Moscow signals concern for Russians in Estonia

[happyslug]

59. You have to look from the RUSSIANS point of view, not from the US

Remember the Cuban Missile crises? The US has hated Cuba since the Cuban Revolution do to the fact that Cuba is the best base to take New Orleans. It was the base from which the British attacked New Orleans in 1815, it was the base the US used in 1862 during the Civil war (Technically no US Ship went to Cuba, but support ships, including ships used to move the food for the Sailors and troops did). Cuba was where the Spanish sent their troops to New Orleans in 1763 when France turned New Orleans over to the Spanish (There was some preparations made to oppose the Spanish, but the Spanish showed up with enough force to prevent any such action). Some historians maintain the Shawnee where a Cuban Tribe that under pressure from the Spanish left Cuba for Southern Louisiana (and then made they way up the Mississippi and Ohio so by the 1600s were in Pennsylvania).


Whoever holds Cuba is a threat to New Orleans and given that the Mississippi drains 2/3rds of the US, whoever holds New Orleans holds the US by the throat. Thus the US will NEVER accept a hostile force in Cuba. Cuba can have a strong defense force for the US fear is a STRONG OFFENSIVE force not a Cuban Defense force. Thus when the Russian put missiles in Cuba the US almost went to war. When the Russians decided to pull out the missiles, the push for War ended for Cuba without Russian troops was not capable of threatening New Orleans. The US was still Hostile to Cuba under Castro, but the US was NOT going to go to war over Cuba without Russian troops.

That is all a matter of geography. For example, for some heavy bulky cargoes, it is cheaper and easier to ship such cargoes down the Ohio and Mississippi from Pittsburgh Pa, then put them on an inter-coastal barge to Philadelphia. Fuel for Pittsburgh comes up the Mississippi River, for it is cheaper then shipping it over land from Philadelphia. In terms of Value, Los Angles is the biggest US Port, but in terms of TONNAGE, that is South Louisiana. Houston is #2, New Orleans (a Separate port from South Louisiana) is #5, Long Beach is #4. Long beach has less then a 1/3 of the tonnage that passes through South Louisiana OR Houston, that is how massive the Mississippi river tonnage is even today. Los Angles is even further down the list when it comes to tonnage.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_57.html

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/americas_freight_transportation_gateways/2009/introduction_and_overview/html/figure_02_table.html

The main difference is the Mississippi ports ship oil and grain, while Los Angles and Long Beach pull in shipments of finished goods from China and the rest of the Far East.

While, Los Angles brings in more money, do to the tonnage shipped through the Mississippi river port. Mississippi is by far the most important of the two. Remember during the American Revolution the US lost both of its two largest cities at that time, Philadelphia and New York, but since the US still controlled its internal lines the US survived. During the American Revolution the US did not yet control the Mississippi, the US did within 20 years of the Revolution and since that time the Mississippi-Ohio river has been the main interior lines of the US, the US will nuke the world of that interior line is threatened.

The same with Russia, what Putin is doing is driven more by Geography then anything else. From the Plains of Poland to the Pacific Ocean, you have the largest single flat piece of land in the world. It is intersected by Rivers (and the people of that land, center themselves on those rivers, the Poles along the Vistula, the Ukrainians around the Dnieper, south of thePripet Marshes, the Russian along the Volga. The Belarusians along the Dnieper, but in or north of the Pripet Marshes.

Pripet Marshes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinsk_Marshes

While the people of that vast flat land do call themselves separate nationalities and speak variation of Slavic Languages (some so different as to be translated from one to another), when one people end and another begin is often some arbitrary line drawn in the dirt. It is not unusable for people who grew up in these border areas to switch from one language to another for their friends in their area they grew up in were often of spoke both languages interchangeability. Poles would speak Ukrainian where those two people mixed, Ukrainians would speak Russian, where those two people mixed. While the "Borders" often had guards and stations that restricted movement, but like the US-Canadian border west of Ontario, walk 100 feet away, no one will come out and say don't do that. In that area of the US and Canada, citizens of both countries do it all the time.

This is NOT like the border between Germany and France. Yes, both are members of the EU and no longer need passports to cross to the other country, but often you have mountain ranges (and sometimes rivers) that divide those two people, thus mixing across the borders as children playing with their friends in their neighborhood is much harder and thus rarer between Germany and France, then it is between any of the people living between Poland and the Pacific Ocean.

I bring this up, for Russian knows the above and also knows it is weakest in winter. When Russia was conquered by the Mongols, it was in a Winter attack, for then the rivers and Marshes freeze up and it is quick movement throughout that flat land. When attacked in Summer, Russia has fought off most of its enemies, but in winter, if the invader is prepared for a winter attack (like the Mongols were), Russia can be easily and quickly conquered. The poles in 1610 attacked in Summer, but they had moved they border eastward during the previous winters to set up that summer attack (as did the Teutonic Knights, who were defeated by the Poles when their decided to attack in Summer, something the Grand Master of the Knights told his knights NOT to do, but they attacks and were defeated in the battle of Tannenberg in 1410).

More on the Battle of Grunwald or First Battle of Tannenberg or Battle of Žalgiris (Like many battles has more then one name, Grunwald is the Polish name, Tannnerberg is the German Name, Žalgiris is the Lithuanian name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald

Thus Russia fears strong enemies on its borders, not so much counties like Estonia or Latvia, but countries that can provide the forces to attack Russia, i.e. Germany, France, Britain and the US, all members of NATO. Russia will oppose any forces from those countries on its borders, even if those troops are in Poland, Latvia, Lithuanian and Estonia. Just like the US will NOT tolerate troops from a country that can attack New Orleans being in Cuba, Russia will have that same attitude to Latvia, Lithuanian and Estonia (Poland the Russians will accept, for Poland was the second largest army in the old Warsaw Pact, thus Poland, while not right now able to attack Russia, could by itself in some future date).

Geography often determines who fights what war not only who and where but often how and when and why. Latvia, Lithuanian and Estonia along with the Ukraine are red lines for Russia, I do not care who is in charge of Russia, such a ruler can NOT afford such countries to be used as spring board of an attack on Russia. That also includes the ABILITY to be used, as oppose to be actually used. Finland knows this, and since WWII has agreed NEVER to put foreign troops in Finland AND not to enter into an alliance with a country that COULD attack Russia. Thus Finland since WWII, did NOT have to turn Communist under Stalin but remained a western Style democracy right on the borders of the Soviet Union, within 210 kilometers of the second largest city in Russia, St Petersburgh. The reason was simple, Finland refused to be a threat to Russia after it agreed to a peace treaty in 1944.

Thus from the Russians point of view the alliance between NATO and the sending of Troops to the Baltics nations of Latvia, Lithuanian and Estonia is a threat to Russia. Russia has made to threat to any of those nations, thus those nations working with NATO is showing they are willing to be a NATO base to attack Russia.

Remember the Russia of today is not the Soviet Union of the Cold War, Russia is much weaker compared to NATO then the Soviet Union was (The Soviet Army in 1985 held its largest war game, going the distance from Berlin to Lisbon in three days in a fighting formation bringing its own supplies, including food and fuel, with it on that maneuver, the Russian Army of today can NOT do anything like that). On the other hand, Russia can NOT sit back and let its potential enemies surround it so that Russia loses any ability to defend itself. Thus the the recent moves by Putin, it is NOT something he wants to do, but instead feels he has to do it to defend mother Russia. What the West and NATO should be doing is working to relieve that threat, instead the US wants to increase that threat, and when Putin reacts complain that he is the person being unreasonable.

Yes, reminds me of the scene from Dr Strangelove, where George C, Scott with the map of Russia behind him showing US B-52s with Nukes heading for various targets in the Soviet Union, telling the President of the US, that the US should follow up that attack for the Russians would react to the initial attack and launch their own attack and thus to defend America we should launch an all out attack on Russia. i.e since the US had already attacked Russia, the US needed to attack them again so they could not defend themselves by attacking the country that attacked them.

In many ways, the expansion of NATO is an attack on Russia. NATO is NOT only an alliance of mutual defense, it is also an united attack force under US command. I.e. it is NOT only a promise that we will defend other members of NATO, but the forces of those countries and the rest of NATO, including US Troops, are to be integrated as one large force to attack the only country that NATO has refused admission to NATO, i.e. Russia (Khrushchev had offered to join NATO in 1954, but was refused, then he formed the Warsaw pact).

How else can a Ruler of Russia view NATO, NATO has extensive OFFENSIVE capacities, but aimed more and more at Russia then any other single country. Putin is reacting to this reality more then anything else, and so should the US.

Sidenote: In 1890 Admiral Mahan of the US Navy wrote a Book about Naval superiority and that Naval power would defeat land based power. He did admit to one exception to this rule, when the center of Asia was under the control of one Country that could figure out a way to move massive amount of supplies over land. This was his explanation for the Mongol Empire and the Russian Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upon_History

It also brought up a conflict among people who followed his teaching, that the leading Naval power greatest enemy if often not another Naval power but a land based power and that such a land based power must be destroyed to preserve the power of the fleet. Thus the US and Britain's leading nature enemy was NOT France, Japan or Germany, but Russia. Russia divided among various land locked nations makes it almost impossible for Russia to unite AND to get the needed supplies for its armies. A united Russia, on the other hand could set up such a supply system, and such a supply system would make who ever had naval superiority useless. i.e. if an army can be supplied by land based supply lines, thus the main role of the Navy to prevent supplies from getting to such armies just can NOT be done.

Russia, late in 2013 was able to show it can ship supplies from China to Europe in two weeks by rail. Remember we are talking about freight, by ship such supplies take about a month.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/us-kazakhstan-railway-idUSBRE9590GH20130610

http://www.examinechina.com/blog/import-from-china-cargo-train-connections-europe-china/

While, shipping by Ship may still be cheaper, most Chinese goods are made on the coast of China, rail promises the ability to get goods to market faster at just a slight increase in costs (Aircraft is even faster, but much more expensive). I bring it up for this new "Silk Road" promises to provide Russia the ability to operate and get supplies from China without have to worry about who controls the seas (and it also operate in the opposite way also, Russian supplies to China, or even European supplies to China if Europe decides NOT to support a US blockage or embargo of China).

During the Cold war, the above was hard to do, Russia kept its 5 foot Railroad gauge (More often called 1524mm, but after WWII the Russian rounded it down to 1420 mm, the 4 mm difference is within the error rate of both 1520mm and 1524mm gauges so the trains set for 1524mm and 1520 gauges can operate on tracks built for either Gauge). China and Poland kept their existing 4 foot 8 1/2 inch gauge (more often called 1435 mm). The difference of 85 mm or 3 1/2 inches between 1520mm gauge and 1435mm gauge exceed the error rate between those gauges and thus you can NOT run cars built for 1435 mm Gauge in tracks built for 1520mm gauge (and vica versa).

What the Russian had done is built three transfer points, one in Kazakhstan, one in Manchuria and another in Poland. The first two takes train shipments and move the containers onto 1520mm gauge cars, and the later transfers them to 1435mm gauge cars.

I bring this up, for I find it interesting that this problem of the Ukraine, started within six months of the successful implementation of freight shipments by rail from China to Germany (Through other shipments were made as early as 2006). Are they people in the US Government afraid that the Russians have found a way to make the US Navy irrelevant? i.e who cares who controls the sea, Russia and China and still ship things to and from Europe (and that thought may just be hatred in the State Department and the Pentagon).

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/freight/15-day-transit-for-china-%E2%80%93-germany-freight-train.html