NATO starts biggest ever drill in Poland amid security fears

[inanna]

Source: Associated Press

June 6, 2016

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — NATO is launching its biggest ever exercise in Poland as central and eastern European nations are seeking strong security guarantees among concerns about Russia's assertiveness and actions.

The Anaconda-16 exercise launched Monday in Warsaw will involve some 31,000 troops from Poland, the U.S. and 17 other NATO member nations and from five partner nations.

It is held just weeks before NATO holds a crucial summit in Warsaw expected to decide that significant numbers of NATO troops and equipment will be based in Poland and in the Baltic states. Those countries are particularly concerned about the armed conflict in Ukraine, where Moscow supports separatists.

The exercise runs through June 16 and is to test cooperation between allied commands and troops in responding to military, chemical and cyber threats.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/nato-starts-biggest-ever-drill-poland-amid-security-102501302.html

[Duckhunter935]

1. And Russia

Has been holding much larger snap military drills along the NATO country borders for a couple of years now.

[LS_Editor]

21. Only logical, as U.S. broke its promise not to expand NATO into Eastern Europe.

That expansion has understandably pissed off the Russians, and resulted in very high tensions.

[Duckhunter935]

22. At least we did not invade

And annex parts of sovereign nations

[LS_Editor]

23. No. We just create power vacuums after invading sovereign nations.

And destabilize whole regions.

I can't believe you typed that.

[Duckhunter935]

24. I don't agree with that either

[anigbrowl]

93. Which sovereign nations did the US invade in Eastern Europe?

I'm European so I'm quite interested to hear your theory on this.

[LS_Editor]

99. You just made that theory up. I did not classify a region.

Swell job ignoring the Middle East.

[anigbrowl]

100. Why should we judge Eastern Europe by the standards of what goes on in the Middle East?

Your argument makes no sense, and overlooks the fact that Russia cheerfully engages in such machinations.

[LS_Editor]

104. The U.S. wants a mulligan on the Middle East and its actions in Iraq?

Your argument is inane. My argument is the United States has invaded and occupied sovereign countries without valid cause - we have.

Your retort is "Iraq doesn't count."

Right...

[tabasco]

25. Why should the Russians have the authority to tell Eastern European countries

what treaties and alliances they ratify and approve? If the Russians were good neighbors, those countries would gladly join an alliance with them. But the Russians have not been good neighbors. Stalin cravenly signed a treaty with the Nazis and annexed half of Poland.

Following WWII, Russia continued its aggression and tried to dominate the entire continent. Only the Marshall Plan and alliances like NATO allowed Western European nations to remain independent. Only after a complete meltdown of the Soviet Union were many nations able to regain their independence.

History is relevant. Yes, the U.S., under a corrupt regime, destabilized parts of the Middle East. I'm not sure what that has to do with Europe.

[Xolodno]

33. It's not in the US interest...

...to have Russia as a good "neighbor", otherwise they have the potential of being a significant economic power house and could dominate European influence. Keeping up the prospects of an adversarial relationship and playing to Russia's paranoia of an aggressive west (a paranoia well justified sadly) does serve our interest.

The fact that Yeltsin's request to join NATO and Putin's friendly gestures toward joining NATO were ignored, only made the Russians suspicious. Of course, this is often rebuffed that Russia needs to apply for membership, something they haven't done. But its a bullshit reason as NATO regularly invites nations to join and NATO has never invited Russia to join.

[braddy]

40. LOL, NATO was created and exists, to protect us all from Russia. Russia has no place inside it.

[Xolodno]

48. NATO was created in response to the Soviet Union.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's influence, power, etc. was a joke for almost 20 years. There really wasn't a reason to keep NATO. But it was kept up and expanded east ward.

And your callous remark shows just how shallow your thinking is. A Russia in NATO would have severely hindered them in any aspirations of conquest. We blew a great opportunity.

[braddy]

49. The Russians enslaved empire and lost it, and want it back, NATO is still relevant and needed.

We can't have a defense against Russia, if Russia is inside of NATO.

Russia needs to give up it's list for empire and conquering Europe.

KGB Lt. Colonel Putin was a part of that Soviet Union, and then head of the KGB's replacement agency, the FSB, and is now the 'president for life' of Russia.

[Xolodno]

52. Well, its obvious.

For you, its a hatred.

NATO and Russia negotiate and come to an understanding? You don't want that. You rather have another cold war. I'm done, its obviously impossible to have a civil discussion with you.

[braddy]

54. How can something that isn't true, be "obvious" to you?

I want Russia to quit wanting to enslave people, and to learn to live in peace with their European neighbors and NATO.

NATO went to sleep for years thinking that Russia was going to become civilized, and is now having to play catch up to Russia's aggression.

[Xolodno]

57. And yet...you are the one who laughed off inclusion of Russia into NATO.

Again, a blown missed opportunity. Russia's inclusion would have hamstrung it and locked all territorial disputes for good. Otherwise, they would win the distinction of being kicked out of NATO, a major blow in the world stage.

Enslave? Who has Russia "enslaved" recently? Their last war was in Georgia, when Georgia started shelling Russian separatist villages. Oh and the separatists happened shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union...when it was no where near at the capability it is today.

Ukraine? Crimea belongs to the Tatars. Plain and simple. After that, its a stretch to say it even belonged to Ukraine in the first place.

And granted the vote to join Russia may have been rigged. But even without that, its likely they would have voted the same.

Eastern Ukraine is Russian, nothing you can do about that. But Ukraine isn't viable as a nation with out it. And we facilitated the overthrow of a corrupt President for....another corrupt President. Choice is really down to, allow them significant autonomy or let them join Russia and accept that Ukraine will be an agricultural nation without much significance (hell, I'd argue some of the land also belongs to Poland)

Oh an NATO never went to sleep. It expanded and our MIC continued to develop and sell arms to NATO nations. You are projecting a false narrative in order to massage your "world view". I'm pointing out the reality.

[braddy]

59. What nation do you live in? You are far more dedicated to Russian military goals it seems than just

mere opinions about our NATO alliance and defense interests.

[Xolodno]

62. Again, do you have a seat at the Kremlin?

Russia clearly stated they would intervene in both Georgia and Ukraine. It should have never been a surprise. Much like the Monroe Doctrine here.

And yes, I'm of the opinion when Russia stated it wanted to join NATO, we should have obliged them.

I"m arguing for direct negotiation and come to an understanding with Russia in regards of their fears, founded or unfounded (given we have Trump as a potential president, I can't say anything is unfounded). And work from there. If they truly wanted an "empire" again, the request by Belarus to become part of Russia again would not have been rebuffed.

You on the other hand, have a cold war mentality and that the only good Russia is a dead Russia. This nation survived the Mongol Hordes, Napoleon and Hitler, there is no killing it. And yes, I'm of the opinion Russia's military actions as of late are of desperation and fear and if we negotiate, can be alleviated. But instead, you are of the opinion to continue to act as an aggressor.

[braddy]

63. You are rambling more and more and repeating yourself. What country do you live in?

[Xolodno]

65. Any you are just lashing out because...

...I called you on your bullshit.

[braddy]

67. You haven't called anything, you just keep evading and rambling, and making up stuff.

[Xolodno]

69. No, I've supported my statements

But you are the one who began the name calling and one liners....as you couldn't defend your own inconsistencies. Anyway, I'm done. Opening a bottle of wine and relaxing for the night. Your responses afterwards will be ignored.

[braddy]

71. No, on a thread about Poland having a NATO exercise, you drifted off into ramblings, falsehoods, and

absurdities.

The mystery is why you are so devoted to Putin's military goals of empire, and so passionately against our own NATO's concerns.

[Ghost Dog]

81. *Nb. "Monroe Doctrine"

The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding domination of the Americas in 1823. It stated that further efforts byEuropean nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.[1] At the same time, the doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued in 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gainingindependence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

[yurbud]

103. Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

We claimed the whole hemisphere as our buffer zone and destabilized and even invaded countries to enforce it.

As recently as right now, we still destabilize countries and back coups in Latin America if they stray too far from the bankers' diktats and that's without the excuse of them cozying up to a hostile superpower.

And we impose our will on the Middle East, which is a hell of a lot closer to Russia's backyard than ours.

[braddy]

27. We never made such a promise. Show us that treaty.

[Xolodno]

34. It was never a treaty.

But rather a verbal assurance given to then Secretary General to Mikail Gorbachev. It could never be a treaty due to:

1. It would have made Gorbachev look weak at home and could have consequences, turns out it may have, when Gorbachev was removed briefly during a coup.

2. This is NATO and members of NATO would have to agree and sign the treaty and plenty of them did not want to look like they were abandoning eastern Europe.

Plus, the idea even half of Warsaw Pact nations joining NATO, much less former Soviet Republics which were dominated for centuries under the Tsar and recognized as being part of Russia, was unthinkable. But GWB aggressively pushed NATO expansion despite "friendly" relations with Putin. To note, Putin's first term was to get Russia on solid economic footing and increase relations with the rest of Europe. His military investment really didn't happen ironically until GWB started having NATO actively recruit eastward.

However, there was a verbal assurance. But with that said, there is a strong media, propaganda, internet scrub, etc. to say it never happened and there was no assurance given despite being well and openly known.

Which should come as no surprise as we reneged SALT II and one of the START treaties. We even balked at banning all nuclear weapons when Gorbachev offered to do so.

[braddy]

35. Exactly, there never was such an agreement, I have looked it up in the past when

confronting people making your false claim, it is fake.

It is Russian propaganda, you even admit it is fake because you say that NATO would not have agreed to it, There is no such NATO promise or agreement.

It was unthinkable that the former enslaved nations of the Russian empire would NOT want to join NATO, and they freely did, which is their right.

[Xolodno]

39. To say the US didn't give any assurances is fake.

It's US propaganda saying that it never happened. But I have to chuckle a bit, often its stated "the US never gave Russia any assurances they would not expand beyond Germany". Well of course they didn't, they gave those to the last leader of the Soviet Union.

[braddy]

41. No, it isn't fake, and no single member of NATO can issue such a treaty,

you are blowing smoke.

There never was such a NATO agreement as you claim.

[Xolodno]

45. You are misrepresenting what I stated in the attempt to propogate a lie.

Did I ever say it was a Treaty? No.

Did I ever say it was an agreement with NATO? No.

I did state there was verbal assurances from the USA to the then Soviet Union. It happened, get over it. But does that provide moral justification for the military take over of Crimea and supporting separatist in eastern Ukraine? No. If anything, I argue that Crimea belongs to the Tatars and Istanbul should go back to the Greeks. And in a perfect world, to hell with borders. But that isn't the reality we live in.

For whatever reason, you think the moral authority rests on whether or not this assurance was given. It doesn't. The Russians should have no expectation for us to honor such an agreement (given our track record), likewise, we should have no expectation of the Russians honoring a memo. Such agreements are only worth the feasibility of enforcement. And in both cases, zero.

[braddy]

47. Russia is not operating on something that never existed, your mythical secret promise of a single

NATO nation that all NATO nations would treat as an agreement and obey.

NATO is doing the bare minimum to protect it's members from Putin and so far that hesitancy and timidness only emboldens the KGB/FSB man to threaten Europe more and more.

Even Sweden and Finland are having to consider joining NATO, for safety from the madman, not only does he threaten with invasions and nuclear annihilation, and military confrontations in flybys and submarine threats, in spite of his economy, he is creating 3 new Army Divisions and moving them towards NATO.

[Xolodno]

50. Wow. Did you ever come unglued.

I never stated "NATO nation". Nor did I ever implicate one. Who knows, maybe you want one.

Sweden and Finland are considering joining NATO not because of Russia alone. Hell, they went 70+ years of a much superior military on their borders (and violated their territorial areas much more often) and...surprise...no Soviet Invasion and take down. Russia today would have a much harder time doing so.

However, joining NATO often accompanies European free trade agreements, which is what I suspect they are angling for.

[braddy]

53. You keep describing a non existent agreement with a single NATO nation, the U.S. as being what

Russia has been operating on as a NATO promise.

Sweden and Finland are most definitely looking at joining NATO in the face of growing threats made at them by Putin.

Sergei Markov "Finland should think of the consequences, if it ponders joining NATO. It must ask could joining start World War III."

"Tatarintsev made it clear that these threats come directly from Russian President Vladimir Putin. The ambassador specifically warned that "Putin [himself] pointed out that there will be consequences," if Sweden or Finland try to join NATO. What kind of consequences are the Russians threatening? According to Tatarintsev, Russia's response will be "of the military kind."

[Xolodno]

55. I never indicated Russia was operating on the US given assurance of not expanding NATO.

Its obvious they weren't as many former Warsaw PACT Nations joined NATO and nothing happened. Russia knew it was powerless to stop it and had no way to influence any outcome. In fact, Putin clearly stated, Ukraine and Georgia were red lines, and given vague territorial issues, oppression of the Russian populace in Georgia and western Ukraine's hatred of eastern Ukraine, I can see why. And NATO was likely to turn a blind eye to any human rights violations (See Turkey for examples), granted, Russia isn't the epitome of human rights and far from it (but many nations consider us not having universal health care a human right violation).

Oh and the threats against Finland and Sweden, those came AFTER they announced they were considering joining NATO. The reasons are economic, you can scream all day till you are blue in the face, but, doesn't make it untrue. I wouldn't be surprised in a decade they ask to join the EU (given you have the economic EU vs. Russian led Eurasian Economic Union, they basically indicated they will join the EU). And they are empty threats, Sweden could actually hold off a Russian invasion. Russia's military is more advanced, mobile, and can take down a more crude military, etc. but like the Soviet Union, designed primarily to repel an invasion than to commit to one. Nor is it anywhere near to size of it was under the Soviet Union. Unlike us here, they seem to know when they have enough "military".

[braddy]

56. You seem to be simply in support of Russia's military goals, period. You even defend them

threatening Sweden and Finland.

You are absurd to say that Sweden could single handily handle Russia if Russia invaded.

[Xolodno]

60. I never stated such a thing.

As for their military goals? Do you have a seat in the Kremlin? I can assure you I don't know what their military goals are. I've only been pointing out the obvious in how they perceive security issues and have taken action to eliminate those issues (much like we do), only in the past, they didn't have the capability to do so. Now they do. It's "news" because our ability to influence in Europe has been blocked.

Nor am I defending Russia, again, pointing out the obvious. They are going to do what is in their own self best interest much like we do. Again I chuckle, too many think they want full control over Ukraine, Georgia, etc. Why on earth would they want that? Then they have to deal with the problems of a populace that resents them, a lesson they learned well under the Soviet Union. Russia has repeatedly stated they worried about the Russian populace in Georgia and Ukraine being oppressed (in Georgia it was and looked like it was about to happen in Ukraine). And have intervened as such. Not saying its right or unfounded, but, you can't expect them not to act.

And yes, Sweden could hold off a Russian invasion, they've only been preparing for it...oh give or take a few centuries? And Russia isn't likely to use nukes as the fallout will hit them to.

Your seeing this as Russian Imperialism, like Peter the Great was suddenly in charge again. I'm looking at this in reverse, they see imperialism from the west.

[braddy]

61. None of that rambling post made any sense, especially since the topic is NATO

doing a NATO military exercise in NATO nation Poland.

Sweden's tiny military could not stop a Russian invasion, the second mightiest military on earth.

What country do you live in?

[Xolodno]

64. Of course it doesn't, you only see things from terms of "propoganda".

By the way, Sweden used to have military conscription until 2010. The conscription was in response to its powerful neighbor the Soviet Union.

Given that they gave that up and haven't re-instituted it says what about you claim for joining NATO?

Oh and I live in the 7th (or is it 8th?) largest economy in the world, know as California.

[braddy]

66. You can't change the fact that Sweden is being forced to up it's defenses and consider NATO

membership to defend itself against Russia, even though you claim that Sweden can defeat Russia in a war.

By the way, you live in the united States.

[Xolodno]

68. Again, I didn't say that.

I stated they could repel an invasion from Russia. Not hard to see given Russia's military has been primarily designed for defense. Aggression with an equal would not bode well for them. And given Sweden's army has always been about defense as well, its a no brainier.

And Sweden hasn't technically up'd its defenses. As you continue to ignore, they ended conscription in 2010 and haven't reintroduced it. They still develop their military tech, be stupid not to. But its no way indicative of an "elevated concern". Plus being part of NORDEFCO also allows them another layer of protection....guessing you never heard about that. Russia has no dog in a Nordic fight, thier last gambit with Finland ended terribley, and given their nuetrality, albeit biased to the west, were content.

[braddy]

70. LOL, yes, you said that Sweden alone could defeat a Russian invasion of war, which is ridiculous.

If Russia is that weak then no one has much to worry about, even though experts call it the second most powerful military on earth.

[Duckhunter935]

32. And Russia broke the Budapest memorandum

They were a signatory to. Not to mention breaking international law by sinking one of there ships and blockading the Ukrainian navy ships in port so they could be stormed and seized.

[Odin2005]

84. Eastern Europe wanted in because they are scared of the Russians.

[scscholar]

26. Which is why deciding to taunt and belittle them is so stupid

We shouldn't be trying to get them to do something stupid. We're just poking sticks at the bear.

[Ghost Dog]

2. Q: Who are the "separatists" in Poland?

In the Baltic States?

In Finland for that matter?

[uhnope]

5. re-read

Those countries are particularly concerned about the armed conflict in Ukraine, where Moscow supports separatists.

[Ghost Dog]

7. Yes. Why should other countries be concerned

about "separatism" in Ukraine, if there is no such in those countries?

[hack89]

8. The Baltics have large Russian populations

the fear is that Russia would use them as proxies like they are doing in Ukraine.

[Ghost Dog]

10. I'm aware of the Russian-speakers in the Baltic countries,

but not of any significant separatist movement there.

What possible motive could Russia have to intervene militarily there? Or in Poland?

[hack89]

11. Russia wants to rebuild their empire

they did not willingly give the Baltics and Eastern Europe their independence.

There is no home grown independence movement in the Baltics - that doesn't mean that Russia will not try to create one.

[Ghost Dog]

13. I think Russia would like to economically and socially develop

the federated territories it already occupies, defend its borders, and do useful business with neighbors and the rest of the world.

I think the Imperialist urge is located elsewhere, these days.

[hack89]

17. Ukraine and Crimea says otherwise. nt

[Ghost Dog]

18. You are aware that referenda were held

in Crimea and Donbass, with large majorities voting against new (and old) policies of the Kiev "government"?

[hack89]

19. After Russia destabilized those regions and forcefully ejected the legitimate government.

On 22–23 February, Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an all-night meeting with security services chiefs to discuss extrication of the deposed Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, and at the end of that meeting Putin had remarked that "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia."[34] On 23 February pro-Russian demonstrations were held in the Crimean city of Sevastopol. On 27 February masked pro-Russian troops without insignia[2] took over the Supreme Council of Crimea,[35][36] and captured strategic sites across Crimea, which led to the installation of the pro-Russian Aksyonov government in Crimea and the declaration of Crimea's independence.[37][38]

I assume you think this is perfectly legitimate.

[Xolodno]

36. Crimea being part of Ukraine is a bit of a stretch.

It was an administrative transfer by Nikita Khrushchev by directive. There was no actual signed treaty declaring Crimea as part of Ukraine. And in fact, Ukraine's borders under its last gambit of independence are even smaller than of today.

If anything, the territorial claim of Crimea (and a significant chunk north of that) belongs to the Tatars. But that's a pipe dream, due to Islamophobia, there is no way Europe will suffer an Islamic nation on its door step.

[hack89]

37. That still does not justify a military take over by Russia, now does it? nt

[Xolodno]

42. A military, supported coups, etc. are never justified...including those done by us.

And quite frankly, how the borders of Russia were handled after the collapse of the Soviet Union (Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, etc.) are a complete hot mess. Which is why we have the problems today.

[hack89]

44. Based on Russia's recent behavior, I would say the Baltics and Poland have legitimate concerns.

it makes perfect sense to strengthen their ties with NATO - what other choice do they have?

[Xolodno]

46. Well of course they should strengthen their ties with NATO. It would be foolish not to. But....

But an escalation on our side will result an escalation on theirs. And the deadly spiral begins. And hell, you have others here *cough*uhnope*cough* who actively propagate essentially another cold war or worse, a hot one.

That's what many don't see here.

It would be better to engage with the Russians and address their concerns, whether they are legitimate are not. Hell, even Ronold Reagan understood that. Instead, the knee jerk reaction is "Putin wants to rebuild the Russian Empire!!!" based on one comment he made.

[uhnope]

102. lol. your reply is right out of Kremlin talking points

"The other side wants war, Putin just wants peace" is literally on the list of summarized Russian propaganda made by those fighting it in Europe, but you get some credit for polishing those turds really well when you post them on DU.

[uhnope]

9. Because these countries also have borders with Russia

and they are concerned about Putin doing something similar in their countries--stirring up "separatists" (which are really just Russians who have crossed the border to wage war).
Remember that Putin talks about "ethnic Russians" in other countries and how they need his protection--like he "protected" them in Ukraine by invading, occupying and annexing a huge chunk of the country, where war is still raging. And of course all the bordering countries have some "ethnic Russians" that Putin could choose to protect by invading.

[Ghost Dog]

12. I see. But why would Russia want to "stir up"

anything like that? With what motivation?

The expansion of NATO with now weapons and troop positioning right up to Russia's border, and the demonising discourse emitted by the US State Department and media are not more likely fundamental causes of rising tensions along that frontier, then?

[uhnope]

14. The same motivation that Putin had in invading, occupying, and annexing

those parts of Ukraine.

No, there is no demonizing discourse about Russia--that is just another of the Kremlin's propaganda points. Actually, the world and Europe have been lame and tolerant of his war-making, propagandizing and saber-rattling so far.

The rising tensions are caused by Putin invading parts of Europe, funding RW extremist political parties in Europe, swamping Europe with divisive propaganda and lies, and creating a totalitarian dictatorship at home that includes legal persecution of, along with sub-rosa death squads for, gays, journalists, human rights activists etc.

[Ghost Dog]

16. I see. Thank you. n/t

[Xolodno]

38. His reasoning is flawed, like usual.

Putin had repeatedly stated the expansion of NATO into Ukraine and Georgia was a red line. We ignored it and Putin delivered on his promise.

[uhnope]

101. lol versus your Kafkaesque/Orwellian "reasoning" that always ended up with Hail Putin

[braddy]

28. It is Russia moving up to NATO borders, NATO is positioning within NATO itself.

NATO is not trying to conquer nations on Russia's borders, as Russia is doing to NATO.

[happyslug]

72. So NATO's job is to protect countries who deny the right to vote to some of its "residents".

I can NOT call them Citizens for Latvia and Estonia refuses to grant them citizenship, even through they and their parents were born in Latvia and Estonia. Both countries have a rule, unless you can trace your family back to before 1939 as living in Latvia or Estonia, you are NOT a citizen. This affects about 1/4 of the population in both countries AND if they had the right to vote, the present government of both countries would lose their control of both countries (about a 1/3 of the people who can vote what to extend the right to vote to those "non-citizens&quot .

At the present time about 11 % of the population of Latvia are "Non-Citizens (Mostly Russian speakers and then mostly in the larger cities). Another approximately 14% of the population either have Russian Citizenship *Russian has a policy if you were born in the Soviet Union you can become a Russian Citizenship by simply signing up to be a Citizen) or citizenship in another country. Most of these Russian Citizens living in Latvia, became Russian Citizens for it was easier then becoming a Latvian "Citizen". These Russians are tolerated in Latvia for they tend to be the people who operate the machinery, both mechanical and human, that keeps the government and country operating (The engineers, mechanics, Bureaucrats etc who keeps urban societies running).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizens_(Latvia)

In Estonia, 7.4% of the population have NO Citizenship and 8.4% have foreign (mostly Russian) citizenship (Russia will give anyone who had lived in the Soviet Union or any of the Soviet Union's successor States automatic Citizenship, thus it is easier to get Russian Citizenship in both Estonia and Latvia then it is to get Estonia or Latvian Citizenship, even of you were born in either country).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Russians_in_post-Soviet_states

In Simple terms about 25% of both Latvia and Estonia are of Russian Nationality (More then half have Citizenship,but just under half do NOT), another 10% are of other Slavic groups (Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles, etc) whose main language is Russian for they deal with the Russian urban population on a daily basis. These are all concentrated in the larger cities, the rural areas are overwhelmingly either Estonian or Latvian. Given that any support have to go through those major cities it is a concern.

The other Baltic State, Lithuania, avoided the above mess, by declaring anyone living in Lithuania was a citizen from the day the Soviet Union broke up (and one of the reasons you have NOT heard of Lithuania in the present mess).

Poland is being run by a right wing group that is as nationalistic as the present rulers of Estonia and Latvia, thus Poland's support for this hostility to Russia (Something Lech Welsea and two other former Presidents of Poland have come out against).

https://www.rt.com/news/345447-poland-anti-government-march/

More on the present Party running Poland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Justice

[braddy]

73. NATO is an alliance to protect each other from Russia.

[happyslug]

74. So we are to protect a country that DENY the right to vote from a country that permits such votes?

You may not like Russia, but since the fall of the Soviet Union it has had election where anyone could vote, something Latvia and Estonia can NOT claim. Furthermore, the only time Russia has attacked any of the Baltic Countries is when they were allied with a hostile power. That was the case in 1940 when Stalin moved in (Estonia and Latvia both allied with Hitler even as Hitler was selling them to Stalin), and the case in the 1700s when Sweden use those Baltic Nations to attack Russia and in the 1300-1400 when the Teutonic Knights used them to attack Russia (These countries were also the base from where the Vikings starting in the 800s to move into Russia).

When Germany was defeated in 1918, Lenin left the Baltic Countries become free, for with a defeated and almost destroyed Germany, there were NOT a threat to Russia. The same thing happened in the 1990s, it was NOT NATO that kept those countries from being taken over by Russia after they had gain their independence, but that Russia did not see them as a threat for they were allied with no one.

That is the problem of the Baltic nations to Russia, they are the ideal bases to use to attack Russia. At least one study pointed out you needed a Armor CORP (100,000 men) to properly defend the Baltics from any Russian attack, and that much military power means, it could also take St Petersburg in 24 hours. That RAND study was reported on DU here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141454935

Thus to have enough force to STOP a Russian invasion of the Baltics, means to also have the force to take St Petersburgh and from St Petersburgh threaten Moscow. It is for THAT reason Moscow does NOT want the Baltics in NATO, it is a direct threat to Russia. Estonia and Latvia without an alliance with a major power are NOT a threat to Russia and thus Russia has left them alone when that was the situation, but that has NOT always been the case in the past and Russia has to plan to protect itself from invasion.

Please note, the RAND report indicated that the Russians, if they wanted the Baltics, could take the Baltics within 72 hours (and generally within 24 hours, 72 hours was the worse case study of a Russian attack). Shifting these troops to the Baltics does NOTHING but provoke Russia, it would be like the Russians moving Nuclear Missiles to Cuba (remember that debacle? the Soviet Union put those missiles to help defend Cuba from a US attack, the the US called those missiles a THREAT to the US and the US blockaded Cuba over it).

My point is the Baltics are to far from the rest of NATO and to close to Russia for the US to be in any form of alliance with them UNLESS the US wants to attack Russia. I oppose such an attack thus I oppose US and NATO troops in the Baltics for I know what such troops have been used in the past when it comes to Russia and the Baltics and so does Russia.

[braddy]

75. NATO is the alliance, and NATO has no intention of surrendering to Russia, and that goes for the

NATO nations that are most vulnerable, at one time that was West Germany, NATO believes that it can conduct a sufficient defense against Russian aggression to protect all of NATO.

Stationing NATO troops within NATO nations is not aggression, and there is no need to surrender in advance to Russia, as you suggest for some reason.

Russia is conducting invasions, but no one has any intention of invading Russia.

NATO is still clearly needed.

[uhnope]

3. Godspeed. nt

[yourpaljoey]

4. Real message: US... send money... lots of green backs... now

[Onlaketime]

6. "Security fears" is establishment propaganda speak for

robbing the American tax payer of our hard earned taxes for the military industrial complex. This is what Eisenhower warned us about. The Neocons financed the coup in Ukraine and are pushing right up to Russia's border in a dangerous provocation.

They have supported fascist groups in Ukraine that have killed over 10,000 ethnic Russian civilians. Those neo-Nazi groups have recently been exposed by the UN Human Rights Council and Amnesty International as committing atrocities against civilians.

The US government is also supporting terrorist groups in Syria and Libya as well as the number one terrorist supporting regime, Saudi Arabia.

Edward Snowdon revealed to the American people how his firm Booze, Allen, Hamilton was using information gleaned from corporate spying to place bets on the stock market through the Carlyle Group (AEI), all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's cronies. They are making billions on these MIC contracts and insider information while selling massive New Cold War propaganda to the American people.


We have seen the enemy......and he is us. It is not foreign this time around....it is domestic.


Any true American patriot who posts what I just posted can expect to be red baited in a Joe McCarthy manner and called a Putin Troll. That is how the establishment continues to steal from the American taxpayer. I recommend people research the MIC propaganda company called Ntrepid who have the MIC contract to supply the trolls. Semper Fi.

[Ghost Dog]

15. Thank you. I have observed the same. n/t

[uhnope]

20. sorry, but you are posting falsehoods

the whole Ntrepid thing... link? (and not to Alex Jones or Glogal Research or RT, please...)

Actually, Ntrepid is not a domestic program, so you are sorely misinformed. see http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=348301

you think it's an MIC plot that our allies are begging us for more protection from the fascist invader Putin on their border? that's a pitiful POV

[braddy]

29. NATO is not invading anyone up Russia's borders, it is Russia invading to NATO's borders.

Tell Putin to quit trying to reconquer free Europe.

[MattSh]

30. ...

[braddy]

31. I guess you agree that invading Ukraine is conquering right up to NATO borders, whereas NATO

is firmly within their own defensive alliance.

[happyslug]

76. What NATO member has Russia invaded????

Now, the Crimean was taken by the Russians, but the Ukraine is still between Russian and those troops AND THE UKRAINE IS NOT IN NATO. The revolt in the Eastern Ukraine has been supported by Russia, but again it is in the EASTERN UKRAINE, Poland is the nearest NATO country and it borders WESTERN UKRAINE. Thus you have the WHOLE UKRAINE between Russia and NATO in the area where Russian troops have been active.

On the other hand, it us NATO who is sending troops to the Baltics, all of which border Russia. Thus the only movement of troops have been from Western Europe to the Russian Border NOT from inside Russia to those same borders.

Your logic escapes me, the US sends troops to the border of Russia but that is NOT moving "anyone up to Russia's borders" while the only ACCUSATION OF THE movement of Russia troops has been to the Eastern Ukraine, which is NOT a member of NATO and NO RUSSIAN troops have been accused of being west of Kharkov let alone Kiev, thus even if Russian Troops are in the Eastern Ukraine that is still NOT near any border of any NATO country.

Remember the Ukraine is NOT in NATO. Poland is the nearest NATO member and it is the opposite of the Ukraine from where the fighting is occurring. Thus no movement of any Russian forces to the border of any NATO Country. NATO has even acknowledged that the Russians have NOT even moved their troops from their positions around St Petersburgh. NATO does said Russia has flown by their borders, but NATO does that to Russia all of the time.

As to reconquering Europe, Russia best weapon to do so is its Oil and Natural Gas Reserves. Russia sells its natural gas and oil to Europe and China and that makes them both dependent on Russia (and one of the reason many of our NATO allies want to end this provocations of Russia, but no one is listening in France or Germany, who will will need to support any "Defense" of the Baltics). Thus Putin does NOT need take Europe by force, he is the dealer of what Europe is addicted to and sooner or later all addicts come to think of their dealers as their best friend.

Saudi Arabia is the only real threat to Russia's supply of oil to Europe. US Fracking of oil and Natural Gas had been expected to peak out on 2017, but the drop in oil and natural gas prices have stop drilling early and Russia and Saudi Arabia has picked up the slack.

In many ways, oil and Natural Gas may be why the US are sending these troops to the Baltics, to force Putin do spend money on defense, that would be better spent on expanding Russia's natural gas production (Russia has admitted it expects its oil production to decline over the next several decades but expect to be in the top three oil producers for several decades). Natural Gas is Russia's most important weapon and with the fracking bust in the US, it will remain Russia's most important weapon for it will force Europe to come to Russia NOT Russia to Europe. Thus Putin will position Russia to be like the US was in WWII, the biggest oil producers to a post war Europe that became more and more addicted to oil. That is how the US controlled and dominated NATO (and how the US defeated Hitler). Russia, even during WWII was already the #2 oil producer (and one of the reason the US did not attack Russia in 1945, Russia had the oil to defend itself, unlike Hitler whose attack on Russia cut him off from his oil supplies, which prior to the invasion of Russia was from Russia. The subsequent lack of oil was the primary reason Hitler lost WWII.

Putin will NOT attack NATO, he does not have to, for Russia is the supplier of what Europe is addicted to and as long as that is the case, Russia will be in position to demand from Europe what Europe wants.

[braddy]

77. Please don't waste my time making up things for me, I neve mentioned that they had invaded a NATO

country.

NATO is only moving within NATO, it is Russia that is trying to take Ukraine through warfare, and Ukraine is on NATO's border.

Russia is expanding through their old empire building of conquer and own, why you support them and attack NATO and our defensive interests is a mystery, although there have always been people like you doing just that.

[happyslug]

79. I foresee War if the NATO keeps up its present polices.

No Russian ruler can tolerate a large military force in the Baltics, that has been the case for over 1000 years. The best that we can do for the Baltics is to keep NATO forces out of those areas for any force in the Baltics large enough to defeat any Russia invasion is also large enough to invade Russia. Thus by putting the forces needed to defend the Baltics in the Baltics, you are saying to Russia Invade or we will invade you first. At that point any ruler of Russia will have to attack. NATO will be forcing Russia to do so, for Russia would be otherwise subject to a massive invasion. That you do NOT think NATO will invade Russia under those condition is unimportant, that is how any ruler of Russia will look at the situation. You do NOT kick a sleeping dog and that is what you are doing by putting NATO forces in the Baltics.

If you want peace, you have to be willing to pay the price and that price is drawing lines you can defend and that does NOT include the Baltics. If Russia wants the Baltics, we have to be willing to accept that fact. Russia can take the Baltics in 72 hours and they is nothing NATO can do about it except full scale nuclear war.

The US is a naval power NOT a European land power and US Naval Power is at its weakest East of the Denmark Straits and north of the Dardanelles. IT is for that reason Generals have constantly advised against attacking Russia OR EVEN PUTTING TROOPS IN A POSITION WHERE THEY COULD ATTACK RUSSIA. East of the Denmark Straits and north of the Dardanelles most of the Advantages the US has over Russia quickly disappears, so you end up in a war which you can not win and can not afford to withdraw from. The best way to handle that problem is draw the US defense lines where our Naval Superiority can be used and that is Germany and the North Sea NOT that overground bath tub know as the Baltic sea. The whole area is NOT worth defending, if Russia wants it, leave Russia have it. The reason the Soviet Union Collapsed was it was over extended and had to withdraw from Poland and the rest of Central Europe, and Putin knows this. Thus Putin has no real interest in bankrupting Russia like the Soviet Union went Bankrupt and for that reason Russia has not and will not invade Central Europe, Russia can NOT afford to hold it. Thus why risk nuclear war over something Russia will have to give up if Russia ever does take it?

I am sorry, there is nothing East of Germany that is high enough on US priority lists for the US to risk nuclear war over, it is Russia's sphere of influence.

[braddy]

80. You seem confused, it is NATO who is in charge of their own defense, and you are wrong to call

for them to surrender NATO nations to Putin.

Letting Russia defeat NATO and start carving countries out of it, is a path to war.

It took a lot for us to defeat their empire and free their enslaved 100s millions of Europeans, we do not want to see that evil again.

[CanadaexPat]

83. I think the drop in oil prices was engineered

to deny our 'enemies' - Russia, Iran, Venezuela - of their main economic support. Pressuring Russia is meant to force Russia to spend more on military, putting further pressure on their economy; supporting a bloody stalemate in Syria does the same to Iran. In a few more years those regimes will all topple and the West will either allow them to fall to pieces or make a deal where they allow some sort of subsistence economy in return for for a withdrawal from international affairs by those nations.

[geek tragedy]

51. because the Poles have no reason based on their history to fear Russia nt

[happyslug]

78. Russia left Poland voluntary, something that we can not said of the Germans

Remember Gorbachev pulled Soviet Troops out of East Germany and Poland, and permitted both countries to break up the Warsaw pact. Germany can NOT make that claim, it was driven out by the Russians in 1955-1945 and by the Poles themselves in 1918. It is a lot harder to attack Russia from Poland for the Pinsk marshes are in the way, but it has been done (during the time of troubles in the 1500s a Polish Army did a winter march to Moscow but then left for it was to small to hold Moscow from the locals).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinsk_Marshes

The Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians and Russians have a complicated history, for where one country begins and the next one ends is undefinable. Each ethnic group are centered on a different waterway, the Poles the Vistula, the Belorussians, the Pinsk Marshes, the Ukrainians the Dnieper River and Russians the Volga. In between those rivers is the flat terrain of the Steppes. These are all farming people, thus they worked the land and on the edges intermixed and overlapped. Thus till the Tsars under Catherine adopted a policy of ethnic and religious toleration, the fighting was intense. With the adoption of toleration, the Tsars and later the Communists took over all four groups, till the break up of the Soviet Union made all four groups independent of each other.

As I was saying, the problem is where one group of people end and the next begin is often undefined. Thus while the Volga is clearly the river of Russia, the Don flow within 50 miles of it and the Russians have always treated the Don as part of Russia (and part of the drainage system of the Don flows from the Ukraine). Thus a massive overlap of Russians and the Ukrainians in the area. This is also the area where the fighting is occurring, for many people in that part of the Ukraine have closer trade relations with Russia then with the rest of the Ukraine.

Poland is a little bit more defined as to its borders, but even Poland's eastern border overlaps with Belorussians and Ukrainians (Western Poland had a similar overlap of Poles and Germans till Stalin solved that problem by removing all of the Germans from Western and Northern Poland).

This is the problem with that part of Europe, all of the countries have to agree on where the line between them should be, but with the understanding that it is a line drawn in the dirt that the people working the land will ignore UNTIL it comes to who owns what land, then all hell breaks loose till another compromise border is agreed upon.

In the Eastern Ukraine, the coal mines and industrial areas all have heavy Russian Speaking areas. In the Western Ukraine you have the highest percentage of Ukrainians. Along the Dnieper River (which is what Kiev is on) is actually the lowest population area of the Ukraine and this is one of the problem with the Ukraine, it is drawn in at least two different direction by its population centers, which are on opposite side of the country. IT is for that reason Putin suggested to federate the Ukraine, for federation resolves the issue of who rules where while keeping the Ukraine intact. The problem is the present Government of the Ukraine is to weak to adopt such a plan and instead says it wants to retake the Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea, while it is clear the Ukraine has no ability to do either.

Putin has suggested a compromise that is workable, but it has been rejected by everyone in power in Kiev. The Eastern Ukraine are also to weak to impose it on the Ukraine, so the problem with fester till a federation is adopted.

Back to Poland, you have a similar problem on the Poles Eastern Borders, but this time between Poles and Belorussians and Ukrainians. The present borders were drawn by Stalin for his purposes and Stalin thought nothing of dividing ethnic groups, mostly to keep them attacking each other. The Poles know the nearest Russia Troops are clear across Belarus and the Ukraine, but it is good politics to say they are defending Poland from Russia. Russia is NOT in a position to attack Poland, but it is a good way to get people to support you (the present government of Poland is undergoing attack do to its policies to make Poland much more rigid society then it has been since 1991). Other then that, the Poles care less what is happening in the Ukraine.

Now the Poles do have concerns about overlapping claims of Poles, Belorussians and Ukrainians but that is NOT popular in the west, so it is ignored right now, but it will come back unless the Poles work to make those people on the border happy that the border is where it is.

[Norman Conch Quest]

43. I Support This

We should get the hell out of the Middle East, but not Europe. To put it simply, I don't trust the Russians. Despite all the bullshit chatter about China, the fact is that Russia is our #1 enemy. (That's the only damn thing Romney was right about four years ago.)

[Ghost Dog]

89. 3,000 American moms, dads, brothers and sisters...

... Including some 300 Brits, and others of other nationalities. Thanks for the honorary Citizenship!

Now, who can families of those victims sue?

[Ghost Dog]

91. Onlaketime. That's Ok, we understand & get used to it.

Thanks for your honesty.

[Monk06]

58. Not proud that Canada is taking part in this dog and pony show

[Sunlei]

86. I don't think Canadas government would want putin to 'pull another Ukraine' on Poland either.

same crap from 'putins russia'.

Russian people were left behind in Ukraine and Poland in all the millions of homes/ farms and government buildings first nazis took over when they killed millions of people in Poland and ukraine.

waves of soviet military 'freed and 'help' clear out nazis and looted- moved back as much 'loot' as they could from those two countries to Russia.

I don't think Poland or Ukraine has ever been free of Russian control even when they were crushed by nazi- Germany.

[Monk06]

98. I know a Polish couple that immigrated to Canada in the late eighties

The Poles have no love for the Russians My friends ex girlfriend was raped in front of him by two state police before solidarność and the fall of the USSR

That being said the issue of Russian speaking people in Poland and the Ukraine are completely different

Russian speaking people, mostly on the eastern border with Ukraine, have national minority rights according to the Act of 6 January 2005 on national and ethnic minorities and on the regional languages

In the Ukraine the government eliminated the language rights and banned Russian speaking cit zens from running for political office Hence the revolt in that region supported and fought by Russian weapons and troops for sure

In the case of the Crimea, I'll let someone more knowledgeable than myself do the talking:

"Orlando Figes, author of Crimea: The Last Crusade, wrote last week:

Crimea was bound to be the focus of the Russian backlash against the Ukrainian revolution. ... For more than 20 years, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, its rule by Kiev has been a major source of Russian resentment – inside and outside Crimea – and a major thorn in Ukraine's relations with Russia.

The Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation – by which Russia rents its naval base at Sevastopol from the Ukrainian government – is so far-reaching in the rights it gives the Russians to exercise their military powers that it is seen by many in Ukraine to undermine the country's independence. In 2008 the Ukrainians said they would not renew the lease when it expired in 2017. But they buckled under the pressure of a gas-price hike and, in 2010, extended the Russian navy's lease until 2042."

The move by the NATO powers negotiate membership in the organization by the Ukraine led the Orange Nationalists to use NATO support as a way to push Russia out or the the Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea

Now it is arguable whether Russia has defendable interests in Donetsk and Luhansk but both regions have coastal access to the Sea of Azov and Russian speakers are the majority there, so draw your own conclusions.

The Crimea is an entirely different matter The Ukrainian nationalist want to close the Russian naval base at Sevastopol This has been the most important Black Sea base to the Russians since Catherine the Great

The Ukrainians were foolish for trying to end the lease to the base in Sevastopol

NATO and by that I mean the US is not interested in defending democracy in the Balkan states from Russian interference They want deprive Russia of warm water ports and ultimately access to the Mediterranean which the US Navy views as their territory

[Ghost Dog]

82. I would like to thank posters above

Last edited Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:33 AM - Edit history (1)

for devoting time to patiently deploying some valuable accurate information in this thread.

[Odin2005]

85. This thread is infested with paid Putin shills...

...and Hate-America-Firsters.

[Odin2005]

94. LOL, I've been a socialist since my teens and are accusing me of McCarthyism?

Do you think the FACT that Putin is a Fascist dictator who is threatening and intimidating his neighbors "government lies"? If you think so there is no use having a discussion with you because arguing with a fanatical conspiracy theorist is pointless.

And your low post count and your talking points that sound straight out of Russian propaganda on RT makes it clear to me that you are not here to discuss in good faith.

[Odin2005]

96. Yep, you are a conspiracy loon, arguing with you is pointless.

[sofa king]

105. Technically, this is on the Russian border.

Kaliningrad Oblast, on the Baltic Coast between Poland and Lithuania, is a chunk of East Prussia shaved off by the Soviets in World War II. Though not contiguously connected with Russia, it remains a subject state of Russia and is considered Russian territory by the Russians, exactly as Alaska is considered American territory by Americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast

If the Russians started maneuvering a corps around in the Yukon, we'd probably get a little skeevy about it, too.

I don't know why the press never mentions this when they speak of Russian security concerns in Europe, as if Russia has no concerns in mainland Europe. They have a naval base in Syria which is why they're stuck there now and they have a non-contiguous state-let on the border of Poland, which is why they get bent out of shape over NATO maneuvering there.

It's obvious and ignoring the obvious only exacerbates the ill feelings between the two sides, which do not have to be enemies of one another.

And no, I'm not a shill for the Russians. I'm pointing out that we'll never understand what they're doing unless we take the time to figure out why they're doing it.

[Nihil]

106. Thanks for that!

That was a fascinating little diversion that explains a few more bits about the
current (and past) Russian discomfort with NATO stomping around the area.