Obama Pledges To Defend Baltic Allies Against Russia

[happyslug]

23. Officially neither were invasions.

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.