LaxPower Back-Up Stick

With his offer to send 8,500 troops as part of the NATO Response Force (NRF), Biden is putting the NATO EUroburghers on the spot.

So far, this is a pledge to deploy only as part of the NRF to other NATO nations.

Deploying the NRF would require approval by all 30 NATO members.
For 2022, France commands the NRF.
The Franco-German Brigade is in the vanguard of the standing NRF.
France & Germany would have to agree to deploy combat capable ground troops.

This is a true test of NATO's collective will & ability to act in a common defense against Russia.

Encouraging news.

https://www.upstreamonline.com/politics ... -1-1158657
Germany changes tack on Nord Stream 2
Berlin signals readiness to impose sanctions on gas pipeline project despite potential costs to its corporations and possible retaliation from Moscow

Is the US ready for cyber war? I don't think so.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/s ... o-hackers/

Oops. This might leave a mark...

"Years of pursuing operational efficiency have introduced "lights-out" data centers, which are fully automated facilities managed remotely and generally operate without staff.

However, the configuration of these systems isn't always correct. As a result, while the servers themselves may be adequately protected from physical access, the systems that ensure physical protection and optimal performance sometimes aren't.

Multiple cases of unprotected systems
Investigators at Cyble have found over 20,000 instances of publicly exposed DCIM systems, including thermal and cooling management dashboards, humidity controllers, UPS controllers, rack monitors, and transfer switches."

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:28 pm Is the US ready for cyber war? I don't think so.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/s ... o-hackers/

Oops. This might leave a mark...

"Years of pursuing operational efficiency have introduced "lights-out" data centers, which are fully automated facilities managed remotely and generally operate without staff.

However, the configuration of these systems isn't always correct. As a result, while the servers themselves may be adequately protected from physical access, the systems that ensure physical protection and optimal performance sometimes aren't.

Multiple cases of unprotected systems
Investigators at Cyble have found over 20,000 instances of publicly exposed DCIM systems, including thermal and cooling management dashboards, humidity controllers, UPS controllers, rack monitors, and transfer switches."

This has been known for over decade...we use https://www.shodan.io/ regularly.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:12 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:28 pm Is the US ready for cyber war? I don't think so.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/s ... o-hackers/

Oops. This might leave a mark...

"Years of pursuing operational efficiency have introduced "lights-out" data centers, which are fully automated facilities managed remotely and generally operate without staff.

However, the configuration of these systems isn't always correct. As a result, while the servers themselves may be adequately protected from physical access, the systems that ensure physical protection and optimal performance sometimes aren't.

Multiple cases of unprotected systems
Investigators at Cyble have found over 20,000 instances of publicly exposed DCIM systems, including thermal and cooling management dashboards, humidity controllers, UPS controllers, rack monitors, and transfer switches."

This has been known for over decade...we use https://www.shodan.io/ regularly.

Ready to lose a bunch of services? I guarantee you are exposed in ways you can't even imagine.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:17 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:12 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:28 pm Is the US ready for cyber war? I don't think so.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/s ... o-hackers/

Oops. This might leave a mark...

"Years of pursuing operational efficiency have introduced "lights-out" data centers, which are fully automated facilities managed remotely and generally operate without staff.

However, the configuration of these systems isn't always correct. As a result, while the servers themselves may be adequately protected from physical access, the systems that ensure physical protection and optimal performance sometimes aren't.

Multiple cases of unprotected systems
Investigators at Cyble have found over 20,000 instances of publicly exposed DCIM systems, including thermal and cooling management dashboards, humidity controllers, UPS controllers, rack monitors, and transfer switches."

This has been known for over decade...we use https://www.shodan.io/ regularly.

Ready to lose a bunch of services? I guarantee you are exposed in ways you can't even imagine.

You are preaching to the choir. We all are....that is the entire point, and it has been that way for close to two decades. When we had two-way Nextel Devices...before cell phones, in the late 90's/early 2k's, they could shut down communication in an instant, even turn on your microphone without you knowing.

NBC's man in Moscow brought up a potential off ramp.

The Minsk-II agreement would grant autonomy to Donetsk & Luhansk.
In the resulting confederation, as Russian proxies, they could prevent Ukraine from requesting NATO membership.
This dovetails with Sen Durbin's veiled recommendation that Ukraine might forswear requesting future NATO membership.

Minsk-II offers Putin a face saving off ramp & would let NATO off the hook for having to accept Ukraine as a member in the future.

France & Germany negotiating the Minsk protocols, without US participation, demonstrates how much more the US is pushing for adding Ukraine to NATO than are our EU allies who would have to live with that result.

This article is from the Polish perspective, which (not surprisingly) would welcome additional NATO members to the east.
It does provide a helpful, if biased, explanation of Minsk-II

https://cepa.org/minsk-deals-will-never ... o-ukraine/
Recent, large-scale Russian military movements around Ukraine have reinvigorated the discussion on the notorious Minsk Agreements, signed in 2014-2015. There have always been numerous voices in the West advocating for greater pressure on Ukraine to implement this flawed deal, popping up whenever Russia escalates tensions. Samuel Charap of the Rand Foundation, for example, recently called for the US to “push Kyiv to take steps toward implementing its obligations under the Minsk II.”

The article, perhaps because it is assumed to represent the thinking of some Biden administration officials, has sparked a fierce debate. Yet the argument is less clear than Charap suggests. Enforcing the Minsk provisions on Ukraine would not de-escalate tensions and would in fact create greater instability in the long run. Three examples show why.

Firstly, the whole logic underpinning the Minsk Agreements has been based on a single false assumption that Russia would somehow be satisfied with half-measures and that the Kremlin would be satisfied with, as Charap puts it, “a lever of influence over Ukraine in order to limit its Western integration.” Herein lies the key problem with the Minsk deal — namely the idea that it satisfied Russian ambitions. While many in the West genuinely consider Minsk to be a step towards a final political settlement in Donbas, Russia sees it as a first step towards regaining full control over Ukraine. The evidence? President Vladimir Putin has never hidden his ambition to destroy Ukrainian sovereignty, but perhaps most explicitly revealed his aims in a July 2021 essay, stating that “modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped — for a significant part — on the lands of historical Russia.”

So while it may be true, as Charap says, that “the Donbas conflict has always been a means to an end,” I disagree what constitutes that very end. The so-called special status for Donbas was never intended to be defensive in nature, to give Russia merely a veto power in Ukraine’s foreign policy. Instead, it was always designed to serve as a bridgehead for further Russian expansion, to cause a domino effect. To put it simply, Moscow expects that, after the Donetsk and Luhansk regions are granted the special status, the other Ukrainian regions follow suit and eventually the country’s political system turns into de facto confederation of quasi-sovereign principalities, where Ukraine’s central government became powerless and unable to resist Kremlin control. While the West was focused on the bloodshed in Donbas, international public opinion largely failed to see the concrete steps were being taken by Russian proxies in Ukraine to promote special status also for the Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. These attempts, fortunately, failed because the Ukrainian authorities eventually managed to suppress them.

Obviously, one may ask why would Russia ever need that, given, as Charap rightly points out, on the basis of the Minsk Agreements Ukraine should “grant a constitutionally guaranteed lever of influence to Russia’s rebel proxies, which Moscow could use to prevent Kyiv from completely defecting to the West.” Yet Russia has little interest in constitutional reform in Ukraine because it does not even recognize the primacy of force of law; the Kremlin believes in the law of force. There is no other way to explain why Russia launched its aggression against Ukraine in 2014 even though the latter was still a neutral country. It is naïve to assume that any constitutional amendment will satisfy a Kremlin which is interested in facts (and tanks) on the ground.

Second, even assuming that Russia would actually be ready to curb its appetite regarding Ukraine and stick to both the letter and the spirit of the Minsk Agreements, for the last seven years Moscow has constantly demonstrated its lack of goodwill to reciprocate Ukrainian concessions. Indeed, Ukraine took several important steps to implement the Minsk provisions, contrary to what Charap suggests. For instance, only a few weeks after the Minsk-I Agreement was signed in late August 2014, parliament adopted a special law that would guarantee the Russia-controlled part of Donetsk and Luhansk regions additional economic, financial and cultural powers (Minsk-I did not include provisions on constitutional reform, they appeared only later in Minsk-II.) Russia ignored the Ukrainian move and further raised the stakes by staging own local elections in the non-controlled part of Donbas.

Worse yet, in mid-January 2015, the Russian forces launched a new offensive in Donbas and made additional demands. The resulting Minsk-II Agreement, signed in February 2015, was — as Charap says: “a victor’s peace, essentially imposed by Russia on Ukraine at the barrel of a gun.” Yet the Minsk-II deal is used as his point of departure, so that the argument can be made that Ukrainian compliance with the agreement, “flawed as it is, might actually invite de-escalation from Russia and reinvigorate the languishing peace process.” Yet the history of this conflict is very clear: Ukrainian concessions invite further Russian escalation. How much the Russian commitment to the negotiation process is actually worth was well illustrated by the statement of the Russian Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich, who in May 2021 publicly stated that the Minsk agreements do not impose obligations on Russia.

One could challenge far more about the Charap argument — it is inaccurate to say that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who campaigned to end the war, “has adopted a hardline position.” For example, in 2020 when Russia attempted to establish the so-called Consultative Council, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had to rein him in. Meanwhile, signs of Russian ill-will proliferate: on several occasions, Russia broke off talks on prisoner exchanges because Zelensky had publicly declared it to be his priority. The bitter truth is that Putin leaves Ukrainian leaders with no alternative but to harden their stance toward Russia. Funnily enough, President Petro Poroshenko learned the same lesson after his 2014 presidential campaign pledge to end the war.

Third, and finally, even if we naively assume that Russia will eventually reciprocate, one still needs to factor in the Ukrainian internal political landscape. Ukrainians widely disapprove of the Minsk Agreements, despite oft-repeated and unsubstantiated claims about a “blocking nationalistic minority.” As a recent opinion poll by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation shows, a “majority of the Ukrainian public endorses a forceful approach toward Russia, through a combination of diplomatic, political and military tools.”

This attracts majority support, while 62% believe Russia’s unwillingness to genuinely negotiate with Ukraine is the main obstacle to peace in Donbas. Only 26% of Ukrainians would approve amending the country’s constitution to grant special status to the Russian-held territories in Donetsk and Luhansk, while 59% reject this.

It is clear therefore that Charap’s advocacy of US pressure to “move the constitutional amendments forward in parliament" would cause significant political turmoil in Ukraine and run the risk that President Zelenskyy would be overthrown. Those interested in Ukraine would recall that the 2015 attempt to adopt of the aforementioned amendments provoked bloody clashes near the parliament building, with three soldiers of the National Guard killed and more than 130 people, mainly from the law enforcement agencies, injured. Decisions are not made in a vacuum — pressure on Ukraine to ignore the will of its citizens will have severe consequences; any such arrangement will be unsustainable and will trigger a swift backlash.

So, what to do with the Minsk Agreements if they are not fit for purpose? Like Mark Galeotti (and many others), I believe that Minsk should be declared dead and new talks arranged between Ukraine and Russia. Of course, one should have no illusions. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon because Russia believes — with some reason — that the West will eventually tire of the conflict and give away (thus the celebratory response from Kremlin propagandists after the chaotic Western withdrawal from Afghanistan). For the West, the consequences are clear; there are no shortcuts when it comes to settling the situation in Donbas, which means the Russian-Ukrainian war is a long-term issue.

Until a window of opportunity opens, there is a need to build a transatlantic consensus on Ukraine and Russia, which should be based on a premise of denying Russia success in subordinating a neighbor. This would entail enhanced pressure on Russia so as to increase the cost of its policy against Ukraine and prevent further incursions, as well as greater efforts to strengthen the Ukrainian state, including further support for its defense capabilities. Russia will not lose its appetite to swallow the whole of Ukraine, but the West can at least make sure it grows sufficiently large to become indigestible.

CNN asks "why now ? " -- not waiting for NATO to order the deployment of the standing NATO Response Force (NRF).
Ready, Fire, Aim. Here we go, sending US tethered goat tripwires on the western border of Ukraine.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-orders ... 1643810404

American soldiers will head to Poland, Germany and Romania in the first major movement of U.S. forces in the standoff

The Pentagon announced on Wednesday a plan to deploy more than 3,000 troops to Europe in the first major movement of U.S. forces in Russia’s military standoff with Ukraine.

President Biden is directing the Pentagon to deploy more than 3,000 American troops to bolster the defense of European allies in the first major movement of U.S. forces in Russia’s military standoff with Ukraine, U.S. officials said.

Mr. Biden is sending roughly 2,000 troops from Fort Bragg, N.C., to Poland and Germany this week and repositioning about 1,000 troops that are part of a Germany-based infantry Stryker squadron to Romania, on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s eastern flank closest to Russia, the officials said.

In addition, the Pentagon expects to make other moves of forces inside Europe, and has ordered several thousand more troops to be on standby to deploy, beyond the 8,500 troops given similar orders last week, the officials said.

In all, the moves are intended to try to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine and avert war in Eastern Europe, the officials said. Along with these moves, the Biden administration is trying to find a diplomatic solution, readying a barrage of economic sanctions should Russia attack and authorizing the transfer of some weapons and other equipment to Ukraine.

Mr. Biden signed off on the military proposals after meeting Tuesday with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley, the officials said. Mr. Austin discussed the deployments with his counterparts in Romania, Germany and Poland in the past week.

While a few hundred American military trainers and special-operations forces are inside Ukraine, none of the new forces have been authorized to enter the country, and all of the deployments are expected to be temporary, the officials said.

The forces are expected to deploy in the next few days, the officials said, declining to provide details on their specific missions.

“They are trained and equipped for a variety of missions during this period of elevated risk,” said a senior defense official. The deployments also are “meant to deter the threat against the alliance. We are literally willing to put skin in the game.”

Some of the new forces could be used in the event the U.S. military was called upon to help evacuate the roughly 30,000 Americans now living in Ukraine, the official said. Should that be needed, the official said, the troops are unlikely to be sent inside Ukraine to do so and instead would facilitate an evacuation operation by land along the Ukrainian border.

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of trying to goad Moscow into war even as he hoped “dialogue will be continued.” Biden administration officials have said they don’t think Mr. Putin has made a decision whether to invade, though he could do so in the next few weeks.

Last week, Mr. Austin placed at least 8,500 U.S. troops on “prepare-to-deploy orders,” which requires troops to be ready to deploy quickly, in some instances, within hours after being activated.

Since then, that figure has increased by several thousand more troops, the officials said. Some of the troops that are being activated to Europe this week are being drawn from that larger number of troops already identified on standby, the officials said.

The preponderance of those forces on standby would contribute to a NATO response force that is being assembled in case Mr. Putin moves ahead with plans to attack Ukraine.

Other American forces, already stationed in Eastern Europe, could be repositioned to NATO nations as part of the overall response to the crisis which U.S. officials say Mr. Putin has created by conducting a military buildup on three sides of Ukraine.

Russia has denied that it plans to invade, though it said it may have to resort to military measures if its demands that Ukraine not be permitted to join NATO and that the alliance pull back from Eastern Europe aren’t heeded.

Mr. Biden said over the weekend that some American forces could be put on alert to deploy within Eastern Europe, and the Pentagon said on Monday that those deployments were still under consideration. Mr. Biden has said U.S. forces wouldn’t defend Ukraine, but he has promised to support allies.

If the troops on standby are activated, they would deploy to NATO nations in Eastern Europe such as Poland and Lithuania, in logistics, medical, aviation, transportation and other areas, according to defense officials. The Pentagon has said it could also deploy troops to support intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, with drones.

The U.S. decision to prepare forces is among a series of military adjustments across the alliance. The Netherlands, Spain and Denmark are among the NATO countries that began positioning ships and aircraft in a push to bolster Europe’s eastern flank. Canada said it would extend its training program in Ukraine, using as many as 400 troops, for another three years.

Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border, is moving troops and surface-to-air missile systems into Belarus, which borders Ukraine and several NATO members, and has also moved several ships near Ukraine’s shores in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.[/i]

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:48 pm Not waiting for NATO to order the deployment of the standing NATO Response Force (NRF).
Ready, Fire, Aim. Here we go. US tethered goat tripwires on the western border of Ukraine.

US Foreign Policy Since WWII. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

I'm not happy. The quiet threats from Germany are more than enough to get Putin to ask himself: do I REALLY want to lose energy trade over this?

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:48 pm US tethered goat tripwires on the western border of Ukraine.

Is this a metaphor?

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:52 pm Is this a metaphor?

No. We're supposedly deploying near the western border of Ukraine in case it's necessary to evacuate US citizens.
Their presence so close to Ukraine's border makes them a tripwire.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... tary-nato/

Biden dispatching additional U.S. troops to Eastern Europe

About 3,000 U.S. troops are expected to deploy, with some moving from permanent posts in Germany to NATO’s eastern flank in Romania and others heading from Fort Bragg in North Carolina to establish a new headquarters in Germany and reinforce those in Poland.

The troop movements coincide with increasingly hostile verbal exchanges between senior U.S. and Russian officials, with Moscow’s ambassador in Washington accusing the White House of “demonizing” Russia and lying about the Kremlin’s past activity in the region.

At the Pentagon, Kirby said the situation “demands” that the United States reinforce Eastern Europe. An Army Stryker unit of about 1,000 soldiers based in Germany will be deployed to Romania, Kirby said, joining about 900 U.S. troops already there. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin discussed the move last week with top Romanian officials, who extended an invitation, Kirby said.

About 2,000 additional U.S. troops from Fort Bragg, including members of the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division, will be sent to Poland, Kirby said. Others within that group, including personnel from the XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, are expected to establish a new headquarters in Germany that will oversee the operation.

Last week, about 8,500 U.S. troops were put on a heightened alert because of the crisis over Ukraine. Most of those personnel are expected to deploy if NATO activates for the first time it military response force, which would comprise troops from numerous countries. Such a deployment would require approval from all NATO members, although the United States or its partners may continue to order their own deployments as agreements are reached with individual countries in Eastern Europe.

While Biden has ruled out any combat deployment to Ukraine, it remains possible that U.S. troops could be directed to assist in the evacuation of American citizens and diplomats from that country — should such measures become necessary. About 200 members of the Florida National Guard remain in Ukraine, where they are providing training to local forces, and could be withdrawn quickly if necessary, Kirby said.

In the Ukrainian capital Wednesday, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba downplayed perceived differences between Kyiv and Washington on the likelihood of an imminent military move by Russia. Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seemed to chastise President Biden and the Western media for unsettling Ukrainians with the prospect of an impending incursion. Kuleba said the two governments agree that the situation is very dangerous.

“There are no divisions between me and Secretary [of State Antony] Blinken, between President Zelensky and President Biden,” Kuleba told reporters. “The tone of voice of our voice may sound different, but the assessment is actually the same: We must prepare for every possible scenario.”

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:59 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:52 pm Is this a metaphor?

No. We're supposedly deploying near the western border of Ukraine in case it's necessary to evacuate US citizens.
Their presence so close to Ukraine's border makes them a tripwire.

Ah, got it. Thanks.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:52 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:48 pm Not waiting for NATO to order the deployment of the standing NATO Response Force (NRF).
Ready, Fire, Aim. Here we go. US tethered goat tripwires on the western border of Ukraine.

US Foreign Policy Since WWII. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

We're going to send more forces to defend NATO, whether NATO (collectively) wants us to, or not.

Strange time to publicly ponder giving up our Aegis Ashore missile defense facilities in Romania & Poland, as we rush to deploy more troops to bolster NATO's E flank. a bargaining chip for giveback to Putin ?

https://news.usni.org/2021/01/12/navy-w ... to-take-it

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:02 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:52 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:48 pm Not waiting for NATO to order the deployment of the standing NATO Response Force (NRF).
Ready, Fire, Aim. Here we go. US tethered goat tripwires on the western border of Ukraine.

US Foreign Policy Since WWII. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

We're going to send more forces to defend NATO, whether NATO (collectively) wants us to, or not.

Yes. That's the old way. The path you and I DON'T want Biden to take, right?

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:32 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:02 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:52 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:48 pm Not waiting for NATO to order the deployment of the standing NATO Response Force (NRF).
Ready, Fire, Aim. Here we go. US tethered goat tripwires on the western border of Ukraine.

US Foreign Policy Since WWII. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

We're going to send more forces to defend NATO, whether NATO (collectively) wants us to, or not.

Yes. That's the old way. The path you and I DON'T want Biden to take, right?

I don't think we should go unless & until NATO (collectively) activates & deploys the standing NATO Response Force (NRF), which is currently commanded by the French, with the Franco-German Brigade as the vanguard of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF). I believe the US forces deployed today include part of our contingent of the NRF, but where is the rest of the NRF ?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_190458.htm
France takes the lead of NATO’s highest-readiness military force on Saturday (1 January 2022), for a period of one year. The formation, formally known as NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), was created in 2014 in response to crises in the Middle East and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and is permanently available to move within days to defend any Ally. The VJTF is the highest-readiness element of NATO’s 40,000-strong Response Force.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:41 pm]I don't think we should go unless & until NATO (collectively) activates & deploys the standing NATO Response Force (NRF), which is currently commanded by the French, with the Franco-German Brigade as the vanguard of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF).

Agreed! This is the EU's problem. If they can't bother to show up via NATO? We have no business there.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:41 pm]I don't think we should go unless & until NATO (collectively) activates & deploys the standing NATO Response Force (NRF), which is currently commanded by the French, with the Franco-German Brigade as the vanguard of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF).

Agreed! This is the EU's problem. If they can't bother to show up via NATO? We have no business there.

Tucker, that you?

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:50 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:41 pm]I don't think we should go unless & until NATO (collectively) activates & deploys the standing NATO Response Force (NRF), which is currently commanded by the French, with the Franco-German Brigade as the vanguard of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF).

Agreed! This is the EU's problem. If they can't bother to show up via NATO? We have no business there.

Tucker, that you?

Tucker C? Well, that's a new one, I'll grant you that.

NBC Pentagon reporter confirms that NATO Sec Gen said the NRF will not deploy unless/until Russia invades.
(letting Germany & the other EUroburghers off the hook).

These latest deployments by the US & France are being termed as unilateral reinforcements of existing & ongoing Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP) operations.

https://twitter.com/NATO/status/1484468720202362880