Baltics Want NATO ‘Safeguard’ if Ukraine Situation Worsens

[steve2470]

Source: Wall Street Journal

RIGA, Latvia–Baltic countries are considering calling for a greater North Atlantic Treaty Organization presence in their countries “if the situation gets worse” in the Ukraine, Ojars Kalnins, the chairman of the foreign-affairs committee of the Latvian parliament, said Monday.

Mr. Kalnins said that a worsening of the Ukraine crisis “such as an outright invasion” of areas outside Crimea would present a threat to all of Russia’s neighbors, including the Baltic states–which are members of NATO. Such an expanded conflict should be reason for NATO to “bring extra military support to the Baltic region as a safeguard.”

Atis Lejins, a member of the Latvian parliament’s foreign-affairs committee, said increasing the number of NATO aircraft patrolling Baltic airspace could be one way to beef up NATO’s presence.

Currently a small, rotating contingent of fighter aircraft from NATO countries operates from a base in Lithuania. Mr. Lejins, a former U.S. Marine, said one example of a heightened presence was the U.S. Air Force Aviation Detachment (AV Det) program in Poland, which rotates fighter and transport units to bases in Poland.

Read more: http://stream.wsj.com/story/deadly-clashes-in-ukraine/SS-2-457850/

[TwilightGardener]

1. NATO will be what ultimately stops Putin if he has bigger designs.

My best guess is that whatever deal is cut may involve NATO agreeing to NOT make Ukraine a full partner, but allowing it into the EU. That will show Putin that NATO is not trying to squeeze Russia in too much, and the status quo won't change much.

[okaawhatever]

22. Ukraine had already worked out a non-member cooperation with NATO. They were doing training

exercises and some other joint programs, but without full membership. I don't even think that was a big goal because not being a full member put them in a neutral place between Europe and Russia. Certainly a good place to be in terms of having both sides treating you favorably.

[Baclava]

2. Romania already has a deal

Hundreds of U.S. troops will deploy to Romania next year

The U.S. military will move hundreds of troops to Romania next year and set up a key logistical hub that will effectively replace the air base at Manas in Kyrgyzstan, a Pentagon official said Friday.

The Romanians have agreed to allow a small footprint of U.S. troops to use an existing airfield along the Black Sea coast. The Mihail Kogalniceanu air base in eastern Romania will serve as a major transit hub for the airlift effort to redeploy U.S. troops and cargo out of Afghanistan.

Romania has previously agreed to host an American-made anti-missile interceptor as part of the European missile defense system. That is expected to be operational by 2015

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131018/NEWS05/310180024/Hundreds-U-S-troops-will-deploy-Romania-next-year

[Berlin Expat]

6. I can't help but

think that this aggressive move by Moscow will likely accelerate that timeline regarding Romania.

And perhaps get that missile system back in Poland as well. President Obama can use that as leverage.

Time to put that back on the table.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I think he held back on a missile defense phase, and now it's a new bargaining chip--

whether that was strategic or just coincidence, it's good to have it now.

[Berlin Expat]

12. Good question as to

whether it was a strategic decision or just one of those uncanny coincidences, but yes, it's good to have it as a bargaining chip with the Russians now, especially given their new and far more aggressive expansionist policy.

[okaawhatever]

23. There were several things happening during the next year or two that would have put NATO and

European countries in a better position to deal with Russia both militarily and financially. The US and N African countries are close to being able to export Liquefied Natural Gas which will lessen the stranglehold on Russia's imports to EU countries. The missile defense shield. Georgia was ready to sign an EU agreement, even sending the government officials to Washington DC to ask for support against Russian aggression close to the time they do.
In Ukraine, they had just signed gas exploration deals with Dutch Shell and Exxon to develop their own gas fields, again not just taking money from Russia for the actual gas, but removing the noose Russia's had around the neck of Ukraine regarding energy. Ukraine also signed deals with two oil companies for oil exploration in the Black Sea.
Signing the EU agreement would have forced the Ukraine government and state owned gas company and pipelines to be more transparent about their deals with Russia and other countries. Putin wasn't about to let that happen.

[another_liberal]

17. Like to guess who will be asked to pay for an almost useless . . .

If that were to happen, would you like to guess who will be asked to pay for an almost useless, largely ineffective missile defense system like that? America's poor, elderly and, especially, her children will get the bill, there is no doubt about that!

[TwilightGardener]

7. If I recall correctly, Kyrgyzstan was kicking us out because Putin

offered them financial incentive to do so. So we said, "Okey-doke--Romania!" Cold war, still sort of going on behind the scenes.

[okaawhatever]

24. Yes, that's the case. Russia allowed it for a while because they're enemies with Afghanistan and the

base was used to ship supplies to Afghanistan. Now that the Afghanistan issue is winding down there's no need to be there.

[chuckstevens]

3. Are Europeans Upset about Putin?

I'm far from a right-winger, but why isn't there more outrage in London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin? I'm tired of European nations not taking a stand on issues that effect them a lot more than the United States.

[Laelth]

10. They want and need Russian natural gas.

They can't afford to take an overtly-aggressive stance toward Russia. If they did, and if Russia jacked up the price of natural gas, the opposition parties would win in the upcoming elections in every affected country.

This is a precarious and delicate situation.

-Laelth

[chuckstevens]

11. Good Point

I hadn't thought about that. It's very frustrating.

[The Stranger]

19. Actually, the U.S. is a natural gas exporter now.

Hmmm. I'm ready to make a prediction.

[dipsydoodle]

25. Feel free to built a pipeline.

[The Stranger]

33. I think they liquefy and ship it.

But I'm not sure.

[dipsydoodle]

35. They do / are able to do so

but not sure the volume is sufficient.

[fedsron2us]

16. Because if the Ukraine dissolves into civil war then Europe gets to pick up the bits

in terms of refugees etc not the USA. It is easy to be high minded when the consequences are not going to spill over your borders

[rdharma]

4. Quoting the Rupert Murdoch's "War Street Journal" without comment?

Really? You sure you are on the correct web site?

[steve2470]

5. of course I am

WSJ news section is not RW, per Skinner. The op-ed pages ARE. If Skinner says WSJ is RW, I'll gladly delete.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=3216

Skinner (59,011 posts)
1. I'm pretty sure the Wall Street Journal is not banned.

It sounds to me like the reason your post was locked is because the hosts thought it was a "feature story, more analysis than breaking news". The comment about WSJ requiring a subscription sounds tacked on.

[elleng]

14. Thanks, and we should make,

should HAVE been recognizing the distinction between news coverage and analysis for a long time.

[rdharma]

18. Depending on the source, news coverage and analysis are often pretty much the same.

Just depends on what "facts" you want to emphasize or omit .....and what slant you want to take when reporting the "news".

But, I'm sure you know how that works.

[elleng]

21. Yes, of course.

My point, not made well, was that WSJ has been for many years a good source for news/information, and its been easy to distinguish their news coverage from their opinions/analysis.

[amandabeech]

13. I visited Lithuania in 1995, and was able to talk to quite a few Lithuanians.

There were many Russians still in that country despite the fact that Lithuania had broken away from the USSR/Russia in '91 or '92. Russians were importing Fiats through the port of Kleipeida (sp) that the Germans called "Memel" that were similar to their Fiat-built Lada, an inexpensive car. Plus a lot of Russians seemed to want to stay in their home no matter who was running the government.

My friend and I got lots of questions about whether the US would come to their aid if Russia decided to grab them back. They pointed at our failure to help the Chechens defend themselves against Russia.

My friend and I pointed out that Chechnya is deep inside Russia and Asia and would be very difficult for the US to access. We also pointed out that there are many Lithanian-Americans (Chicago is the big hub), and that Lithuanians are our European cousins, so to speak. The Lithuanians weren't convinced.

My understanding is that there are still large communities of Russians in each of the three Baltic states--Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia--who could conceivably claim that they were threatened, and call for help from Mother Russia.

The Baltics are NATO countries, and I don't see how beefing up the NATO presence in those countries would be such a bad thing. Really, Putin could not expect NATO to do absolutely nothing in NATO countries abutting Russia or Ukraine. I don't mean a big show of force, but something to show that NATO appreciates their particular situation. Should Russia move further into Ukraine, a larger presence would be appropriate, IMHO.

[tavernier]

45. I was in Latvia and the same holds true.

I got a definite sense of paranoia whenever Putin's name was spoken, and this was seven years ago. He was stirring the pot even then, and I heard many comments along the lines of "not to be trusted".

There are also now many Latvian-Americans living there with dual citizenship, who have invested heavily in Latvia's future. I have Estonian friends who tell me similar stories.

After the physical, economic and moral destruction that the Soviets left in these countries, they are just beginning to get back on their feet. This must be a HUGE emotional blow.

George Bush looked in his eyes and saw a soul? Interesting, because I never heard that from anyone else.

[amandabeech]

46. Thanks for posting.

Maybe it's different for those of us who actually have had some experience with these for Soviet countries.

I imagine the Ukrainians are about the same.

I'm not ready for WWIII, but I wish that the Europeans were ready to do more. I understand the gas problem, but does Germany really want the bear next door in Poland, because I'm sure that Putin would like to be there despite the ferocious fight that the Poles would put up.

[tavernier]

48. Everyone says it is his KGB background.

I think his tactics are more Russian mafia.

Well, I think the best hope is that the Russian people themselves refuse to be once again manipulated by yet another government that puts itself ahead of its citizens.

[amandabeech]

49. We can only hope.

Personally, I think that Putin is a thug with a Napoleon complex. I saw many victims of that particular psychiatric problem running around my law school, and I wouldn't have wanted any of them at the helm of a great nation.

Good luck to the long-suffering Russian people. They just can't get a break.

[okaawhatever]

28. But you've recommended articles from Russia Today. Do you think Russia Today is a legitimate

source but the Wall Street Journal isn't? Also, Murdoch doesn't own the WSJ.

[rdharma]

40. "Murdoch doesn't own the WSJ"

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that he "owned" the WSJ. But he is the Executive Chairman of Newscorp.

Is that better?

[okaawhatever]

42. Yes, actually I was confused for a minute. I was thinking of WaPo. But why do you trust Russia Today

and not the WSJ? Do you really think it's reliable?

[rdharma]

43. More detailed info on what is going on in Ukraine.

And I like to see the RWers deny the information they put out....... only to have that information confirmed later by media that they find acceptable.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Bear in mind

that would may also be part of the background here was that joke anti missile shield to protect Europe from Iran intended to be sited near Russia's borders. The scam didn't go too well with Russia.

[EX500rider]

29. "The scam didn't go too well with Russia."

Except Iran is SE of Europe so the closest intercept points for IRBM's would be along the eastern border of NATO...plus I don't really get Russia's argument.... "HEY! You made it harder for us to nuke you!! What's up with that?!" Why, were you planning to nuke Europe Putin?

[okaawhatever]

30. so you know more than missile defense experts? You're the ultimate voice in whether the

missiles are a "scam"? You're smarter than the engineers in Romania and Poland, UK, etc. who approved the purchase for their governments?

[dipsydoodle]

32. Didn't go down to well

with the local population in Poland either who knew that if despite the US's denials it was used against Russia they'd bt eh first to go. In the event Obama quite sensibly scrubbed it.

The Pentagon is canceling the planned fourth phase of an anti-missile system that had been scheduled for deployment in Poland in 2022. The SM3 IIb missile was significant for two reasons: It was the only interceptor planned for the Europe-based system that could have defended the United States against an attack from Iran; and it was the component of the system most decried by Russia, which claimed that it could be used against its intercontinental missiles.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/20/flexibility-achieved-obama-pulls-missile-defense-system-from-eastern-europe/

[okaawhatever]

36. that wasn't the point you made. You called it a "joke" and a "scam". What makes it a joke, or

a scam?

[dipsydoodle]

38. The selling line for it

was that it was to protect Europe from Iran.

[okaawhatever]

41. That's what the first three phases were for. It was the fourth phase that was questionable due to

Putin's insistence that the true design was to block his long range ICBMs.

[DallasNE]

15. The Baltics Have A Reason To Fear Russian Expansionism

And Putin's goal of pulling old Soviet satellites back into the Russian sphere. Indeed, Putin should have anticipated a move such as this. The deterioration of markets inside Russia is another predictable outcome of Putin's bullying, specifically sending Russian troops into a neighboring country. It is hard to understand what Putin could have been thinking. It is certainly not rational thought.

[The Stranger]

20. How much worse can the Ukraine situation get?

I don't know what comes after invasion. Ethnic cleansing?

[EX500rider]

26. Much worse?

Civil war...
Massive Russian invasion..
Nato response...
WWIII

(worst case that is)

[okaawhatever]

37. A civil war shouldn't be a likely outcome. Ethnic Russians only make up 17% of the population. It

would take Russians coming over the border to help to make the fight winnable. Of course, now that I say that, it sounds like something Putin would support.

[amandabeech]

27. A few minutes ago on CNN, either Anderson Cooper or his guest,

a former ambassador to the Russia who is teaching at Stanford, said that the NYT had a report concerning a telephone conversation between Angela Merkel and Putin.

I haven't been able to find the NYT report, but it is alleged to have said that Merkel thought that Putin was not in his right mind. Let me type that again, Merkel thought that Putin was not in his right mind.

Putin clearly is a megalomaniac, but not in his right mind? That's a scary thought.

I hope that the report is not true, although I have to say, invading another country is a really insane idea. Yes, that is a comment on the mental state of the second Bush.

[okaawhatever]

31. Merkel is the one who would be least likely to make that statement. Remember, Germany sided with

Russia on the Georgia conflict. Many German oligarchs are involved in the Nord Stream pipeline. Remember, Putin's BFF fromer Chancellor Schroder approved the Nord Stream pipeline two weeks before the election and then after he was ousted signed a $1 million Euro contracting deal with the pipeline and got contracts for two German companies to help build it.
There's more reason for concern if Merkel says it than anyone else. Putin has been working overtime in that country with the anti-Merkel, anti-US propaganda.

[amandabeech]

34. I found the story in the Guardian, but frankly, I'm so upset that I can't seem

to get the URL or the headline posted here. I am old for a DUer and not very adept with any and all electronics, unfortunately.

Here it is:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-vladimir-putin-angela-merkel-russian

Ukraine crisis: Vladimir Putin has lost the plot, says German chancellor
Angela Merkel describes Russian president as 'out of touch with reality' after urging him to back down from Crimea occupation

Ian Traynor in Brussels and Patrick Wintour
theguardian.com, Monday 3 March 2014 04.54 EST

Vladimir Putin has lost the plot over Ukraine, according to the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

US reports said Merkel phoned Barack Obama on Sunday evening after speaking to the Russian president to press him to back down from his invasion of Ukraine and occupation of the Crimean peninsula.

"She was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. 'In another world,' she said," the New York Times reported.

Putin is obviously an extreme narcissist, but this sounds like he's really in a dangerous frame of mind.

[okaawhatever]

39. Wow thanks for that. There's nothing more dangerous than someone

"The vast gap between Putin's and the west's perceptions of what is taking place in Ukraine is adding to the pressure on the White House to take the lead in what US experts are calling the defining international crisis of Barack Obama's two terms. Senior US administration officials concede that Putin has taken total control of Crimea."

I think Putin believes his own propaganda. That can be dangerous in times like these. That's one of the reasons I like Obama, if he makes a bad decision, it's not because he let his emotions or ego take over. Reagan would have nuked Russia by now. Bush would be planning to invade but would still be finishing handing out no-bid contracts to his buddies for the job. (just kidding).

I've noticed much less press coverage today. I wonder if it's psyops to make Putin think he hasn't started WWIII like he wanted?

[amandabeech]

44. I'm seeing coverage on CNN, Al Jazeera, WaPo, NYT at British papers.

I've seen rumors that Ukrainian troops in Crimea must surrender to Russia by 10 pm tonight ET and that Russian troops are moving into the rest of Ukraine via the small isthmus that connects Crimea to the mainland to the north.

The financial markets have taken a dive, and there's a run to quality. Gold and U.S securities are getting lots of bids. The ruble is very low.

Putin to me is acting like Stalin or Hitler. He is not a man of the 21st century like Obama, or like many other world leaders. He is a throwback. But what to do with him? How to counter him? Should we look to how 20th century leaders dealt with folks like that? Is it time to pull out the Churchill and Roosevelt biographies? I hope not.

[Deep North]

47. Indeed scary...

...too many similarities to 1930's Europe with a madman on the loose. The Western powers are fat, bloated, ineffectual loan sharks and paper pushers...the US is exhausted by it's dabblings in imperialism and wealth concentration (like the UK in '39)...Putin is making his move here folks. And when the hell has anyone been able to negotiate with the Russians?