      And how will 50 Americans in Europe change that picture?
      
      Yes, in my opinion, this is just clear.
      To intimidate the Europeans themselves. So that the thoughts "stupid" do not climb into the head. And now, the “commanders in chief of the Navy” (Germany) are already pushing “seditious” speeches to the whole world.
      Americans feel that Europe is out of their control. So these "50 thousand" will be needed, for additional "motivation": figuratively speaking - a machine gun in the back of the "cannon-meat" allies sluggishly and reluctantly going on the attack.
      
      Not with their own hands they are going to shovel the coals out of the fire.
2. Uneven
  
  -4
  
  24 January 2022 15: 17
  
  Nevertheless, they explained that they would develop Ukraine. Further, they will put an equal sign between de jure and de facto regarding Crimea.
  1. Dear sofa expert.
    
    -1
    
    26 January 2022 09: 41
    
    Further, they will put an equal sign between de jure and de facto regarding Crimea.
    
    This is good.
    Now Crimea is de facto Russian. It remains to recognize it as Russian de jure.
    1. Uneven
      
      -2
      
      26 January 2022 13: 45
      
      Do you have a plan?
      1. Dear sofa expert.
        
        0
        
        26 January 2022 13: 48
        
        Do you have a plan?
        
        I thought you had it. I supported him. What's wrong with the "equal sign"?)
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        26 January 2022 14: 06
        
        What do you think is the most realistic - world recognition of Crimea as Russian or its return to Ukraine?
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        0
        
        26 January 2022 14: 25
        
        It seems to me that we should first define the concept of "global recognition".
        Indeed, in fact, what we see: this whole “world” is on the verge of “big changes”. Let's first wait for what it (this world) will be like after the "big redistribution", as well as who and what place in this "world" will be prepared for. The results will show everything else. Maybe your question will disappear then by itself as unnecessary. It's about "recognition"
        As for Crimea: Crimea was, is, and will remain Russian. It is obvious.
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        26 January 2022 14: 56
        
        1) By "world recognition" I meant the official recognition of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation by the countries of the 1st world. 2) About forty years ago, the inviolability of the USSR was also "obvious" to everyone. 3) Crimea was Russian BEFORE it was recognized by all countries (including Russia) as Ukrainian.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        -1
        
        26 January 2022 15: 20
        
        Well, you ask my opinion, but you don’t hear the answer.)
        countries of the 1st world. 2) About forty years ago, the inviolability of the USSR was also "obvious" to everyone
        
        Reproject what you said to the "countries of the 1st world." Its "inviolability" is also not obvious today.
        This is what I said, speaking about the coming "redistribution". Let's wait for the result, then it will be possible to "predict" something.
        
        Crimea was Russian BEFORE
        
        Leave this mantra to yourself not a memory.)
        Russia had to fight for Crimea many times, paying for it with the lives of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers. Crimea is Russian. Do you also want to try to win it back, as did the Turks, the British, etc.? Try.
        Did you have the opportunity to try to defend Crimea in 2014? At least symbolically? But you haven't even tried it. Do you know why?
        Because you never considered Crimea yours. And no one is obliged to give you gifts.
        Yes, you would have blew it anyway, giving it to NATO bases (most likely Turkish). Here is the Crimea and waved you a pen at the first opportunity.
        
        And your links to:
        
        it was recognized by all countries (including Russia) as Ukrainian.
        
        Yes, there was once a decision by the Soviet leaders to give you such a "gift". The legality of such a decision is questionable.
        But, justice prevailed. Crimea returned back to Russia. And that's good, and that's right.
        
        Accept it as inevitable.
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        26 January 2022 15: 59
        
        1) I allow you to fantasize about the "future" without me. 2) But you never know who fought for the Crimea in History? Announce the entire list? And everyone was sure that he would manage the peninsula best of all! 3) If the Crimea had not played the role of a spinner that the Kremlin swallowed to the most I can’t, then no one would have given it to the Russian Federation. The West needed ALL Ukraine, for this it is quite acceptable to sacrifice the bait of 4,5% of its territory.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +1
        
        26 January 2022 16: 12
        
        I allow you to fantasize about the "future" without me.
        
        How can it be without you? You (and people like you) give me such an opportunity with your questions - to express my opinion here.)
        
        But you never know who in history fought for the Crimea? Announce the entire list? And everyone was sure that he would manage the peninsula best of all!
        
        It doesn't matter who fought. The result is important. Crimea is Russian, and the winners are not judged.
        
        If Crimea had not played the role of a spinner that the Kremlin swallowed
        
        Well, lure, so lure. Your whole Ukraine is one big lure. Even you already understand that you are being sacrificed as a bait.
        
        PS: When hunting a bear, be extremely careful, otherwise you yourself can turn into prey very quickly.
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        26 January 2022 16: 24
        
        1) "opinion" not based on facts is called "fiction" and I'm not interested.
        2) Are you a fan of Francis Fukuyama? Although, it seems even he stopped preaching "The End of History".
        3) I am absolutely sure that there will be a lot of interesting things in the History!
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        0
        
        26 January 2022 16: 30
        
        "opinion" that is not based on facts is called "fiction"
        
        give me the fact that I'm a fan of Francis Fukuyama!)
        What is your fiction based on that I preach the "end of history"?)
        On the contrary, he suggested that you wait for the results of the "repartition of the world" and then make predictions. Or not?)
        
        PS I'm generally an optimist in life.)
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        0
        
        26 January 2022 15: 32
        
        There are no legal grounds to consider Crimea Russian, from the point of view of international law.
        
        It would be more correct to say: After the "Dutch Heights", "Kosovo" & Co, no international law a priori exists anymore. It was trampled down by the "countries of the 1st world".)
3. Half a hundred second
  
  -4
  
  24 January 2022 19: 15
  
  Quote: Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
  All these threats to send American soldiers to Europe are insignificant.
  Expensive and not sure why. US interests in Europe are not threatened. And why then spend?
  
  The United States would be forced to do this in any case. This is a way to show that the "general" is still leading the battle, that Washington will not abandon its allies (Europe) and continues to stand on the side of "good and light", "restraining the aggression" of the terrible Putin. If Washington withdraws itself and does not demonstrate readiness to confront Russia, then others will not demonstrate zeal either. A "united" Europe will burst at the seams (I believe that the Americans have enough headaches from the Germans alone), and the "single democratic light-radiant" front may collapse.
  Soon the Americans will drag their bombers and a couple of aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean to Europe.
  These games have their own laws, and players are required to follow them.
  In the same way, the United States could not say "yes" to Russia to the delivered ultimatum, even if (suppose) they really wanted to. Washington's allies would not appreciate such a demarche
Bulanov

0

24 January 2022 13: 30

50 thousand is a deployed army + equipment and ammunition. If the cost per soldier is $1, then the total cost is $10 million. And for transport the same amount - in general, 500 yard of greenery. And how much more will go to kickbacks ...
So a good business trip at the state expense.
1. Bystander
  
  -1
  
  24 January 2022 14: 13
  
  50 thousand is a deployed army + equipment and ammunition
  
  You better answer - How does this fit with the marked line about the collective fear of the West, or the fear of the collective West, before Putin's ultimatum?
  
  In fact, here Putin has time pressure -
  1. No guarantees
  2. In the event of a war in Ukraine, there will be real sanctions, an embargo, a boycott, etc.
  3. Without a war in Ukraine, NATO expansion will continue (albeit not towards Ukraine)
  4. After the completion of hypersound by the Americans and putting on duty somewhere in Deveselu or Redzikovo (and Aegis Ashore in Poland is scheduled to open this year), the flight time to Moscow will also be very short.
  5. Putin cannot alternately attack Ukraine, Poland, Romania, etc. in such a (stupid) way to stop the advance of NATO. And there are no other ways in Putin's arsenal.
  5. What is the success of Ultimatutin?
  1. Bulanov
    
    0
    
    24 January 2022 14: 21
    
    Pharaoh also rejected Moses' request. How did it end, I hope you know?
    One of the possible executions of the Egyptians is the story of the Tower of Babel and the Whore of Babel.
    
    17.1:3-XNUMX And one of the seven angels who had seven bowls came, and speaking to me, he said to me: Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot sitting on many waters; the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the inhabitants of the earth became drunk with the wine of her fornication. And led me in the spirit into the wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, with seven heads and ten horns.
    1. Bystander
      
      -2
      
      24 January 2022 14: 26
      
      I appreciate your knowledge in the field of biblical science.
      But the provided answer didn't answer the question.
      Sorry, but true.
  2. tulip
    
    0
    
    24 January 2022 15: 01
    
    1. no one in Russia expected guarantees) Kai, I understand, the Kremlin knew in advance that the West would not make concessions - the Kremlin was waiting for an official refusal
    2. no one in the world will lose money for your Ukraine. Sanctions are not only against Russia, there are also reciprocal ones. Since 2014, Europe has already lost 300 billion euros in response to Russia. They won't lose yet
    3. NATO expansion will continue only in the world
    4. let them finish first)
    5. Putin will not attack Poland, Romania, etc - what's the point? Putin and Russia will return only Russian lands inherited by Bandera
    6. There is no ultimatum - Russia just asked harshly, and the USA and Europe have already managed it)))
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

+2

24 January 2022 14: 40

Quote from Bystander
5. Putin cannot alternately attack Ukraine, Poland, Romania, etc. in such a (stupid) way to stop the advance of NATO.

At the moment, only one advance of NATO is of concern - to Ukraine.
This issue appears to be being resolved now.
The Finns are threatening, but this, firstly, does not solve anything for security, since Peter already has the Baltic states at his side. And secondly, the precedent will be before everyone's eyes. I think that both the Balts and the Finns will think twice before agreeing to the deployment of serious weapons or forces on their territory.
1. Uneven
  
  -2
  
  24 January 2022 15: 35
  
  "Solve this problem" started a little earlier. It is not clear who and how can interfere with the West in this matter?
AND

0

24 January 2022 19: 37

Quote: Uneven
"Solve this problem" started a little earlier. It is not clear who and how can interfere with the West in this matter?

The foundations of the Kremlin are iron!!!
Straight smarter than Putin? You definitely need to write how to lead and what to do for Putin (the president of the largest part of the earth on our planet earth) Associate Professor or Department Professor?
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

+1

25 January 2022 05: 44

Quote: Half a century and a half
The United States would be forced to do this in any case. This is a way to show that the "general" is still leading the battle, that Washington will not abandon its allies (Europe) and continues to stand on the side of "good and light", "restraining the aggression" of the terrible Putin.

They will send a fleet and several aircraft. Maybe a couple of thousand soldiers.
To show support.
The United States has long been dissatisfied with the way Europeans are spending on their armies.
They will offer them to buy more weapons in the United States. Like, if you are afraid of Russia, then shop, and do not live for free.
Moray Boreas

0

25 January 2022 09: 24

Still, Putin is liberal with overseas partners and behaves politely in every possible way. And he would say: if you twitch, in minutes you will receive thermonuclear strikes on all the hot spots (White House, Congress, Capitol, Pentagon ....)! The rest of the political businessmen, who accidentally survived, are waiting for wheelbarrows, picks and shovels in Siberia and the Far East until the end of their days. And immediately after these words, he would have delivered two nuclear strikes on Washington .... then this would have started there! And in the EU and in Hohland, they would begin to howl that the United States forced them to yelp against Russia .... and they will no longer do this. Onizhedeti ..... it would be tougher with the Atlanticists .., tougher ...))) they are already mentally and physically ready for a spanking.
Expert_Analyst_Forecaster

0

25 January 2022 13: 38

Quote: Seas Boreas
And immediately after these words, he would have delivered two nuclear strikes on Washington ....

Nah, better three strikes on Washington. Two doesn't seem like enough to me.