Obama Pledges To Defend Baltic Allies Against Russia
Source: USA TODAY
David Jackson, USA TODAY 10:02 a.m. EDT September 3, 2014
President Obama reassured the Baltic nations Wednesday that the United States and other NATO allies will defend them from the kind of Russian aggression on exhibit in nearby Ukraine.
"We will defend the territorial integrity of every single (NATO) ally," Obama told an audience in Tallinn, Estonia.
Obama used the speech to denounce Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine, calling it a "brazen assault on the territory" of that nation.
"Borders cannot be redrawn at the barrel of a gun," he said.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, and the U.S. and European allies are not obligated to defend it.
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/09/03/obama-estonia-russia-baltic-states-ukraine/15009581/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
earthside
(6,960 posts)The very premise of this 'reassurance' is questionable.
We are being set-up once again by the war party.
It makes me wonder who is whispering into Pres. Obama's ear: "Don't go wobbly on me, Barack."
IronGate
(2,186 posts)yeah, they should feel threatened.
The President is his own man, he makes the decisions on when and where to deploy our military, not some ear whisperer.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)period in time.
I don't even want to imagine a McCain at the helm...
IronGate
(2,186 posts)If McCain were in charge, I shudder to think what might be about now.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)She's just as much of a hawk as McCain, my choice would be Bernie Sanders and I hope he announces his candidacy soon.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)And the list goes on . . Cain, Carson, Palin, Huckster, Paul, Ryan, Cruz, Perry, et al.,
World War III would have already commenced.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)I think this is the difference between the neoliberals and neocons. They are working together on the false narrative (Putin is reacting to the regime change that kicked this all off and he has wanted resolution but he is losing patience) but they seem to differ on the next phase.
This is all about Russia, not Ukraine. Or we would be honest about the situation and instead we appear to have either pushed or given Kiev the wrong signals so that they have resisted coming to the table and before their people to work this out.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)inside the borders of those countries, then there is absolutely nothing for Russia to find objectionable.
Russia as a long and current history of invading its neighbors, including the Baltics.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)a link on that?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)While Russia did invade Afghanistan in the late 1970s, even the Afghan Government viewed it as more of a Coup then an invasion (Afghanistan had been a loyal ally of Russia since the late 1800s, the last King of Afghanistan was picked by Joseph Stalin himself). The same for the Russian "Invasions" of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, both were loyal ally of Russia and Russia moved in to keep them as allies (The US did the same with Dominican Republic in 1965 and Panama more recently).
To go back further, you have to go to the Soviet attack on Finland. That was an invasion, but caused by the demand that Russia wanted more then 40 miles between its Second Biggest City, St Petersburg (then Leningrad) and the Finish border. When the fighting was over, The Fins retained their independence, but Russia obtains its borders.
Other then those invasions, Russia Expansion was based on Russia winning wars against people who INVADED RUSSIA FIRST. Germany attacked Russia in 1914 and 1941, losing big time in 1945. It was the GERMANS that took over Eastern Europe and then used it as a base to attack Russia.
If we go further back in history, the Crimea war (1854). was fought ON RUSSIAN HELD LAND, the Crimea, thus it was a defensive struggle against England, France and Turkey.
In the late 1800s the Russians did move into Central Asia, but that area had been under Russian Control since the time of Catherine the Great one hundred years before. The Changes in the late 1800s was to make the area not only de facto Russia, but de Jure Russia (i.e. Russian not only in FACT but in LAW).
Catherine's attack on the Central Asia Countries and Turkey was to stop the Slave Raids both areas had been during for centuries. She had said enough is enough and launched a full scale attack ending those raids.
Under her son, Paul and her Grandson Nicolas, Russia did end up fighting Imperial France, but to defend Austria, Prussia and other German and Eastern European states from French domination (Poland wanted to support France, but had been divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria in 1792 and thus not a real factor in the Napoleonic Wars). As to the Wars of Polish Partition, Russia only moved to prevent Prussian and Austrian domination of Poland. Yes it was an invasion but given the nature of Poland in the late 1700s, it was more a move to impose order on a system that had broken down.
Russia did fight In the Netherlands, Italy and Germany during the Napoleonic Wars, but not as an invading country, but as an ally against Napoleon. The final push against Napoleon was AFTER Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. Russian Troops reached Paris by 1814, but by driving the INVADING French army back to France.
Under Peter the Great, the wars that saw him Expand Russia were usually started by Kings Charles XI and XII of Sweden. In the end Peter won out, permitting Peter to build St Petersburg and ending the Baltic being a Swedish lake.
If we look at earlier history, Russia was invaded by the Mongols of the Golden Horde, before that Timerlane (The Greatest single conqueror in history, outdoing even Alexander the Great in terms of land conquered), and before that Genghis Khan (Founded the largest Empire the world had ever seen, but by forming various armies under their own commanders who collectively out did Timerlane, but each one's own conquest much smaller).
Earlier you had Byzantine Armies moving into what is now the Ukraine around 700 AD, and later the Vikings moved into Russia from modern day Sweden.
Now, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia were NEVER invaded by Soviet Union, in 1939 and 1940 they all agree to leave the Russia Army into each country. Given the size of the army of all three countries and the Soviet Army, the three Baltic countries had no other real choice. Either submit or be invaded, they decided the cost of fighting was to high and agreed to the movement of Soviet Troops into all three countries. Once in, elections were held, where the Soviet Troops could vote in, and governments friendly to the Soviet Union was elected and all three countries agree to be admitted into the Soviet Union. Thus no actual invasion. The West went through the motions of protesting, but seeing Russia as the only Land Power, after the fall of France, to be able to take on Hitler, the protests were just motions nothing real.
Yes, Russia has invaded its neighbors, but more often, it is Russian neighbors invading Russia. The main reason for the size of the Russian Army is the desire to have the ability to defend against Sweden, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Romania, Turkey, Iran, Mongolia, China and Japan, all have invaded Russia at one time or another (along with Britain in 1854 and 1918, and the US in 1918, through the US intervention was limited as to time and place).
As to the Ukraine, the Western Ukraine was part of Poland and Lithuania when they attacked Russia, while the Eastern Ukraine was under Turkish control when Turkey invaded Russia.
Given this history, of Russia actually WINNING long term wars that start with an invasion of Russia, I like to quote General Montgomery three rules of warfare:
1. DO NOT INVADE RUSSIA
2. DO NOT GET IN A LAND WAR IN ASIA
3. DO NOT INVADE RUSSIA.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Communist Government of Hungary asked for assistance in putting down the revolt of 1956. In simple terms it is NOT an invasion if the Government of a Country asks for assistance to put down a revolt and its allies provides such assistance. That is what happened in Hungary in 1956. There was a revolt, that spread rapidly, that the Communist Government of Hungary could not suppress without help, that government asked for help and the revolt was suppressed (this would be like calling the US intervention into Vietnam as "Invasion" for the US only entered into that country as the Government of South Vietnam faced a serious revolt that threatened that government).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
In the case of Czechoslovakia in 1968, Czechoslovakia had agreed to, as part of the Warsaw Pact, that any other member of the Warsaw Pact could assist in putting down any anti-Communist movement within any other Warsaw Pact member. Thus it was the Warsaw Pact that moved into Czechoslovakia NOT the technically the Soviet Union. Under the Warsaw Pact the Soviet Union and the other members of the Warsaw Pact could move into another member to secure Communism within that country. Thus Czechoslovakia had agreed that if Moscow thought Czechoslovakia was turning against Communism, Moscow not only had the RIGHT to invade, it had the permission of Czechoslovakia and had a DUTY to invade.
You may dislike that idea, but that was one of the rules of the old Warsaw Pact. Thus technically Moscow did NOT invade Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia had already agreed that Russia had not only the RIGHT to do so, Russia also had a DUTY to do so.
You may not like it, but Czechoslovakia and Hungary had been under Soviet Control since the Soviet Army took both areas from the Nazis in 1945. The people of those two countries may have opposed the Soviet Invasion (as did the people of Vietnam when it came to the US intervention in Vietnam) but the Government of both countries (and the Government of Vietnam as to US Intervention) had agreed otherwise. You are NOT invading a country that asks for help and you provide that help. Thus neither was a true invasion.
It is interesting that the Hungary revolt occurred two years AFTER the Soviet Union asked to join NATO. The US, UK and France veto the application, but it was a result of Soviet Union proposing a neutral united unarmed Germany that the UK, US and France all opposed. Such a German State would have been a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia and would have cut back pressure on Russia to expand its military (that expansion is what ended up killing the Soviet Union, you can NOT spend 40% of your GDP on Defense without destroying your economy). NATO did not plan that the Soviet would spend to much on defense, but instead concentrated on the desire to have German Troops as part of NATO. That required NATO to adopt an offensive posture, for West Germany did NOT want to fight on West German Territory. The same with the Warsaw Pact, they did not want to fight on East German of Polish Territory, thus both alliances set up massive offensive armies.
Had the Soviet proposal of 1954 been adopted, Germany would have been united in 1954 but it would have been a huge neutral unarmed country, between France and NATO and Poland and the Soviet Red Army. Germany would have been a country any invading country would have to go through to get at the other side, a country easy to invade but hard to hold for any invading army would have to bring all of its supplies with it as it crossed Germany AND once it crossed Germany only then facing the might of the other side.
The proposal, of a Neutral unarmed united Germany, is considered the greatest single failure of the Cold War. Stalin had been proposing something similar since 1949 but it has always been rejected by the west.
I bring it up, for what was proposed for Germany between 1949 and 1954 seems to be what Putin is proposing today for the Ukraine. A neutral Ukraine, neither under the control of Moscow nor NATO. That is what Russia has had with Finland since 1945 and it has worked out.
Russia has a long history of NOT invading its enemies if Russia feels secure. The longest period of peace in Europe is between 1945 (The end of WWII) and 1992 (The start of the Wars involving the Yugoslavia), do to that fact Russia had its safety zone and was willing to spend the money to preserve it. When Russia ran out of money, that safety zone dissolved along with the Soviet Union and with it peace in Europe.
Today, people are using the Baltic States (Finland has refused to join in the game) and the Ukraine (along with the Nations in the Caucasians) to provoke Russia. You do NOT kick a dog while it is sleeping and then yell "The dog is growling at me" when it objects but that is what people are doing when they talk about expanding NATO without saying such an expansion MUST include Russia (and Russia being a member of NATO is a Taboo subject, for that would kill the alliance for it is an alliance against Russia).
No, you are so concerned about attacks by Russia, you are ignoring the long history of attacks ON Russia. To have peace you have to address BOTH ISSUES, and the present situation in the Ukraine is a refusal to even admit that Russia has good reasons for its opposition to the Ukraine joining NATO. Russia has no objections to a Neutral Ukraine, but a NATO Ukraine is a direct threat to Russia.
How do you make such a NATO Ukraine NOT a threat to Russia? That is the real issue, and I have NOT heard anyone bring that up or even discuss it. Ukraine as a Member of NATO, but no troops, not a threat to Russia. The problem is the US wants to extends its Missile Defense System to Poland and the Ukraine, and that is a threat to Russia for it means the US could destroy Russia and Russia could do nothing in return.
I am sorry, I see Russia seeing itself being cut off and isolated and reacting to such isolation. From polls done in Germany, it appears the Germans accept the Russia position for in such polls the German People oppose any more restrictions on Russia. Latvia and Estonia has a solid support for restrictions on Russia, but also solid minority against such restrictions (the support appears to follow ethnic lines in both states, the Russian minority in both states, roughly 1/3 of the population of both states, tend to support a pro Russian policy, Estonians and Latvians tend to support an anti-Russian Policy).
Lithuanian has only a very small Russian Minority, Poles outnumber Russians in Lithuania, but both are small minorities. On the other hand Kaliningrad, which is part of Russia but surrounded by Lithuania and Poland complicates the situation in Lithuania. When Poland and Lithuania joined NATO Kaliningrad became a new Berlin, a city on one side of a Military/Political divide surrounded and separated from its side by land held by the other side of that divide. Technically Lithuania should NEVER have joined NATO for Lithuania has to leave Russia military units through its borders to get to Kaliningrad.
Sorry, if you want Peace, you have to be willing to also see the situation from the eyes of Moscow. Foreign troops on its borders is unacceptable. Native troops are acceptable. Thus if NATO agrees to no NATO Troops in the Ukraine, and willing to put that on paper, I believe Putin would agree, but NATO is NOT willing to put such a promise on paper for NATO (and that means Washington) wants NATO troops in the Ukraine and that is a threat to Russia, a threat Russia can NOT tolerate for any length of time.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)she was at the start of this. That was a big surprise (she is the wife of one of the architects of the "full spectrum dominance" doctrine that pushed us to war with Iraq.
hack89
(39,171 posts)she was also U.S. ambassador to NATO and a special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty negotiations. She is fluent in Russian.
She is there because she is a recognized State Department expert on Russia and Europe.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)is a full-bodied neocon, one of the worst.
candelista
(1,986 posts)They are part of NATO. So the US is already "pledged." And Russia isn't threatening the Baltic states. So why say this at all?
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)said pledge seem more conditional to whom the pledge was originally made.
candelista
(1,986 posts)It gave me the shivers when they started using that word.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)"we are doing this for your benefit"...
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)to spend the recommended 2% of GDP on defense.
That seems like a very low figure but most of them spend less than that.
