101st Airborne Division deployed to Europe to bolster NATO

Uncategorized 1 Minute

This is a curious story. The 101st began arriving in Romania last June.

Also, while lethal, the 101st is a relatively small contingent of less than 5,000 light infantry troops. By itself it is an inadequate force to accomplish much of anything on the battlefield in Ukraine.

So why now, and why this division?

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

25 thoughts on “101st Airborne Division deployed to Europe to bolster NATO”

  1. Perhaps now that Putin is about to abandon Kherson, the concern is that if he loses more, he will try to completely destroy what he cannot have. Like the petulant 5 year old he seems to be.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. I see no reason for Russia to abandon Kherson. They are evacuating civilians from the city because there are rumors Ukraine intends to blow up the dam on the Dniper river, which would cause Kherson to flood, but Russian forces occupy high ground outside of the flood zone both North and South of the city. Also, Ukraine has been unable to break the front lines above Kherson for three weeks, despite multiple attempts.

      Of course, anything is possible. Russia has certainly implied that it might abandon Kerson were it necessary to protect the lives of its soldiers in the event of an effective Ukrainian offensive.

      There is a rumor that Ukraine is planning to explode a dirty nuclear bomb somewhere in the country. Were that to occur in any of the annexed territories, who knows what would happen next?

      Like

      Reply

        1. A tripwire force is a plausible explanation. It says an attack on this NATO country is an attack on the United States. A warning to Putin and reassurance to our allies. It is not to provoke an attack but to deter one. So your election theory is bogus.

          The problem with your post was not that you were wrong about the reason for the deployment. The problem was its stupidity and malevolence.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. So a correct post is stupid? I think I see your problem.

            Presidents who find themselves in political trouble have, for a long time, tried to look tough by risking other people’s lives(much like trying to look compassionate with other epople’s money, ) Biden is not the first.

            Like

          2. “So a correct post is stupid? I think I see your problem.”

            I do not have a problem. You obviously do. You used your post not just to offer and plausible explanation of the deployment but also to slander President Biden as either “stupid or malevolent.” You attributed corrupt political motives where there are no political benefits. Your silly childishness is what provokes negative reactions.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. First of all, it was the Russians who planted explosives at the dam, not the Ukrainians. Putin himself made the threat to blow up the dam. (If the Ukrainians had wanted the dam blown up, they could have done it months ago with HIMARS.)

    Second of all, Putin had to back down from that threat when he found out the dam supplies the only potable water for all of Crimea. So, unless he thinks he’s going to have to abandon Crimea too, that dam will stay right where it is. (However, the way things are going, he may lose Crimea and try to blow up the dam on the way out.)

    Ukraine currently has invoked an operational silence in Kherson, but there are a few things we do know. The Russians are trying to ferry out civilians in hopes of slipping their collaborators out in the crowd. Kherson is heating up. This was from a couple of days ago:

    I’m also seeing unverified reports from family members of Russian soldiers who say they have already dropped back past the Dnipro River.

    I wouldn’t read too much into the 101st Airborne being deployed to Europe… especially since this story is from last June. They could be there on a mission to train Ukrainian troops on new air defense systems or a thousand other things. If they were moving into combat, we’d have heard about it by now.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. When the Russians took over the territory, they mined the dam. They planned to blow it up to destroy the hydro-power it produced and flood any advancing Ukrainian army if it became necessary. They didn’t know, or they didn’t care, it was also the only potable water source for all of Crimea.

        There are hundreds of sources. Google “Russia mines dam” and take your pick.

        The Russians are saying it’s a lie, they didn’t mine the dam, the Ukrainians did it “to make them look bad.” Funny, they weren’t worried about how things looked when they drove their tanks into Ukraine. Now they are worried about how things look. It’s almost as if they don’t want people to see they’re losing the war they started.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      2. RE: “There are hundreds of sources. Google ‘Russia mines dam’ and take your pick.”

        Thanks. I googled your exact phrase, at Google. The results are unimpressive.

        Basically, the only source for the allegation is Ukraine’s President Zelensky — a known liar who also claimed Russia bombed the Crimea bridge.

        The reality is that Russia has no incentive to destroy the dam. To believe they did is to believe in the Ghost of Kiev.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Yeah, “Zelensky is a liar,” Google is “unimpressive,” and Russia is “winning the war by destroying infrastructure,” but has no incentive to destroy a hydro-electric dam.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Well, I invited you to provide a source. You provided a search string. Surely you know the difference. Give us some proof of your assertion that “Putin himself made the threat to blow up the dam.”

            Like

          2. Do you believe Putin commands the Russian army? What would you accept as proof? A video of Putin speaking in English (I’m sure you don’t believe translators)? The Russian army mined the dam! Putin told them to do it!

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “What would you accept as proof?”

            Something more than Zelenski’s word. Do you have something more than that?

            Like

          4. When Putin sends me a personal video confessing everything, I’ll let you know. Until then, I choose to believe Zelensky over Putin, for the same reason I believe decent people over Trump.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “I choose to believe Zelensky over Putin”

            I choose to believe assertions that can be substantiated. Your assertions are not believable based on the substantiations you have provided. Sorry.

            Like

          7. “I choose to believe assertions that can be substantiated.”

            You choose to believe Russian propaganda which you then attempt to substantiate. And when challenged you come up with some backtracking comment or claim you never said what you said.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. I note that Ukraine’s offensive is stopped dead in its tracks along a 1,000 mile front and that Russian bombing is systematically destroying Ukraine’s electrical grid and railroads.

            Like

Leave a reply to John Todd Roberts Cancel reply