All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

Well it would be helpful if you were familiar with how NATO cane about.

If the question is why NATO in the first place my response is WWl and WWll and the rebuilding of Europe. It has been a spectacular success. Russia tried very hard to prevent NATO in the first place. Breaking up NATO or at least driving wedges in it and creating divisions has been one of Russian Foreign Policy prioritize fur more than six decades. Since trump took office NATO has been been weakened and divisions created. It has had the support of every administration since it was founded in the 1950s.

I can’t speak to the tactical movement of one unit or another. I do know as Russia has become much more aggressive in projecting power since Putin assumed office the need is as great as it ever was.

NATO since inception would not have prevented the USSR from rolling over Europe. It gave us skin in the game, helped drive economic growth, helped drive integration and develop a consensus and rule set thatchas worked for decades. It serves our interests and would hurt our interests if it weakens. It is far more important than tactical movements

George Kennan opposed NATO expansion after the end of the Cold War. ...what did he know ?

I do not share your assessment that the USSR would have rolled over Europe.

If tactical movements don't matter, why bother deploying US forces to Poland ?

[OCanada]

You are getting repetitive re Poland. You may not share it but it was the judgment of the time. Had the Do it’s wanted to keep going they were going to be at best difficult to stop. There weapon production was just arriving st full capacity by war’s end. They had already lost about 25 million dead and perhaps as much as (0 depending on how you classified them. NATO was not created until the 1950s. That the Soviets did not was fear of nuclear war.., on both sides. What you might want to do is look at Soviet tank production by the end of the war, the size of their armed forces, the state of France and the UK and Germany. Eisenhower thought so. The French thought the maginot line would stop the Germans too. I recognize your narrative requires some things to have a certain data set. You might want to look into Russia at War 1941-1945 by an author named Werth, there is a more recent book on the topic written after the fall of the Soviets. Some records won’t be available until Putin leaves if then

As I said you would have to ask the military why troops are moved in Poland. Perhaps as a counter weight to the Russia friendly right wing that has been growing in strength for many years and finally got control of the government after violating their Constitution .

[MDlaxfan76]

Well it would be helpful if you were familiar with how NATO cane about.

If the question is why NATO in the first place my response is WWl and WWll and the rebuilding of Europe. It has been a spectacular success. Russia tried very hard to prevent NATO in the first place. Breaking up NATO or at least driving wedges in it and creating divisions has been one of Russian Foreign Policy prioritize fur more than six decades. Since trump took office NATO has been been weakened and divisions created. It has had the support of every administration since it was founded in the 1950s.

I can’t speak to the tactical movement of one unit or another. I do know as Russia has become much more aggressive in projecting power since Putin assumed office the need is as great as it ever was.

NATO since inception would not have prevented the USSR from rolling over Europe. It gave us skin in the game, helped drive economic growth, helped drive integration and develop a consensus and rule set thatchas worked for decades. It serves our interests and would hurt our interests if it weakens. It is far more important than tactical movements

George Kennan opposed NATO expansion after the end of the Cold War. ...what did he know ?

I do not share your assessment that the USSR would have rolled over Europe.

If tactical movements don't matter, why bother deploying US forces to Poland ?

Not sure where you come down on Kennan, Salty.

While his warnings about the inherently expansionist ambitions of the Soviet Union, expressed during the late 1940's, arguing for a policy of containment, led to the policies of Truman and Eisenhower and beyond, he reversed himself and became a critic of US containment policy including NATO. Cutting through it, he thought we could sweet talk them to not be expansionist.

Very hard to prove one way or another. What we do know is that they indeed were highly expansionist and containment was very difficult.

But no surprise that he was against expansion of NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

That perspective has been a promulgated by the Cato Institute, Thomas Friedman and others. Bill Clinton's push for NATO expansion and other extensions toward former vassal states of the Soviet Union, they argue, caused the Russians to be paranoid about 'encirclement'. They blame these moves, in their revisionist view for the rise of Putin and an authoritarian, expansionist Russia.

Maybe; can't prove one way or the other.

What we do know is that Russia is indeed authoritarian and expansionist.

This article presents the debate pretty well: http://jameskirchick.com/2014/04/08/nat ... ne-crisis/

[MDlaxfan76]

If we know anything about history it has been that these powers of Europe, including Russia, have been seemingly in a perpetual state of war. Hot war. Hundreds and hundreds of years of hot conflict. Very few generations untouched.

Following two extremely bloody 'world' wars, fought by back to back generations, and the recognition that weapons now threatened actual annihilation, those who understood that history recognized that a return of hot war was very close to 100% inevitable.

What to do?

One lesson of that history was that aggression had consistently been led by authoritarian leaders/systems, whether monarchs or dictators. And that appeasement of such authoritarian leaders had never worked to prevent aggression.

With Germany defeated and in ruins, the chief authoritarian threat was Russia (and to a much lesser extent, China).

Another lesson was that 'nationalism', the promulgation of an identity as superior to others with its 'national interest' justifying taking land, resources, freedoms, from others, whether immediate neighbors or through far flung imperialism, was an inherently conflictual ideology.

So, finding ways to blunt nationalism by creating international organizations to mediate conflicts was essential.

NATO organized the powers of the West to stand, together, against the threat of aggression from Russia. It also had the benefit of preventing those western powers from threatening each other militarily.

The United Nations provided a means through which the countries of the world could confront one another diplomatically, while continuing to be within an international structure.

Other international institutions were built to address economic competition, the law of the seas, etc.

None of this was 'perfect', none of it is ever 'complete'.

But we've had 75 years of no hot war on European soil. That said, one could argue that the Soviet's oppression of Eastern Europe has been at times 'hot', as we could argue that the taking of Crimea was such as well. Proxy wars, yes. But no breakout of nation state war.

We can fairly critique all sorts of moves of the US during those 75 years. No doubt.

Indeed we should critique ourselves. We should constantly look to learn.

But it's very, very dangerous to forget the lessons of history.

[MDlaxfan76]

BTW, it's kind of silly to think that the Soviets would not have rolled over Europe had we left.

Who could stop them?

There are those who think Yalta was Roosevelt's worst mistake, the ceding of Eastern Europe and East Germany to the Soviets.

Hard to know, but the western allies were exhausted in every sense, in ruins, the US was exhausted, emotionally. Voters wanted the boys to come home. Roosevelt knew that.

Yalta was, in effect, a temporary agreement by Stalin not to advance further. A holding pattern. But not really expected by either side to be the last word.

The Soviet military machine was building rapidly and their authoritarian, nationalist regime had world hegemony ambitions. No concerns about democratic votes.

So we stayed, with a nuclear umbrella and NATO. Rebuilt western Europe with the Marshall Plan.
Did the same with Japan, ending their authoritarian militarism (didn't really succeed with the nationalism part though).

[a fan]

If tactical movements don't matter, why bother deploying US forces to Poland ?

Great question.

Russiaphobia.

[6ftstick]

BTW, it's kind of silly to think that the Soviets would not have rolled over Europe had we left.

Who could stop them?

There are those who think Yalta was Roosevelt's worst mistake, the ceding of Eastern Europe and East Germany to the Soviets.

Hard to know, but the western allies were exhausted in every sense, in ruins, the US was exhausted, emotionally. Voters wanted the boys to come home. Roosevelt knew that.

Yalta was, in effect, a temporary agreement by Stalin not to advance further. A holding pattern. But not really expected by either side to be the last word.

The Soviet military machine was building rapidly and their authoritarian, nationalist regime had world hegemony ambitions. No concerns about democratic votes.

So we stayed, with a nuclear umbrella and NATO. Rebuilt western Europe with the Marshall Plan.
Did the same with Japan, ending their authoritarian militarism (didn't really succeed with the nationalism part though).

And American liberals keep telling our children how awful we are.

[a fan]

Do you really believe this nonsense, 6ft?

Are you not tough enough to handle criticism of some of the lousy stuff we've done as a Nation?

We've done so many great things together, as a nation. But geez, that doesn't mean we're perfect.

What you don't seem to understand is that you're asking these libs to act like Soviets---that no matter what, Mother America is great and flawless. Criticism of our leaders is treason!!


Is that REALLY what you want American citizens to behave like?

As for me, I'm proud we have citizens who call out some of the lousy things we've done under our flag. It's the most American thing you can do: criticize our leaders and actions.

[old salt]

So many NATO strawmen, so little time. Apparently OC's remark about the Soviets being able to roll across Europe applied to the situation at WW-II's end, not after NATO & the Warsaw Pact had been formed (as I interpreted it). It goes without saying -- that threat was the reason for developing NATO.

Nobody's questioning the wisdom in forming NATO. It succeeded as intended. Kennan & I (& other scholars like the book I linked above) question the wisdom of NATO expansion & the failure to anticipate the natural, eventual reaction of the Russians. The borders of Europe were indeed drawn by war & empire, ...none more so than the Russian empire, then the USSR. Their history & geography define their nationalism & paranoia. The west failed to take that into account by extending NATO into their near abroad, then into former Soviet Republics, leaving too few Finland-like buffers.

Kennan was right. The current situation was inevitable.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So many NATO strawmen, so little time. Apparently OC's remark about the Soviets being able to roll across Europe applied to the situation at WW-II's end, not after NATO & the Warsaw Pact had been formed (as I interpreted it). It goes without saying -- that threat was the reason for developing NATO.

Nobody's questioning the wisdom in forming NATO. It succeeded as intended. Kennan & I (& other scholars like the book I linked above) question the wisdom of NATO expansion & the failure to anticipate the natural, eventual reaction of the Russians. The borders of Europe were indeed drawn by war & empire, ...none more so than the Russian empire, then the USSR. Their history & geography define their nationalism & paranoia. The west failed to take that into account by extending NATO into their near abroad, then into former Soviet Republics, leaving too few Finland-like buffers.

Kennan was right. The current situation was inevitable.

How bought dem Middle East borders? It’s inevitable.

[MDlaxfan76]

So many NATO strawmen, so little time. Apparently OC's remark about the Soviets being able to roll across Europe applied to the situation at WW-II's end, not after NATO & the Warsaw Pact had been formed (as I interpreted it). It goes without saying -- that threat was the reason for developing NATO.

Nobody's questioning the wisdom in forming NATO. It succeeded as intended. Kennan & I (& other scholars like the book I linked above) question the wisdom of NATO expansion & the failure to anticipate the natural, eventual reaction of the Russians. The borders of Europe were indeed drawn by war & empire, ...none more so than the Russian empire, then the USSR. Their history & geography define their nationalism & paranoia. The west failed to take that into account by extending NATO into their near abroad, then into former Soviet Republics, leaving too few Finland-like buffers.

Kennan was right. The current situation was inevitable.

Good, we agree, the tanks could have rolled those first few years.

Again, the issue with referencing Kennan was that he actually opposed our policies as implemented by Truman and Eisenhower and beyond. He basically left the diplomatic services in 1950 and became a critic of the very policies for which he'd been a progenitor.

I guess I see the logic that providing an umbrella to former Soviet vassal states was the reason why Russia seeks to reassert its 'empire' as , 'well, maybe'.
Maybe not. Maybe it was inevitable that the Russians would revert to form.

[old salt]

Yes. It was inevitable that Russia would revert to form. That's why we should not have to deploy US tanks to Russia's borders to defend what should have been neutral buffer states (like Finland, Sweden, Austria & Switzerland), rather than Article 5 NATO allies.

Kennan did not oppose NATO during the Cold War. He opposed NATO expansion, after the Cold War.

https://www.cato.org/blog/nato-expansio ... treasonous

https://eastwestaccord.com/flashback-19 ... expansion/

by Thomas Friedman, NY Times

His voice is a bit frail now, but the mind, even at age 94, is as sharp as ever. So when I reached George Kennan by phone to get his reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO expansion it was no surprise to find that the man who was the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union and one of the great American statesmen of the 20th century was ready with an answer.

''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''

''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''

One only wonders what future historians will say. If we are lucky they will say that NATO expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply didn't matter, because the vacuum it was supposed to fill had already been filled, only the Clinton team couldn't see it. They will say that the forces of globalization integrating Europe, coupled with the new arms control agreements, proved to be so powerful that Russia, despite NATO expansion, moved ahead with democratization and Westernization, and was gradually drawn into a loosely unified Europe. If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe.

But there is one thing future historians will surely remark upon, and that is the utter poverty of imagination that characterized U.S. foreign policy in the late 1990's. They will note that one of the seminal events of this century took place between 1989 and 1992 -- the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had the capability, imperial intentions and ideology to truly threaten the entire free world. Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S.

And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders.

Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.

We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age -- one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.

As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.''

[a fan]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: can't have a second Cold War, the Soviets are long gone. All that's left is Russia, which is nowhere near the same thing as the Soviet Union.

Council caution with Russia----yet we are cavalierly toying with a true potential foe in China with Trump's fake and pointless Trade War.

[6ftstick]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: can't have a second Cold War, the Soviets are long gone. All that's left is Russia, which is nowhere near the same thing as the Soviet Union.

Council caution with Russia----yet we are cavalierly toying with a true potential foe in China with Trump's fake and pointless Trade War.

Thats just so silly.

They build an Aircraft carrier with the money netted from the fake trade imbalance.

[a fan]

Who is "they" in your comment? I don't understand your post.

[old salt]

Who is "they" in your comment? I don't understand your post.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/chinas- ... ea-trials/

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) first domestically designed and built aircraft carrier, the Type 002 (CV-17), which has yet to be named, returned from a fourth round of sea trials in the Yellow Sea ...on January 8.

The latest round of sea trials reportedly involved flyover tests and touchdowns on the deck conducted by three Shenyang J-15 multirole fighter jets. The new carrier could be commissioned as early as April 2019. “The vessel has probably completed 80 to 90 percent of the necessary tests, ...it’s possible it can be delivered by the Chinese Navy Day on April 23.”

[a fan]

That makes even less sense. Your tone seems to attempt to rebut my point that China is a far greater foe than Russia if they decide to turn our trade spat into a Cold War.

And you reply with a new aircraft carrier?

I don't get it.

[6ftstick]

That makes even less sense. Your tone seems to attempt to rebut my point that China is a far greater foe than Russia if they decide to turn our trade spat into a Cold War.

And you reply with a new aircraft carrier?

I don't get it.

Your point was that Trumps trade war is fake and pointless. The chinese used the nearly 600 Billion trade surplus to build the carrier.

They've also used the surplus for decades to try and overtake us as the Worlds number 1 economy.

We never contributed billions (Trillions really) to the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

[OCanada]

Trump’s trade war is real. I don’t believe he was saying otherwise. It is a real trade war that is harming this country.

China is the biggest foe in the future and Trump has been an enormous help to them

[Typical Lax Dad]

That makes even less sense. Your tone seems to attempt to rebut my point that China is a far greater foe than Russia if they decide to turn our trade spat into a Cold War.

And you reply with a new aircraft carrier?

I don't get it.

Your point was that Trumps trade war is fake and pointless. The chinese used the nearly 600 Billion trade surplus to build the carrier.

They've also used the surplus for decades to try and overtake us as the Worlds number 1 economy.

We never contributed billions (Trillions really) to the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Did the write a check using the surplus account?