to anyone relying on the "not enough troops to indicate concern" defense page: 1 link this is something of an offshoot thread, but it is in response to something i have seen posted in multiple threads of late. in response to concerns over the us sending 300+ marines to the russian border, in response to the uk sending 800 troops to the russian border, in response to all the nato countries sending small contingents of troops and equipment to the russian borders we've heard one narrative consistently: "oh, that's not enough troops to indicate there's anything serious happening." my how 2 year's passage of time has changed the narrative. a top ukrainian army officer said a "full-scale invasion" of his country was under way thursday, as a u.s. official said up to 1,000 russian troops had crossed ukraine's southern border to fight alongside pro-russian rebels. russia's military actions in eastern ukraine "must cease immediately," british prime minister david cameron said thursday. "i'm extremely concerned by mounting evidence that russian troops have made large-scale incursions into south eastern ukraine, completely disregarding the sovereignty of a neighbor," cameron said. "the international community has already warned russia that such provocative actions would be completely unacceptable and illegal." yet another example of the west's never ending "nato good, russia evil" narrative. when russia involves 1,000 troops in assisting a region which requested their help (crimea, or more recently syria) the western leaders come unglued... but when the west does the same, it's "exercises" and "no cause for any concern." when a snake coils, it intends to strike and when a scorpion raises it's tail it is preparing to sting. edit on 27-10-2016 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)
to anyone relying on the not enough troops to indicate concern defense
burdman30ott6