Top NATO Commander: U.S. Troops May Be Sent To Eastern Europe
Source: Associated Press
Apr 9, 5:50 PM EDT
By JOHN-THOR DAHLBURG
Associated Press
PARIS (AP) -- NATO's top military commander in Europe, drafting countermoves to the Russian military threat against Ukraine, said Wednesday they could include deployment of American troops to alliance member states in Eastern Europe now feeling at risk.
U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove told The Associated Press he wouldn't "write off involvement by any nation, to include the United States."
Foreign ministers of the 28-nation alliance have given Breedlove until Tuesday to propose steps to reassure NATO members nearest Russia that other alliance countries have their back.
"Essentially what we are looking at is a package of land, air and maritime measures that would build assurance for our easternmost allies," Breedlove told the AP. "I'm tasked to deliver this by next week. I fully intend to deliver it early."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/us-troops-eastern-europe_n_5121124.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
former9thward
(31,935 posts)Dying for countries most Americans could not find on a map and most of Congress could not either.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Since Russian troops first entered the Crimean peninsula in early March, a series of media polling outlets have asked Americans how they want the U.S. to respond to the ongoing situation. Although two-thirds of Americans have reported following the situation at least “somewhat closely,” most Americans actually know very little about events on the ground — or even where the ground is.
On March 28-31, 2014, we asked a national sample of 2,066 Americans (fielded via Survey Sampling International Inc. (SSI), what action they wanted the U.S. to take in Ukraine, but with a twist: In addition to measuring standard demographic characteristics and general foreign policy attitudes, we also asked our survey respondents to locate Ukraine on a map as part of a larger, ongoing project to study foreign policy knowledge. We wanted to see where Americans think Ukraine is and to learn if this knowledge (or lack thereof) is related to their foreign policy views. We found that only one out of six Americans can find Ukraine on a map, and that this lack of knowledge is related to preferences: The farther their guesses were from Ukraine’s actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene with military force.
Ukraine: Where is it?
Survey respondents identified Ukraine by clicking on a high-resolution world map, shown above. We then created a distance metric by comparing the coordinates they provided with the actual location of Ukraine on the map. Other scholars, such as Markus Prior, have used pictures to measure visual knowledge, but unlike many of the traditional open-ended items political scientists use to measure knowledge, distance enables us to measure accuracy continuously: People who believe Ukraine is in Eastern Europe clearly are more informed than those who believe it is in Brazil or in the Indian Ocean.
About one in six (16 percent) Americans correctly located Ukraine, clicking somewhere within its borders. Most thought that Ukraine was located somewhere in Europe or Asia, but the median respondent was about 1,800 miles off — roughly the distance from Chicago to Los Angeles — locating Ukraine somewhere in an area bordered by Portugal on the west, Sudan on the south, Kazakhstan on the east, and Finland on the north.
more...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/
7962
(11,841 posts)You cant even tell whats land and whats water; outside of the oceans.
And I think you can rule out those who clicked on "Miami" and the like, as being jokers.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Yes, only one is six actually hit the Ukraine, but most it looks like most picked the Poland-Russia-Romania Area (which includes those countries and the Ukraine and Belarus). In such situations a rough idea is what most people have, and the map shows most people had a rough idea.
On the world map the distance from Chicago to Los Angles is NOT that far, and remember we are NOT talking about the US, but EASTERN EUROPE, which most Americans have no contact with on any basis.
The map:
geretogo
(1,281 posts)
okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)and Moldova. The statement from Breedlove I think gives a good example of a healthy stance to take:
"There is not a shortage of what we can use. It's how do we use this in a measured way that indicates defensive capability so that we don't provoke. And that's what we will be working on," Breedlove said before departing for NATO's military headquarters near Mons, Belgium.
Basically how do we protect NATO allies in case of a war without provoking one?
hoosierlib
(710 posts)I'd be happy to visit Ukraine and stand up to this thug (Putin)...we have a division in Germany for a reason...
7962
(11,841 posts)hoosierlib
(710 posts)If any NATO member feels threatened (say Latvia, Poland or Estonia) would send me on my way...
7962
(11,841 posts)But if Putin thinks force is never going to be used against him, then he IS going to keep on acting the way he is. And at what point DOES it get serious enough to be involved? Its a global economy now, which means it will be harder and harder to act like "its not out problem".
hoosierlib
(710 posts)When Russian troops enter Donetsk...
7962
(11,841 posts)I've seen nothing about any prep to try to repel an invasion. Show us SOMETHING.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)moving personnel and equipment to the east.
Unfortunately, Ukraine's military is no match for what Russia can field. Ukraine is much smaller and poorer than Russia. The situation could easily devolve into and occupier being harassed constantly by small units and partisans.
7962
(11,841 posts)But the world will look very poorly at Russia rolling over the Ukrainian military, especially when there is no reason for them to invade. And who knows, the Ukrainians may inflict more damage to the Russians than expected. Remember, they couldn't totally defeat Finland back in WW2 either.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)They were the ones who really organized things.
Maybe those old guys will pull out their knowledge if the Russians move.
The Poles and Balts would absolutely freak out if Russian tanks attacked Donesk.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)If the UN Security Council does nothing (remember Russia, China, Britain, France AND the US all have veto power in the Security Council), the US and Russia have fulfilled their obligations under that Memorandum.
In simple terms, the Memorandum means NOTHING. It is worse then the actual obligations under the NATO treaty of 1949 (The NATO treaty only requires its members to do "such action as it deems necessary" if another member of NATO is attacked, i.e. if the US decided a Russian Attack on Poland was a violation of the NATO treaty, the US can do what "it deems necessary" which can include writing Putin a nasty letter but otherwise leave the Russians take what they want.
The official text of the 1949 NATO treaty:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
Official Text of the Budapest Memorandum:
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the cold war, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces,
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear
weapons are used;
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclearweapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.
Signed in four copies having equal validity in the Ukrainian, English and Russian languages.
For Ukraine:
(Signed) Leonid D. KUCHMA
For the Russian Federation:
(Signed) Boris N. YELTSIN
For the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland:
(Signed) John MAJOR
For the United States of America:
(Signed) William J. CLINTON
http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484
hoosierlib
(710 posts)A military deterent or action would be necessary...what is so hard to understand about that?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO and has no base presently adapted for NATO. The Black Sea has been a Russian Lake since the time of Catherine the Great and no Carriers are permitted to enter the Black sea UNLESS they have a secondary function as an anti-submarine ship (Thus all Soviet carriers had Anti-Marine capacity, so they could go through the Straits).
Now, Turkey could break its treaty in regards to the Straits between the Mediterranean and Black seas, but that would risk a cut off of its natural gas supplies from Iran (who is closely allied with Russia right now). A second concern, through it appears to be minor today, is what will Greece do? Greece, like Turkey is a member of NATO, but synthetic to Russia. In fact prior to Greece recent economic melt down, Greece was the #1 support for the Kurdish rebels in Southeast Turkey (Greece supplied guns and ammunition, but none that could be traced back to Turkey).
Romania is now a member of NATO, but has poor infrastructure, worse then the Ukraine. The nearest bases that meets minimum NATO needs are in Poland. Thus does Poland want to make Russia mad at Poland by supporting the Ukraine? Especially since many of the supporters of the present Government are supporters of people who killed Poles during WWII and have said that parts of Modern Poland should be Ukrainian AND the Poles that are in the Ukraine should be sent to Poland?
Thus the problem is HOW does the US respond to a overt Military action by Russia? And if Russia just moves into area where they are a large Russian speaking population, how does the US drive out the Russian Army while appearing NOT to drive out the Russian Speakers? The later is important for such actions is a war crime, civilians must be protected, even if they are hostile to the invaders.
A complication is fuel, What will NATO and the US do if Russia cuts off not only the Natural Gas flow into Europe but also Russian Oil? Now, Russia is the #2 oil EXPORTER in the world, if it would cut back exports that would cause a world wide increase in the price of oil. What would you do if the price of oil hits $10 a gallon? I remember 1973, when the US was importing less the 5% of its oil, and OPEC cut off oil supplies for just three months, and you saw the price of gasoline double almost overnight. It was another period of tight oil supplies, The North Sea, the North Slope and the huge Siberian fields would not open till the mid 1970s. Today we have a similar tight oil situation, a cut off of oil supplies could lead to a doubling of the price of oil as it did in 1973.
Side note: in 1990 the US expelled Iraq from Kuwait, and shut off Iraqi oil from the world market place, but that was during the oil glut of the 1980s and 1990s where the supply of oil was so large that the price kept dropping. Saudi Arabia had to step in a cut its own production in the 1980s to keep up the price of oil. Thus in 1990 you had surplus oil capacity and Iraq's oil was NOT needed to meet world wide demand for oil. The problem is that in 2014 we would need Russia oil to keep the price of oil from doubling, if Russia does not export, the market for oil is so tight the price of oil could double over night (and some people with access to better numbers then I have, say that may be cheap, it could triple).
Russia is already trying to ditch the dollar for its foreign exchange, it has sold oil to China in Rubles and Yuans not Dollars, Russia has accepted Iranian oil in exchange for Russia goods again avoiding the use of the Dollar.
Just to point out three things:
1. US military action in regards to the Ukraine is limited, due to its location and the lack of US bases around that area and the restrictions on Carriers entering the Black Sea.
2. The US has addicted to oil, and anything that stops the flow of oil will hit the US hard. Unlike 1991 or even 2003, the market for oil is extremely tight. The US could attack, but Russia's best defense may be to cut off energy supplies to Europe. The sources of that energy is even deeper in Russia, and the closest nation to it is Red China.
3. Russia has one of the largest hold of US dollars, thus Russia can spend that money even if trade is completely cut off.
4. The Fuel for US Troops in Afghanistan comes from Russia, if the US attacks Russian Forces in the Ukraine, the first thing Putin will do is cut off that fuel line. It is Spring and the mountain passes between Afghanistan and Pakistan are open again, and the winter wheat crop is growing and will be harvested in a few months. At that point the Summer Fighting season in Afghanistan will begin, for the crop be in and the Rural supporters of the Taliban would be free to fight. This is all contingent on Pakistan keeping the two passes between Afghanistan and Pakistan open. Pakistan may demand higher pay to permit supplies through, AND Russia could send in its won Special Forces to aid the Taliban to destroy those conveys.
Now, Russia would be hurt by all three of the above action, but Russia knew that before it took the Crimea and found that taking Crimea was worth more then the potential harms. I suspect Putin has accepted that he will have to cut off Oil and Natural Gas to Europe to stop the US (Thus the recent German Chancellor's comment that Putin was Nuts, which implies to me the Chancellor has been told of Putin's options by her own military and hates them, for it would hurt Germany the most).
Thus would GERMANY permit the US to use its bases against Russia? And by German Basis I include the US bases in Germany, not German bases in Germany. Chancellor Merkel appears to be in a bind, a bind she hopes to get out of. The bind is appeasing the US by showing Germany under her is a loyal ally of the US, while trying to appease Putin so Putin does cut of the Natural gas and oil flow into Germany. Merkel dare not call the American President Insane, but Putin she can without suffering any internal German political harm.
My point is Obama's and the US's option as to the Ukraine are limited. The Military option may not even be on the table, do to objections from Turkey, Romania, Poland and Germany (objections given the the US, but NOT released to the Press) and the US own Military in regards to US troops in Afghanistan.
Also remember the largest opposition to Putin inside Russia itself is the Communist Party. You do not hear much about it in the US, for the US tends to talk about the non-communist opposition to Putin, who are small in numbers compared to the Communists. Given how the Coup in Kiev took place and the subsequent rough treatment of Communist party members in the Ukraine, the Communist Party of Russia supports Putin when it comes to the Ukraine.
In simple terms, as long as Putin keeps any Russian Forces no further West then Kiev itself, the US will do nothing. Even if the US did do something, it would be to operate in an hostile population area, which is what the Russian Speaking parts of the Ukraine will be (much like Iraq and Afghanistan and even Vietnam). How do you keep a people in one country, when they want to join another? That is the problem when it comes to Eastern Ukraine and maybe even Southern Ukraine. Now Western and Central Ukraine would be friendly to NATO invading army, but then how would an American Commander handle such "friends" when he or she starts to see them murder Russian Speaking civilians and the army moves East?
Thus Russia has options to attack the US, the price of oil is the biggest weapon. We could destroy those pipelines, but then the Oil still does not get to the west. Ukraine still uses Russian Gauge Railroads, so any invasion would require switching trains on the border of Poland and the Ukraine, or moving the tanks by themselves till they get to the battle field. Air power will have to come from Germany and Poland, both of which would be hit the hardest by a shut off of Russian oil.
Sorry, the Ukraine in 2014 is NOT Iraq in 1991 or 2003. The world is different, oil is now tight, as are supplies of Grain (Russia is still one of the top grain exporters, remember the Arab Spring followed Putin's cut off of Russian Grain exports the year before, that shut off kept Russia break prices down, but drove up the price of bread in the Middle East and the result was unrest and the Arab Spring. Does the US want another Arab Spring, this time against even more US allies?). I do not think so, I suspect the Colonels and Navy Captains in the Pentagon has told the Obama administration the above sad facts of life and thus the military option is off the table.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)1. Got a divison in Germany
2. Plenty of domestic and Canadian oil available
3. They hold roughly $400 billion, whoopty do!
4.. Troops coming out of Afghanistan...most supplies come in via 5k tanker through Khyber pass (I would know, I have been there)
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I would love to hear this one.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)The bolded unit represents the only unit in Europe right now. A division is 15-20,000 soldiers depending on unit type. A brigade is 3000-4500 depending on type. There is one U.S. BRIGADE in Europe, that is all.....The Stryker Brigade is deployed and in the process of redploying back to Germany but they are exhausted and their equipment will be in transit for the next sixty days.
Army Breakdown:
Order of Battle: 44 Army Brigades
1st Armored Division,(Fort Bliss, TX) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade in reset (non-deployable)
2nd Brigade (NIE, Future War testing, non deployable)
3rd Brigade (deactivating right now, non deployable)
4th Brigade (NORTHCOM mission, non-deployable)
1st Infantry Division (Fort Riley Kansas) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (deploying to Afghanistan on last deployment cycle)
2nd Brigade (AFRICOM mission, deploying to Africa)
3rd Brigade (deactivating right now, non deployable)
4th Brigade Deployable
1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, TX/South Korea 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (reset non-deployable)
2nd Brigade (Deployed to Afghanistan)
3rd Brigade (Currently in South Korea on temporary mission)
4th Brigade (Deactivating right now, non deployable)
2nd Infantry Division Fort Lewis/South Korea 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (stationed in South Korea)
2nd Brigade Deployable (Stryker)
3rd Brigade Deployable (Stryker)
4th Brigade Deactivating right now
2nd Stryker Cavalry Brigade (Germany)
Deployed to Afghanistan
3rd Infantry Division Fort Stewart/Fort Benning GA 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (reset, non deployable)
2nd Brigade Deployable
3rd Brigade Deployable
4th Brigade (Reset, non deployable)
3rd ACR (Fort Hood, TX)
Deploying to Afghanistan in June
4th Infantry Division (Fort Carson, CO) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (Reset, converting to Stryker Brigade, non deployable)
2nd Brigade (Deployed to Kuwait)
3rd Brigade (Deployable)
4th Brigade (Deploying to Afghanistan NOW)
10th Mountain Division (Fort Drum NY/Fort Polk LA) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade Deployed to Afghanistan
2nd Brigade Deployable
3rd Brigade Deployed to Afghanistan
4th Brigade (OPFOR Training unit, non deployable)
11th ACR (Fort Irwin, CA)
OPFOR training unit (non deployable)
25th Infantry Division (Schofield Barracks, HI, Alaska) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (Alaska) Emergency deployment Brigade for Afghanistan (non deployable anywhere else)
2nd Brigade (Hawaii) PRF Pacific Response Force (non deployable)
3rd Brigade (Hawaii) PRF Pacific Response Force (non deployable
4th Brigade (Alaska) Deployable
82nd Airborne (Fort Bragg, NC) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (deploying to Afghanistan for last rotation)
2nd Brigade Deployable
3rd Brigade Deployable
4th Brigade (Deactivating, non deployable)
101st Airborne (Fort Campbell, KY) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (reset, non deployable)
2nd Brigade Deployed to Afghanistan
3rd Brigade Deployable
4th Brigade (Deactivating non deployable)
173rd Airborne Brigade (Italy)
Deployable
Boreal
(725 posts)You could get on a plane and go straight to Ukraine and join the neo-nazis in the next few days. You could be shooting and beating Russian speakers in a couple of weeks! You could even rub shoulders with Greystone (Blackwater) mercenaries who are also there. How exciting would that be?!
hoosierlib
(710 posts)Fuck Putin!
go west young man
(4,856 posts)Excerpt:
Russia is a nuclear superpower. Russia has an estimated 4,500 active nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Unlike North Korea or perhaps Iran, whose nuclear arsenals couldn’t inflict substantial damage, Russia could totally devastate the U.S. as well as the rest of the planet. U.S. missile defenses, assuming they even work, are not designed to stop a massive Russian strike.
Russia has a powerful army. While the Russian military is a shadow of its Soviet glory days, it is still a formidable force. The Russian army has about 300,000 men and 2,500 tanks (with another 18,000 tanks in storage), according to the “Military Balance 2014? from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Its air force has almost 1,400 aircraft, and its navy 171 ships, including 25 in the Black Sea Fleet off Ukraine’s coast.
U.S. forces are more capable than Russian forces, which did not perform impressively during the 2008 Russo-Georgia War. American troops would enjoy better training, communications, drones, sensors and possibly better weapons (though the latest Russian fighter jets, such as the T-50, could be trouble for U.S. pilots). However, better is not good enough. The Russian military is not composed of lightly armed insurgents like the Taliban, or a hapless army like the Iraqis in 2003. With advanced weapons like T-80 tanks, supersonic AT-15 Springer anti-tank missiles, BM-30 Smerch multiple rocket launchers and S-400 Growler anti-aircraft missiles, Russian forces pack enough firepower to inflict significant American losses.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)it's on.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Don't think all our others are enough.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)NATO exists for this reason. If Putin is psycho enough to try it, there will be a war.
Boreal
(725 posts)who dare to protest against the fascist regime in Kiev and their neo-nazi enforcers need some Yoo-Ess-Ay! boot up their asses to show them who's boss! They think they have some kind of human right to self determination? We can fix that!
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)that NATO minus the US/UK is quite weak, right?
I would be more than happy to talk about it with you using actual facts, figures, etc.
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)Response to Purveyor (Original post)
geretogo This message was self-deleted by its author.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)he needs to prop up his dictatorship?
Response to uhnope (Reply #11)
geretogo This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to geretogo (Reply #13)
uhnope This message was self-deleted by its author.
EX500rider
(10,808 posts)Right, I forgot, WWII was just a big corporate war between GM, Toyoda, Mercedes, Lada and Fiat! LOL
7962
(11,841 posts)
The Magistrate
(95,241 posts)Jesus H. Christ on a pogo-stick....
EX500rider
(10,808 posts)
Igel
(35,274 posts)Poland, the Czech lands--they're Central Europe.
Both Baltics and Moldova have been threatened, overtly or implicitly, so it's reasonable. Don't want to have negative response, you don't make threats.
PaulKersey
(59 posts)How about Europe deal with their own backyard.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)it didn't turn out that well...
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It then collapsed on the floor, dazed and cooing in ecstasy.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)the sleeping giant in the room: China. They've remained agnostic on the issue of Ukraine thus far, but our bellicose, paternalistic approach to them recently (with Obama pledging to shift our strategic focus towards Asia) seems designed to push them into the anti-western camp, even if they don't want to go there willingly. Perhaps this is why Hagel was in China this week meeting with their military officials, but after seeing video of their comments on CCTV (the Chinese news channel), it was easy to see that the Chinese aren't being swayed by Hagel's sweet rhetoric.
Our support of Taiwan (and our shipments of weapons to them) is seen as very provocative behavior and our support of Japan's claim on the disputed islands over there (I can't remember the Chinese or Japanese names of them) were harped on continually by the Chinese military official at a podium beside Hagel. While the Russians can do little to harm the US economically, the Chinese could do some damage if we continue our aggressive policies towards them.
NATO exists today as a aggressive global military extension of western power holders and is a threat to the rest of the world not within that alliance. They have been moving aggressively towards Russian borders and busy trying to incorporate the weak former Soviet states - any rational person can't deny this fact.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)---
UNSCR 1244 provides a significant legal foundation, upon which the fate of Kosovo may be decided, and a plan for resolving the dispute that all parties involved can accept should be formed through dialogue and negotiation under the framework of such Security Council resolutions.
Naturally, Serbia has been appreciative of China's position and perspective. And while Kosovo has rejected Taiwan's gestures of acknowledgment, it has made significant efforts to gain similar support from China, paying close heed to China's reiterated statements to consistently work toward seeking a political solution to the Balkan standoff that both sides can accept. Kosovo believes that one of the reasons why China favors Serbia is the presence of independence-seeking movements within China, most notably in Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet, and that this in turn creates concerns that Kosovo's unilateral bid for independence may set a precedent that will lead to a series of undesirable consequences.
The policy on independence and autonomy that China ultimately elected to adopt with respect to the issue of Kosovo was subdued, cautious, and relatively gray. And in Crimea, China should be able to fall back on that same policy. In the United Nations, as a responsible permanent member state of the Security Council, China has insisted on upholding international law and the spirit of the U.N. Charter in maintaining every country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. In light of China's core interests and the existence of independence movements within Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet, China cannot openly approve changes in sovereignty over Crimea.
At the same time, in view of the strategic and cooperative partnership it has with Russia, China should not openly oppose or criticize Russia's actions. Finally, considering the geopolitical significance of Ukraine, as well as its strategic partnership and shared economic interests with China, China should encourage Ukraine to resolve the question of Crimea and other disputes through dialogue and negotiation.
http://watchingamerica.com/News/236432/the-double-standard-of-the-west-toward-kosovo-and-crimea/
The Magistrate
(95,241 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)How many secessionist movements has the USA seen? Russia itself might not want that sort of thing to become the norm.
The Magistrate
(95,241 posts)The Ch'ing ruled north of the Amur River, and the area containing Vladivostok was only ceded to them in the mid nineteenth century, among other interesting items....
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Which can be phrased roughly as: "when do you stop?"
The Magistrate
(95,241 posts)Measured and well thought out.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
24601
(3,955 posts)given Breedlove until Tuesday to propose steps to reassure NATO members nearest Russia that other alliance countries have their back."
Screw them, our troops have had enough. Send John Kerry and a few battalions of diplomats for a change. Pay them what our junior soldiers receive and see how many stay in the foreign service.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)which is certainly worrying. The premise of the movie is that it only takes one idiot to spark the nuclear holocaust.
24601
(3,955 posts)structure. The US Administration can tell him to stand down. - but I judge they are leading the charge, with Kerry as their front man.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)I guess.
Thanks Pootie-poot!
Javaman
(62,500 posts)red dog 1
(27,769 posts)"Putin Turns Up Economic Heat Ahead Of Ukraine Talks"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/putin-economy-ukraine_n_5120519.html/
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)There is currently one Combat Brigade in Europe right now, a Light Infantry/Airborne Brigade. The Stryker Brigade is in Afghanistan. Any other soldiers capable of stopping a Russian Armored attack are more than 90 days away.
I have outlined this quite well in GD on how it is nearly impossible for us to affect the situation in Ukraine with troops. Better to stick with diplomacy and hope for the best.
Boreal
(725 posts)on wanting to cough up the money for military stuff and NATO has been complaining about this for a long time. Hysteria about Russian invasions (fear mongering) should fix that. Some background:
Jun 10, 2011
“There will be dwindling appetite and patience in the United States Congress -- and in the American body politic writ large -- to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” Gates said.
Gates issued the warning as both continents struggle with the remains of the global recession and President Barack Obama seeks $400 billion in defense spending cuts over 12 years to reduce the deficit. While Gates and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen have cautioned European members not to reduce defense spending further, the implicit threat that the U.S. may withdraw support for the alliance marks a hardening of the U.S. position.
Rasmussen last year said European defense risked becoming a “paper tiger.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/gates-says-european-defense-spending-lag-risks-rendering-nato-irrelevant.html
WASHINGTON, May 6, 2013 – NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned today that further cuts in defense spending by European nations risk reducing the continent’s defense and security to “hot air,” turning the alliance into what he called a “global spectator” rather than a real force on the world stage.
“The only way to avoid this is by holding the line on defense spending and to start reinvesting in security as soon as our economies recover,” he told a meeting in Brussels of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Rasmussen said European nations should not become absorbed by their own domestic issues, including sluggish economies that have contributed to defense cuts, and instead develop a “truly global perspective” to respond to crises further away from home.
“Having the right capabilities is important, but it is not enough,” he said. “We must also have the political will to use them, to deal with security challenges on Europe’s doorstep, to help manage crises further away that might affect us here at home, and to better share the security burden with our North American allies.”
//
It was the latest in a series of warnings over the past several years by Rasmussen that further cuts by European governments in defense spending could put NATO’s viability at risk. In 2011, Rasmussen said the trend suggested the continent was headed toward getting out of the security business entirely, pointing out that European nations had cut their defense budgets by $45 billion - the equivalent of Germany’s entire annual defense budget - while U.S contributions to NATO had increased from about half of total alliance spending to close to 75 percent.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119940
