OK, fair enough. So if our motivation to intervene in the Baltics isn't to combat Russian oppression, it must be to limit Russia's ability to expand or cement its influence there... right? In which case, my question is, why are we so afraid of Russia having a stronger regional influence? Are we so enamored with hegemony, that we'd risk everything to keep it; nay, even to avoid sharing a little of it on the other side of the world?Originally Posted by TGS
The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. --FA Hayek Specialization is for insects.
If all they were doing was influencing you would have a point. But they have literally invaded and annexed a sovereign country. When do we intervene? Do we do it when they take more than just the Sudetenland? Or do we wait until they start rolling on Paris?
Yes those comment are sarcasm, but unless we show that we won't stand to outright aggression, they are just emboldened. And all those republics that end in stan are taking notice that the US isn't going to help them, the UN isn't going to help them, nor is NATO. They now know either play ball or get invaded under the current political leadership.
And to be honest we lost the opportunity for the Obama administration/UN/NATO to respond to Ukraine. The next administration might get a chance, but at this point the most we can do is move forces into Germany (if they will have us). It would take Russia invading another country (or taking the rest of the Ukraine) for the US/UN/NATO to show their backbone, and I think most of the former Soviet Republics might not give us the chance as they don't want to risk poking the bear.
"The rocket worked perfectly, except for landing on the wrong planet." - Wernher Von Braun
http://www.teampegleg.com
Some interesting historical context:
http://www.historynet.com/lithuania-...e-cold-war.htm
I do not see the Baltic states or Poland going gently into the good night to appease Russia.
I don't see Russia faring well in a toe to toe fight with Poland. Putin has gotten lucky so far with his military adventurism in Ossetia, Georgia and eastern Ukraine, as Russian forces incurred few casualties in these operations. I don't think that this would be the case with Poland.
Last edited by Kyle Reese; 06-15-2015 at 04:42 AM.
Are Russia's motives expansionist (march on Paris, then the world) or is Russia trying to reset the buffer zone that was previously agreed upon by NATO?
David S.
If Russia manages to reestablish influence/control in its periphery, and then tries to keep going, they'll have to roll over some serious obstacles, even if the US was only a small part of that.
The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. --FA Hayek Specialization is for insects.
Well there's a relevant question.
You're onto something here. What NATO has done is roughly akin to say the Warsaw Pact accepting Mexico as a member.
#RESIST
Roughly. As rough as the feelings of sympathy that nyeti gets when Diane Feinstein drops her ice cream cone.
Russia has a habit over the last century of not just exerting political and economic influence, and supporting such through military aid (like the US)...but also conquering entire countries and putting them directly under their control.
Big difference. The West has typically been defensive to Russian aggression since WWII, not to other way around. Russia doesn't need a damn buffer zone, because it's just an excuse for them to take other countries afterwards and claim, "oh, but we need a buffer zone."
The Russians are an enemy to all of the West. They never stopped being that when the Iron Curtain fell. Reestablishing another Iron Curtain is not my idea of good international politics. There is no legitimate national security or political reason for Russia to invade other countries for the purpose of a buffer zone, considering the instability and threat of invasion isn't Europe > Russia.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
NATO started doing this long before Russia started invading other countries. The analogy holds true considering that NATO's mission had been gone for how long before Putin started his current policy of expansionism? Personally, I don't feel threatened by Russia. I don't want my money nor my kids fighting Russia.
#RESIST
That is an absolutely unwarranted and outrageous statement.
The Soviet was an enemy to all of the West. Remember those guys we allied ourselves with in WW2? Good ol' Uncle Joe, Roosevelt's BFF? The Bolsheviks were an enemy to all of The West. They ritualistically slaughtered the Tsar and his whole family, they are responsible for the secret police (CHEKA), and they instituted the artificial famine which led to the death of millions of Ukrainians. The Bolsheviks. The Soviets.
Not "the Russians".
If you've been led to believe that leaders of the Bolshevik revolution were all ethnic Russian, you need to check the ledger.
Reply With Quote