US Troops to Arrive in Europe in January to Reassure Allies

WARSAW —
The United States is deploying troops to Poland, the Baltic states and Romania next month as part of raising the security of the region, Polish and U.S. defense officials said Wednesday.

Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz made the announcement following talks with the commander of U.S. land troops in Europe, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, in Zagan, western Poland. An Armored Brigade Combat Team from Fort Carson, Colorado, will be deployed there early next month, while another U.S. force, a battalion, will be deployed April 1 to Orzysz, in the northeast.

Macierewicz said he was “very happy that a decision has been taken by the U.S. side for an earlier deployment.”

But the U.S. Army told The Associated Press that the deployment was not accelerated and is taking place as had always been scheduled.

Hodges said the troops will arrive in the German port of Bremerhaven on January 6 and will be immediately deployed to Poland, the Baltic states and Romania. Their transfer will be timed and treated as a test of “how fast the force can move from port to field,” he said.

“I'm confident in the very powerful signal, the message it will send [that] the United States, along with the rest of NATO, is committed to deterrence,” Hodges said.

He said the armored brigade has already moved out of its Colorado base and is loading on ships.

“I'm excited about what my country is doing and I'm excited about continuing to work with our ally, Poland,” Hodges said.

In a separate decision, the members of NATO at a July summit in Warsaw approved the deployment of four multinational battalions to Poland and the Baltic states to deter Russia. Germany will lead a multinational battalion in Lithuania, with similar battalions to be led by the United States in Poland, Britain in Estonia and Canada in Latvia.

Poland and the Baltic nations have been uneasy about increased Russian military operations in the region, especially after Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, and have requested U.S. and NATO troops on their soil as a deterrent. The alliance and the U.S. insist the troop presence is not aimed against anyone, but Russia has threatened measures in response.

US Troops to Arrive in Europe in January to Reassure Allies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misskit

US Troops to Arrive in Europe in January to Reassure Allies

---

Quite the opposite really I'd have thought.

Believe me, it is no reassurance.

Trump get your guy's back, thanks.

There should be an embargo to US for ARM selling, much less war would take place around the whole World.

Yanks GO HOME !!!

let's liberate Europe from the American invaders :p

Just thinking about the two main wars America actually won, WW one and two, how different America was back then, they wanted nothing to do with both conflicts, it was only when they where forced into a fight they won.
Now I hope Trump can do the same, have the same stay at home and let the world get on with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

let's liberate Europe from the American invaders

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

let the world get on with it.

---

So, the hordes of refugees from Syria and Iraq are preferable?

That's a different ball game. Not a good comparison.

Seppos go home!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

America actually won, WW one and two,

---

Americans didn't fight in WW1, they were isolationists

they didn't sit at the armistice table, the French and the Germans did

technically France won, hence WW2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

That's a different ball game. Not a good comparison.

---

The similarity being its a choice of who to welcome, versus who to keep out (refugee leakage aside).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Americans didn't fight in WW1, they were isolationists

---

Really???
The United States declared war on the German Empire on April 6, 1917, during World War I. The U.S. was an independent power and did not officially join the Allies. It closely cooperated with them militarily but acted alone in diplomacy. The U.S. made its major contributions in terms of supplies, raw material and money, starting in 1917. American soldiers under General John Pershing, Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), arrived in large numbers on the Western Front in the summer of 1918. They played a major role until victory was achieved on November 11, 1918 at 11:00am. Before entering the war, the U.S. had remained neutral, though it had been an important supplier to Great Britain and the other Allied powers. During the war, the U.S. mobilized over 4 million military personnel and suffered 110,000 deaths, including 43,000 due to the influenza pandemic.[1] The war saw a dramatic expansion of the United States government in an effort to harness the war effort and a significant increase in the size of the U.S. Armed Forces. After a relatively slow start in mobilising the economy and labour force, by spring 1918 the nation was poised to play a role in the conflict. Under the leadership of President Woodrow Wilson, the war represented the climax of the Progressive Era as it sought to bring reform and democracy to the world,[citation needed] although there was substantial public opposition to U.S. entry into the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

they didn't fight

---

They did but compared to European combat losses the US losses were quite small.

"For the combined Army, Navy and Marine forces of 4.7 million (Army of 4.1 million and a Navy of 600,000), the U.S. Department of Defense official figures for the period from 1 April 1917 to 31 December 1918 stand at 116,516 deaths.[3] This includes 479 soldiers and 675 members of the Navy and the Marine Corps lost at sea.[4] The U.S. Coast Guard lost an additional 192 men.[5] Fully two-thirds of all American deaths occurred in the last three months of the war - September, October, and November 1918 - due to the influenza pandemic of 1918 and the AEF's greatest battle, the Meuse-Argonne (26 September 1918 – 11 November 1918). The United States was also unique in that - due largely to the epidemic - almost half of the losses occurred in training camps in the homeland rather than on the battlefields of Europe. The United States consequently lost more soldiers and sailors to disease than in combat, with 53,402 battle deaths and 63,114 non-combat deaths."

War Losses (USA) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)

As to the OP, let EU pay for their own defense. No US troops. No US funds what so ever. The EU is the 2nd largest economy in the world. Nearly as large as the US and can well afford to defend themselves.

Let the Euroweenies sink or swim. Their defense is their problem. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

Except for a few 'highly sensitive' installations, such as Menwith Hill & Thule, I happen to agree.

It's a NATO deployment driven by US concerns over Russian intentions in the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

Menwith Hill

---

No worries. UK soon to be a non member of the euroweenie club, BREXIT. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

It's a NATO deployment driven by US concerns over Russian intentions in the region.

---

An expense remnant of the cold war so yes to your question. Made sense after WW2 when European military and economies were in no position to defend themselves but now not the case.

Thanks for proving my point, they didn't fight and the casualties were from diseases ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

two-thirds of all American deaths occurred in the last three months of the war - September, October, and November 1918 - due to the influenza pandemic of 1918

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

63,114 non-combat deaths

---

half of which was support staff ? how is that fighting on the fields :rolleyes:

let me dig out my old history book from school with the real numbers. not the US propaganda ones :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

let me dig out my old history book from school with the real numbers

---

No need. Just go ask your friend at the war museum . You remember 10 years ago right here on the forum. Same guy you said told you US never fought in WW1. :frog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

let me dig out my old history book from school with the real numbers

---

No need. Just go ask your friend at the war museum . You remember 10 years ago right here on the forum. Same guy you said told you US never fought in WW1. :frog:

---

indeed, we already had this conversation :)

I am sure I must have asked the relevant person then, a real French historian, not wiki or propaganda from CIA websites :p

Allies?


False allies.
Friends of convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

let EU pay for their own defense. No US troops. No US funds what so ever.

---

About time.

Oh dear, that will upset our little Putin arse lickers won't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

An expense remnant of the cold war so yes to your question. Made sense after WW2 when European military and economies were in no position to defend themselves but now not the case.

---

No question there sir. It was a statement of fact. The U S, UK, Canada and others are deploying to former eastern block countries, under the NATO flag.
Many of these new democracies are concerned about Russian incursions similar to those in the Ukraine. just look at the countries who share a border with Russia.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland all have genuine concerns over Russian expansion across their borders.

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

BRUSSELS — NATO will deploy four international battalions to Poland and the three Baltic states as part of the wider push back against Russia's intervention in Ukraine, alliance head Jens Stoltenberg said Monday.Jun 13, 2016

nato-baltics-poland-deployment

http://www.nato.int/docu/Review/2016...o/EN/index.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chassamui

Russia's intervention in Ukraine

---

Oh really- such as overthrowing an elected government by coup? Damn commies. :rofl: