Russia calls for Lithuania to hand over 1500 conscripts who refused to join Soviet army in 1990-91.

[pampango]

Soviet military glories are often revived for Russian parades

Lithuania says Russia reopens Soviet conscripts cases

Russia appears to be reopening criminal investigations against Lithuanians who refused to serve in the Soviet armed forces after the country declared independence nearly 25 years ago.

The Lithuanian prosecutor-general's office says Russia has asked for legal assistance over Lithuanians who defied orders to do their Soviet military service in 1990-91, the Delfi news portal reports. But the request was denied, a spokeswoman says, since it does not involve a criminal offence in Lithuania. The news has prompted Lithuanian security services to strongly advise the relevant people not to go to Russia or other non-EU and non-Nato countries for now. Doing so could "jeopardise the personal safety of citizens", they say.

After Lithuania declared independence from the USSR in March 1990, more than 1,500 young men obeyed a call from pro-independence leaders not to join the Soviet military, according to official figures. Almost everyone went into hiding, but dozens of people were jailed or forcibly drafted. Outstanding cases were dropped after the USSR's collapse.

There is reportedly rising concern among Lithuanians that Russia is adopting a more assertive stance towards former Soviet countries. Adding to the tensions, a Russian national was arrested in March in Lithuania in connection with the 1991 attack by Soviet forces on the Vilnius TV tower, in which 14 people died.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-29111188

From this article is sounds like the former soldiers that Russia wants handed over are Lithuanians who refused to join the Soviet army after their country declared independence. That seems like an odd request since the Soviet army does not exist anymore and "outstanding cases were dropped after the USSR's collapse."

The reference to a Russian arrested in Lithuania apparently refers to cases like this:

Lithuania detains a Russian citizen suspected of 1991 crimes

A Russian former tank officer was detained by a Lithuanian court on Friday on suspicion of involvement in a 1991 Soviet Army attack aimed at halting the Baltic state's drive for independence from the Soviet Union, the General Prosecutor's office said. Thirteen civilians were killed and more than 1,000 wounded when Soviet troops stormed Vilnius's TV tower and a building of the national broadcaster on January 13, 1991. Infantrymen fired shots and a tank fired blank rounds into a crowd at the tower.

The Prosecutor's office said a Vilnius court ordered the detention for two months pending investigation of a Russian citizen it named as Yuri Mel, born in 1968, on suspicion of committing crimes against humanity and war crimes in Vilnius.

The former lieutenant had been arrested at Lithuania's border crossing point with Russia's Kaliningrad exclave on Wednesday, the prosecutor office said. Lithuanian media said he had been on a visit and was held while returning to Kaliningrad. Moscow is highly sensitive to any attempt to prosecute its former soldiers, especially in ex-Soviet states.

Lithuanian prosecutors are seeking a total of 79 citizens of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus over the 1991 case. "We have sent around hundred request for assistance to Russian prosecutors, but they all were totally ignored," Elena Martinoniene, a spokeswoman at the General Prosecutor office, told Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/us-lithuania-russia-detention-idUSBREA2D1PL20140314

[The Magistrate]

1. Anyone Who Does Not Think Putin Is Angling For The Baltic States, Sir, Is Not Paying Attention

And has no sense at all of history.

His calculation is that NATO will no more fight for the Baltic states than nit did for Ukraine, whatever treaty obligations may exist.

[pampango]

2. I hope you are wrong, but fear you are right.

I have seen posts here that the US should not respond to any future Russian action in the Baltics if it occurred.

I wondered if Putin would be content with Crimea. Without Crimea ethnic Russians are a really small percentage in the rest of Ukraine. Surely he would not want part of it.

Now I wonder if he will be content with a land-bridge from Russia to Crimea along the southeast Ukrainian Azov coast, even though places are not majority ethnic Russian in that area.

I keep thinking that "this" is the last thing he really wants. I hope this Baltic countries are not on his "bucket" list. Since they all have higher percentages of ethnic Russians than Ukraine has, it does make one wonder.

[The Magistrate]

3. There Really Is Something Reminiscent Of The Thirties In All This, Sir

Munich has been invoked so often by ignorant fools and propagandists that a situation which actually does resemble the calibrated aggression practiced by both Hitler and Stalin in the period cannot be accurately named with a good deal of shrill denial in reaction.

[Duckhunter935]

29. Yes I am seeing it

it is getting kind of eerie.

[The Magistrate]

30. It Is The Blend I Find Interesting, Sir

Hitler's technique was declaring the need to rescue ethnic brothers.

Stalin's was the creation of puppet authorities that would then 'request assistance'.

Both can be seen in Ukraine.

Both could well be employed in the Baltic States. Put bluntly, the claim of protection of Russian minorities there has some actual foundation, particularly in Estonia. Nothing to justify invasion, mind, but enough to get propagandists all hot and bothered and come over extremely righteous....

[Duckhunter935]

31. and they have been

very effective in Ukraine. both sides have Soviet and Russian equipment and it is extremely easy for Putin to wipe the dust off old equipment in storage and give it to the rebels. The border is not controlled and Putin has plausible deniability. Only after the rebels were losing did he seem to send in trained troops with new equipment to turn the tide.

[The Magistrate]

38. It Is True, Sir, Conditions Were In Some Ways Peculiarly Favorable

[Hugabear]

7. What it really boils down to: is the US willing to go to war with Russia?

Would the US be willing to go to war with Russia to prevent a takeover of the Baltic states?

Short of Russia trying to grab any former Warsaw Pact countries (ie Bulgaria, Hungary), I can't see the West willing to engage Russia in military action, which could very easily go nuclear.

Even if Russia did try to re-take the Warsaw Pact, I still think that the west would be very hesitant.

What are we willing to risk all-out nuclear war over?

[NuclearDem]

8. Well, considering all those countries you listed are NATO members

The US really wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

[former9thward]

9. It always has a choice.

If it refused to go to war, what would happen? Nothing.

[NuclearDem]

10. If the US wants to avoid that, it would have to withdraw from NATO.

Otherwise, Article 5 says it has to.

[former9thward]

11. Who is going to enforce it?

No one. The other NATO countries could expel the U.S. but they are not going to do that because none of them are going to go to war with Russia either. None of them.

[NuclearDem]

13. If none of the NATO members would commit to a conflict with Russia

if one of the other members was attacked, then why did they accede to the very treaty whose very existence started as a defense pact against the USSR?

And if NATO members decided they just didn't want to live up to their treaty obligations, do you have any idea what a disaster that would be for international relations, setting up a precedent where a country can refuse to abide by a treaty it's signed because it doesn't want to?

[former9thward]

18. Many, many treaties have been broken by nations over the years including the U.S.

NATO was created at the height of the cold war where it was possible the U.S. and Russia would go to war with each other. The U.S. is not going to risk a nuclear war over the Baltic states. Are you willing to sacrifice 150 million Americans to protect Estonia? I know Obama is not willing to do that. Or the UK or France or anyone else.

Lord Palmerston said:

"Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

Every nation follows that philosophy whether they admit it or not.

[NuclearDem]

19. Alright, so just a big middle finger to the Baltics then.

Gotcha. Glad to know where you stand.

[former9thward]

20. So you are willing to have 150 million American incinerated for Estonia.

Gotcha. Glad to know where you stand.

[NuclearDem]

21. No.

I'm willing to see Putin intimidated into backing the fuck off from countries that aren't his.

Which is the whole point of NATO--a deterrent against Russian aggression. You seem more than happy to sabotage that, and frankly, I'm not surprised in the least.

[former9thward]

22. And how is this "intimidation" going to happen?

Saber rattling which Putin would laugh at? How exactly?

[NuclearDem]

23. We can start by not treating the Baltics as throwaway states but as allies.

And just work from there.

And yet again, your desire to appease that imperialist bastard doesn't surprise me in the least.

[former9thward]

24. And your desire to go to war doesn't surprise me in the least.

Do you support Iraq War Part III?

[NuclearDem]

26. I'm interested in actually preventing one, thanks.

That's the whole point of a deterrent after all.

As long as we're asking completely irrelevant questions, if Russia decides to act in the Baltics, when can we expect you to chime in with how the Estonians or Latvians deserve it or how you "have no sympathy" for them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4751408

[IronGate]

32. Neville Chamberlain would be so proud of you.

So, your solution to Putin's aggression is to just ignore it?

[The Magistrate]

33. To Be Fair To Chamberlain, Sir

It must be recalled his policy of appeasement was meant to preserve the possibility of forming an alliance with Hitler, in which Hitler would do the heavy lifting in a war against the Soviet Union. He had offered tremendous economic incentives to Hitler for such an alliance, referred to in the English press when it was discovered as 'the biggest bribe in history'. His anti-Communism was the unthinking reflex of a class of businessmen which saw Hitler as a champion of Europe against Bolshevism, and held nothing could be too bad if it was also against Communism ( which they largely held to be a plot by Jews in any case ). Chamberlain was not a simple dupe and delusional pacifist sort; he was playing for something, however clumsily and inexpertly.

[IronGate]

34. Interesting.

I did not know that, thanks for that piece of info.

[The Magistrate]

35. I Recommend To You This Work, Sir

"The Deadly Embrace: Hitler, Stalin and the Nazi-Soviet Pact, 1939-1941"

Authored by Anthony Read and David Fisher.

Excellent and enlightening.

[IronGate]

36. Just ordered it from Amazon.

Thanks for the recommendation.

[The Magistrate]

37. You Will Enjoy It, Sir

[former9thward]

39. I will ask you what the other poster totally ignored.

What would you do? The other poster ignored that question. What is your Specific answer?

[IronGate]

41. You damn well stand up to aggression,

not doing so will invite further aggression.
Specific enough for you?

[former9thward]

42. Not specific at all.

A banal generality. What does "damn well stand up to aggression" mean specifically? You have the same vague problem the other poster has. Not surprising.

[IronGate]

43. Stand up to agression means just that,

confronting aggression to prevent more aggression.
If you can't grasp that concept, then I can't help you.

[former9thward]

44. What specific action?

If you are the CIC are you going to tell the military "stand up to aggression"? What specifically are you going to do? You can't answer the simple question, just like the other poster.

[IronGate]

46. Troop and equipment buildup,

make the aggressor damn aware that any further force will be met with overwhelming force.

Putin's no fool, he well knows that anything short of nuclear war, he will lose.
Russia's military is a shadow of it's former self and would never be able to win a war against a seasoned and combat experienced, technologically superior NATO alliance.

I take that back, Putin is a fool, but his Generals and Admirals aren't, they know just what shape the Russian military is in and they know in a conventional war, they would lose.

[NuclearDem]

49. You not liking my answer is not the same as me ignoring the question.

Speaking of unanswered questions, when can we expect you to demonize Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians to justify Russian aggression against them?

[former9thward]

51. When can we expect you to stop putting up strawmen in your posts?

Never.

[NuclearDem]

52. Well, since you were fine with the Russians persecuting the Tatars

for something done centuries ago, it's only fair to ask if you'll find some equally old grievances to justify persecution of Baltic ethnicities.

We already know you consider them throwaways and not worth defending, so I just want to know when we can expect more aggressive justification.

[former9thward]

53. Who is the "we" you keep referring to?

Have you now appointed yourself to speak for DU?

[NuclearDem]

55. Terrific dodge!

I guess if I'd been caught justifying the eradication of an entire ethnicity I'd try to change the subject as quickly as possible too.

[former9thward]

56. I don't play the stawmen game.

I will live that to others.

[geek tragedy]

47. Russia and China fought border skirmishes for decades.

They didn't nuke each other.

All is necessary is sufficient force on the ground to guarantee that any Russian soldier that crosses the border would meet the same fate as the tank commander who met his maker on Zhinbao island.

[The Magistrate]

48. That Goes Way Back, Sir

Started up long before the Cold War in our era.

It is one of the great weaknesses of the view some take of China and Russia allying happily to 'bring down' the United States. China considers, and with some justice, that most of trans-Amur Siberia, and the Maritime Provinces providing Russia with most of its Pacific coast, were stolen from it by Russia, and not that long ago as they reckon things. The history of it comes complete with some gaudy atrocity within the modern era to boot....

[geek tragedy]

50. as the joke goes sire, in 200 years it will be Ukraine and China having

a border dispute.

Russia has a big army, but not so big it can simultaneously bully eastern Europe and defend its resource-rich lands within striking distance of the PLA.

China has its own agenda, and Russian aspirations to greatness is not included.

[Cha]

14. Not paying attention or are being Deliberately Obtuse.

[The Magistrate]

15. Deliberately Obtuse, Ma'am, Or Actively In Support, Are Other Possibilities....

And in some instances cannot be ruled out, the latter particularly....

[Cha]

16. Yes, Thank you ,Sir!

[NuclearDem]

4. Wow. Just...wow.

That takes a special level of dickheadedness.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. I've seen pro-Russian posters on the net say this is a petty, dumb move by Russia

It could be grandstanding, to look good at home. Or just something more to annoy and unsettle the Baltic states.

[conservaphobe]

6. Troubling. nt

[hobbit709]

12. “It [the Sudetenland] is the last territorial claim that I have to make in Europe.”

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. When we said Putin wants to resurrect the Soviet empire we were dismissed as hyperbolic.

How can Russia make this demand in service to a presumably defunct government?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. When Putin came for Crimea, concerns were brushed aside.

When he went after western Ukraine, we were assured Ukraine was merely oppressing Russians.

He wants the USSR back. The question is, will anyone be willing to stop him?

[karynnj]

25. Putin has lost his mind.

[Karmadillo]

28. Are there any other links for this? "Russia appears to" and "The Lithuanian

Last edited Wed Sep 10, 2014, 11:20 PM - Edit history (2)

prosecutor-general's office says" is a little less documentary evidence than I'd like when some of you are pushing for World War III. I'm sure the story could be true, but it would be nice to have a copy of a letter or description of a phone call or a confirmation/denial/no comment from the Russian official(s) who allegedly made the request for legal assistance. As we've seen in the past, it's not unknown for national leaders to make things up during times of conflict. Better reporting might give us a better idea of what's really happening here.

[MohRokTah]

40. Any breach of NATO borders means a massive war.

There's no going back if Putin is that stupid.

And yes, it could escalate to nuclear war if the madman is willing to push that far.

[geek tragedy]

45. The borders of the Baltics need a lot more troops and surveillance equipment.

If Putin sticks his hand in, he needs to pull back a bloody stump.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

54. That's just bizarre.

You want to charge people with desertion of an army that doesn't technically even exist anymore, that didn't fly the flag of your country?