Meanwhile In The Baltic Republics And Poland...

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Josh We have no treaty with the Ukraine. I'm willing to throw them under the bus.

 

 

We already threw Ukraine under the bus in 2014 when Kerry encouraged them to take a stand against Putin’s stooge and then we did nothing as Putin annexed Crimea. So that’s all water under the bridge, if by ‘water’ we mean ‘Ukraine’ and ‘bridge’ we mean bus.

 

Despite rational thought the Baltic states are part of NATO and NATO needs to be ready to locally reinforce and deter any moves against those nations, though the level of force used against Russia should be broadly proportional.

 

 

Yes, but we shouldn’t advertise that, or even talk about it. Just have the capability and leave it at that; those living in glass houses should not threaten wars to blow up the glass houses.

 

Don't feed a bully.

 

 

I remember on the school bus once how the kids encouraged a kid to stand up to a big bully - and he did. They got off the bus and the bully proceeded to beat the living shit out of him while everyone, (including me) watched and did nothing. There's a cautionary tale in there somewhere, I should think.

 

Yes, there is. Just not the one you think you illustrated.

[swerve]

 

Josh We have no treaty with the Ukraine. I'm willing to throw them under the bus.

 

 

We already threw Ukraine under the bus in 2014 when Kerry encouraged them to take a stand against Putin’s stooge and then we did nothing as Putin annexed Crimea. So that’s all water under the bridge, if by ‘water’ we mean ‘Ukraine’ and ‘bridge’ we mean bus.

 

Despite rational thought the Baltic states are part of NATO and NATO needs to be ready to locally reinforce and deter any moves against those nations, though the level of force used against Russia should be broadly proportional.

 

 

Yes, but we shouldn’t advertise that, or even talk about it. Just have the capability and leave it at that; those living in glass houses should not threaten wars to blow up the glass houses.

 

Don't feed a bully.

 

 

I remember on the school bus once how the kids encouraged a kid to stand up to a big bully - and he did. They got off the bus and the bully proceeded to beat the living shit out of him while everyone, (including me) watched and did nothing. There's a cautionary tale in there somewhere, I should think.

 

Ah, so what you're saying is that having encouraged Ukraine to stand up to a big bully, we should now wash our hands of the matter.

 

You keep saying "We shouldn't do anything, Ukraine should seek an agreement with Russia", etc. Too late! We did something, 20 years ago, & pretending we didn't (as you say we should) is perfidious. You're also ignoring the reality that Ukraine can't reach an agreement with Russia unless Russia wants one, & all the evidence is that Russia doesn't want one. Putin's been happy to maintain bleeding sores in Georgia's & Moldova's sides since he came to power, & it looks very much as if he wants to do the same with Ukraine, & would like to in Estonia & Latvia if we'd let him - which we would, if you had your way..

[glenn239]

Chris Werb We could make it a lot harder for them simply by supplying the Ukraine with good ATGW and MANPADS. Ideally we would also give them area defence SAMs, Arthur C or similar and HIMARS

 

 

Maybe we could even call it the ‘Thousand for One’ proposal. Meaning, one thousand refugees sent into the EU for every ATGW sent to the Ukraine.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Despite rational thought the Baltic states are part of NATO and NATO needs to be ready to locally reinforce and deter any moves against those nations, though the level of force used against Russia should be broadly proportional.

 

 

 

Its dangerous, its expensive, and its not easy. And yet, in the final recourse, neither was the 40 year commitment to defending West Germany. If it was right for West Germany, why is it not right for Ukrainians or Georgians? What makes a German of more inherent worth than a Slav or a Georgian? And of course they aren't. If peace and stability were right then, then it surely is worth taking a stand for it now. Its also worth reflecting its not US shaking the applecart. Its Russia.

 

What puzzles me is, everyone assumes Ukraine is'different'. Well they want to join the EU, they want to join NATO, and we backed down on both because Russia threw its weight about and had a hissy fit. One has to reflect, Russia see's them as part of the same problem. So if that is the case, is not standing by commitments to Ukraine the best way to ensure Russia understands we will stand by the Balts, or indeed anyone, if it comes to it?

 

We try to decouple the two. I dont think they do, either Georgia or Ukraine. Yes, it might have been better not to have fed those hopes we would let them join. But their having gone so far to try and fulfill those requirements, inst it completely limp that we let them down just because of some intimidation?

Edited July 15, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Chris Werb We could make it a lot harder for them simply by supplying the Ukraine with good ATGW and MANPADS. Ideally we would also give them area defence SAMs, Arthur C or similar and HIMARS

 

 

Maybe we could even call it the ‘Thousand for One’ proposal. Meaning, one thousand refugees sent into the EU for every ATGW sent to the Ukraine.

 

There are already over a million displaced Ukrainians Glenn, just from our doing nothing.

[glenn239]

Stuart Rubbish. West Germany could not be defended by conventional means either.

 

 

The principle I hold to is that no defensive alliance should incorporate members if these cannot be defended by defensive conventional means, or if their inclusion will cause more instability than it resolves. Under this principle, Poland and Romania were where NATO should have stopped its expansion. Whether you agree or disagree – that's up to you.

 

I’m the first to acknowledge that throughout history alliances have been made in violation of this principle, sometimes to no ill effect (Cuba and the USSR during the Cold War), sometimes to a horrific result (Poland allied with the west in 1939). But always with the unprotectable party hanging out there, unprotectable.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Stuart Rubbish. West Germany could not be defended by conventional means either.

 

 

The principle I hold to is that no defensive alliance should incorporate members if these cannot be defended by defensive conventional means, or if their inclusion will cause more instability than it resolves. Under this principle, Poland and Romania were where NATO should have stopped its expansion. Whether you agree or disagree – that's up to you.

 

I’m the first to acknowledge that throughout history alliances have been made in violation of this principle, sometimes to no ill effect (Cuba and the USSR during the Cold War), sometimes to a horrific result (Poland allied with the west in 1939). But always with the unprotectable party hanging out there, unprotectable.

 

I know you keep saying that. The point im illustrating is that not only was that NOT the founding statement of NATO (it only asks that nations make a reasonable effort to defend themselves under article 3) it overlooks that none of the states of Eastern Europe could be defended against a conventional cruise missile attack, ballistic missile attack, air attack etc etc. Its already irrelevant. Why create conditions to justify non inclusion, when that clearly has been wholly irrelevant all the way back to 1949? Its moving the goal posts Glenn. Nato was never able to defend successfully against Conventional attack, except perhaps (maybe) in the last decade of the cold war. Even then the Soviets had a vote.

 

See the thing is this, Poland in 1939. Making the commitment was not wrong. What was wrong was expecting Hitler to be deterred by a commitment, when every other commitment we made prior to it in the 1930s we threw under the bus in the name of appeasement. The question has to be asked. if we made a big deal about Czecho, would he have made the moves on Poland after being impressed by Western solidarity? Or after the French or the British standing up against the incorporation of Austria? Or the march into the Rhineland? You are assuming Poland is Ukraine, ie the commitment we should not have made. I would argue Poland in 1939 is far closer to the Baltic states, ie the countries we wont have to stand up in defence of as long as we stand by the commitments we threw under the bus, ie Ukraine and Georgia.

 

If geopolitics is signalling (something the Russians seemingly accept) then what are we signalling them by not standing by Urkaine and Georgia? I can tell you, its weakness, passivity, and a williness to make concessions. Its not just killing NATO, or even the EU, its killing Western moral authority on a whole host of issues. And God knows its hard enough to get European (or even American) politicians to take a stand on anything these days. God help us if Trump throws his dealmaking skills into the mix.

[glenn239]

 

Stuart There are already over a million displaced Ukrainians Glenn, just from our doing nothing.

 

 

Ukraine? You are truly amusing. The button that could be pushed is in Africa.

[glenn239]

 

Swerve You keep saying "We shouldn't do anything, Ukraine should seek an agreement with Russia", etc. Too late! We did something, 20 years ago, & pretending we didn't (as you say we should) is perfidious. You're also ignoring the reality that Ukraine can't reach an agreement with Russia unless Russia wants one…

 

 

Ukraine will be better off if they pick up the pieces and move on.

 

Putin's been happy to maintain bleeding sores in Georgia's & Moldova's sides since he came to power, & it looks very much as if he wants to do the same with Ukraine, & would like to in Estonia & Latvia if we'd let him - which we would, if you had your way..

 

 

Moldova - wasn't that the one I asked some time ago why you were even thinking of it when your country might Brexit? Was it that you didn't really think Brexit would happen?

Putin’s pattern is that anything which was given away in the Cold War is NATO’s and anything beyond that will be a struggle. Georgia, Syria, Ukraine – the thing these all have in common is that they were not part of the end of Cold War deal. Recently, I think he's even tested refugees on the Finnish border, sort of as a warning to Finland that they were not part of the end-of-Cold War deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/world/europe/for-migrants-into-europe-a-road-less-traveled.html?_r=0

Edited July 15, 2016 by glenn239

[Chris Werb]

I agree with Glenn that it's pretty insane to move the boundaries of the alliance into areas that are not defendable by conventional means. However, we did it with the Baltic Republics, so we have to deliver on our promises. That said, Latvia needs to spend more than 1% on its own defence! It's just too dangerous to incorporate countries that have actively occupying Russian forces on their soil (and I don't mean in the process of pulling out due to the massive changes inside Russia). Morally, there can be no excuse for not supplying Ukraine with arguably inherently defensive weapon systems such as SAMs and ATGW. Where it gets problematic is if we started to supply AFVs, artillery, CB radar etc. and especially with conventional near-precision TBMs. Just giving them Javelin and TOW-2/Saber would make a huge difference.

[glenn239]

Stuart If geopolitics is signalling (something the Russians seemingly accept) then what are we signalling them by not standing by Urkaine and Georgia? I can tell you, its weakness, passivity, and a williness to make concessions…

 

 

It’s dangerous to draw lines in the sand in places that we cannot defend because it does not deter and can be interpreted as an act of aggression,. The Baltic States are on the edge of defendable for us while Georgia is undefendable.

 

See the thing is this, Poland in 1939. Making the commitment was not wrong. What was wrong was expecting Hitler to be deterred by a commitment, when every other commitment we made prior to it in the 1930s we threw under the bus in the name of appeasement.

 

 

Now Hitler could be deterred? C'mon, at least try to type something you think I could buy.

Look, I don’t know how you learned nothing from Iraq after 2003, but your inability to learn is not my problem. The fact of the matter is that there are demonstrable limits to what we can do, and if we get into military engagements outside of our home area, chances are very good it is going to go poorly for those we are trying to protect.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well I wont bang on about accepting new partners, other than to say its a case of perhaps having been a bit wiser in the mid 2000's might have paid dividends. Inviting the Balts and poland and the others was clearly right, but Georgia and Ukraine perhaps was not because they were a long reach, not for any moral reason not to. But we did, and ultimately that we made the promises then and then retreat from them is not only sending a bad message to aspiring partners that might appear elsewhere in Europe. It sending a message to Russia that intimidation works. But Ill leave that point there, I have a tendency to over press points particularly when I feel strongly about them.

 

As far as supplying weapons, we do tend to wrap ourselves up in knots in Europe by saying 'This weapon is not offensive' or 'That weapon is offensive, double plus ungood'. I remember reading of the terms of Britain selling arms to Iraq during the Iran war, and it basically was ok for a British manufacturer to supply parts to Iraq to keep its Chieftains going. IE spare parts, engines, tracks etc. But it was NOT ok to supply anything that would make them fight. IE Ammunition, guns, fire control components. At which point you being to think Bureaucrats are wonderful at turning the world into pages of nonsense.

 

Its of course right to sell weaponry to Ukraine (or lets be generous, lets donate weapons. LIke Germany giving them all those dozens of marders they are cutting up). Because, and here is the point, the slippery slope, it makes no difference to Russia if we supply antitank missiles (and it clearly is right to do so) or if we supply PZ2000's or AS90s, or Typhoons, because they will regard it as an infringement in their affairs. So in my view if we are going to upset them by getting involved (and we will) then we may as well get involved properly and ensure they have a level of capability suitable for deterrence. We probably shouldn't pretend there is a low level of interference whereby we can pretend that they wont be upset. Whatever we do, even when we DONT do it and they pretend we do, upsets them. So go large IMHO. No reason not to. Sell them leopards, any Warriors we dont need, sell them light 105's. Free world. They feel fully able to sell weaponry to a half dozen trouble spots round the world, why should that worry us to do the same to countries that deserve to be able to defend themselves?

 

As far as occupation, you can point to several countries in Eastern Europe that have Russian populations left over from the Soviet era, or ethnic populations that might conceivably cause problems. You can point to any number of reasons not to accept new states, but the reason is less because of any inherent problems they have, its because Russia doesnt like it. Why does doing something someone whom regards you as an adversary commend itself as good sense? It doesnt to me.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[bd1]

latvia has 1% defence GDP for , frankly because they were told by NATO* what kind of military NATO needs - small, proffessional auxiliary force for ops in foreign lands.make it sustainable with such budget and your suddenly ´´provider of security ´´ in the world. **

don´t spend your limited budget on expensive stuff (tracks, artillery) that has no relevance to peace-keeping. don´t waste your little budget on some worthless territorial militias etc. end of history is here and everybody that thinks russia is a threat is ... well idiot.***

 

difference between ukraine and baltic states is that we were given conditions, protocols, reforms - political, military - that were needed to be fulfilled before joining NATO .

all those were fulfilled, every frikkin hoop was jumped through. for a while estonia was second most deployed military in whole NATO

 

 

* see interviews by George Robertson in local newspapers

** same

*** same

 

edited to add - missed word deployed initially

Edited July 15, 2016 by bd1

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Stuart If geopolitics is signalling (something the Russians seemingly accept) then what are we signalling them by not standing by Urkaine and Georgia? I can tell you, its weakness, passivity, and a williness to make concessions…

 

 

It’s dangerous to draw lines in the sand in places that we cannot defend because it does not deter and can be interpreted as an act of aggression,. The Baltic States are on the edge of defendable for us while Georgia is undefendable.

 

See the thing is this, Poland in 1939. Making the commitment was not wrong. What was wrong was expecting Hitler to be deterred by a commitment, when every other commitment we made prior to it in the 1930s we threw under the bus in the name of appeasement.

 

 

Now Hitler could be deterred? C'mon, at least try to type something you think I could buy.

Look, I don’t know how you learned nothing from Iraq after 2003, but your inability to learn is not my problem. The fact of the matter is that there are demonstrable limits to what we can do, and if we get into military engagements outside of our home area, chances are very good it is going to go poorly for those we are trying to protect.

 

How do you KNOW he couldnt be deterred? In actual fact occupying the Rhineland was a slam dunk. If we had contested that, he would not have had the forces he latterly had to beat France. In fact that remained true all the way up to occupying the Czech tank factories, he would never have had the tanks to take on (let alone defeat) Britain and France and win. So militarily, economically, and politically, defeating HItler was possible right up to the point when he took Poland. And EVEN THEN nobody wanted to take wholehearted action to invaded German and occupy Germany, which was perhaps the only thing that would have made him stop.

 

There were multiple points when the allies could have either stopped Germany in its tracks, or convinced the German people he was leading them to a disaster. And we didnt, partly because we were in a recession and nobody wanted to have a war, partly because politically it was suicide because nobody wanted WW2, and partly because Politicians at the time had a crisis of confidence, and nobody wanted to take lead. Not so very different than today really.

 

This does NOT imply Putin is a Hitler. There are important differences. But he clearly is very much a chancer, and the Wests inability to stand by promises its made is just making him continually spin the wheel. And one day he will make a mistake that we WONT be able to back away from. And neither shall we. That is not an unrealistic fear, look at Khrushchev emboldened by what he perceived success at Port Said, and putting up the Berlin wall. He viewed the opposition as weak, and proceeded accordingly in Cuba, and very badly came unstuck because of it. This can easily happen again.

[glenn239]

Stuart …But he clearly is very much a chancer,

 

 

You freely admit what you want to do is dangerous.

 

How do you KNOW he couldnt be deterred?

 

 

Read Hitler’s second book, the one on foreign policy. It’s just a giant heap of bullshit where nothing is going to work for Germany except going to war. Every possibility, every option that does not involve starting WW2 Hitler somehow rationalizes away. That’s a man that’s going to start a war and nothing is going to stop him. But seriously, you only started in on the Hitler stuff to get around the fact that the Franco-Polish alliance of 1939 hung Poland out on a ledge to where it could not be defended, and because it could not be defended, the alliance deterred no one - not even Stalin.

Alliances that cannot defend should not be made.

 

And one day he will make a mistake that we WONT be able to back away from. And neither shall we.

 

 

You want to make war inevitable by getting into avoidable confrontations in Eastern Europe while at the same time argue that you are not increasing the chances for war. As I just said, I cannot help you that you've apparently learned nothing from Iraq, I can only reject your opinions as misguided and reckless.

[Simon Tan]

What I am saying is that NATO members are busy destabilizing their neighbours and doing all the bad things that Russia is accused of. And doing it with entities sworn as enemies of NATO and whom have launched a series of direct attacks on NATO members. It is really impossible to keep a straight face when all these aspirational nonsense is brought up at the same time Al Qaeda is getting every recruit, bullet and stack of bread from Turkey. Leaving out the still ongoing oil smuggling from DAESH.

 

The ability to not see is quite inpressive. Drive on.

[Gregory]

latvia has 1% defence GDP for , frankly because they were told by NATO* what kind of military NATO needs - small, proffessional auxiliary force for ops in foreign lands.make it sustainable with such budget and your suddenly ´´provider of security ´´ in the world. **

don´t spend your limited budget on expensive stuff (tracks, artillery) that has no relevance to peace-keeping. don´t waste your little budget on some worthless territorial militias etc. end of history is here and everybody that thinks russia is a threat is ... well idiot.***

 

difference between ukraine and baltic states is that we were given conditions, protocols, reforms - political, military - that were needed to be fulfilled before joining NATO .

all those were fulfilled, every frikkin hoop was jumped through. for a while estonia was second military in whole NATO

 

 

* see interviews by George Robertson in local newspapers

** same

*** same

 

True. Estonia was able to dodge that bullet (due to political support from Finland, as far as I understand), but Latvia and Lithuania swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

 

P.S Latvia has 1.6% military budget in 2016 and is programming 1.7% in 2017 and 2.0% in 2018.

 

P.P.S "for a while estonia was second military in whole NATO". I think something got dropped in that sentence.

[Gregory]

 

 

And the thing is that Germany has recently become one of the loudest voices against NATO expansion. They present arguments which, if they were applied to them in the 1950s, would make their own accession to NATO impossible.

 

What I'm referring to is 2008 NATO summit, where both Berlin and Paris blocked MAP for Georgia and Ukraine.

 

West Germany also had limited sovereignity, all of its active armed forces assigned to NATO command in peacetime already, and little say in what allied forces were doing on its territory. I'm not sure that's something prospective members would aspire to to create comparable conditions for their accession.

 

 

if it stopped territorial encroachment, I think the Ukrainians (and the Georgians for that matter) would be willing to sign up for damn near anything.

 

Basically the Georgians bust a gut to help NATO and they got nothing in return. We just signalled we wouldnt do anything to stop their invasion other than wring hands. Its hardly sending a positive message to NATO partnership members, let alone anyone else really.

 

 

I have to add, Ive no wish to upset Russia. But I think we have to face up to the fact that Russia is going to be upset by whatever we do. Anything that strengthens European security they are going to regard as a potential threat. We have to face up to that, and react accordingly.

 

 

In all fairness, we did give Georgia quite a lot of money, equipment and training over the last 10 years.

[bd1]

 

latvia has 1% defence GDP for , frankly because they were told by NATO* what kind of military NATO needs - small, proffessional auxiliary force for ops in foreign lands.make it sustainable with such budget and your suddenly ´´provider of security ´´ in the world. **

don´t spend your limited budget on expensive stuff (tracks, artillery) that has no relevance to peace-keeping. don´t waste your little budget on some worthless territorial militias etc. end of history is here and everybody that thinks russia is a threat is ... well idiot.***

 

difference between ukraine and baltic states is that we were given conditions, protocols, reforms - political, military - that were needed to be fulfilled before joining NATO .

all those were fulfilled, every frikkin hoop was jumped through. for a while estonia was second military in whole NATO

 

 

* see interviews by George Robertson in local newspapers

** same

*** same

 

True. Estonia was able to dodge that bullet (due to political support from Finland, as far as I understand), but Latvia and Lithuania swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

 

P.S Latvia has 1.6% military budget in 2016 and is programming 1.7% in 2017 and 2.0% in 2018.

 

P.P.S "for a while estonia was second military in whole NATO". I think something got dropped in that sentence.

 

thanks, will fix. the support was not from finland, as much as i can tell, but more important was that finland had since early 90´s offered officer training.

 

second most deployed military in NATO during 2008 afgh. elections .

and , considering most of our military is conscripts, who are non-deployable, it means our pro´s were run to ground .

 

9 died , 92 wounded in afgh., 2 dead in iraq.

 

we kept inf. platoon in iraq, and coy in afgh. (2 coy´s during 2008 elections). all these were ´´teeth´´, grunts, only ´tail´ was logistics squad and 2-4 staff officers

 

 

edit - one of these days i must start using spell-checker...

Edited July 15, 2016 by bd1

[swerve]

 

 

Swerve You keep saying "We shouldn't do anything, Ukraine should seek an agreement with Russia", etc. Too late! We did something, 20 years ago, & pretending we didn't (as you say we should) is perfidious. You're also ignoring the reality that Ukraine can't reach an agreement with Russia unless Russia wants one…

 

 

Ukraine will be better off if they pick up the pieces and move on.

What part of "Ukraine can't without Russian co-operation & Russia won't cooperate" don't you understand? You keep talking as if Russia will suddenly start being reasonable, despite the complete lack of evidence for that opinion & the massive weight of evidence to the contrary.

[Simon Tan]

Russia sees NATO and judges it by its actions. Funny how blind you can be when you put your mindcto it.

[a77]

Russia sees NATO and judges it by its actions. Funny how blind you can be when you put your mindcto it.

 

Is Russia hold to the same judgment?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Russia sees NATO and judges it by its actions. Funny how blind you can be when you put your mindcto it.

Whereas perish the thought that anyone might do the same with Russia.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Stuart …But he clearly is very much a chancer,

 

 

You freely admit what you want to do is dangerous.

 

How do you KNOW he couldnt be deterred?

 

 

Read Hitler’s second book, the one on foreign policy. It’s just a giant heap of bullshit where nothing is going to work for Germany except going to war. Every possibility, every option that does not involve starting WW2 Hitler somehow rationalizes away. That’s a man that’s going to start a war and nothing is going to stop him. But seriously, you only started in on the Hitler stuff to get around the fact that the Franco-Polish alliance of 1939 hung Poland out on a ledge to where it could not be defended, and because it could not be defended, the alliance deterred no one - not even Stalin.

Alliances that cannot defend should not be made.

 

And one day he will make a mistake that we WONT be able to back away from. And neither shall we.

 

 

You want to make war inevitable by getting into avoidable confrontations in Eastern Europe while at the same time argue that you are not increasing the chances for war. As I just said, I cannot help you that you've apparently learned nothing from Iraq, I can only reject your opinions as misguided and reckless.

 

Yes it is dangerous. Might I politely point out that we have since 2008 done absolutely nothing to risk raising Russias Ire and,

1 They have continued to nibble away at Georgian territory, and made moves to recognise the enclaves they have created when everyone and his uncle other than Russia recognises them as Georgian Territory.

I mean, imagine if NATO did this to Russia. They would shit a brick. Yet they feel free and able to do stuff like this all the time, and usually they dont give the territory back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25830623

2 They annexed Crimea. And yes I know they had a referendum after the fact, and I know they owned some of the territory anyway, it remains the only annexation of territory in Europe post 1945. This is important Glenn. Particularly if you are Polish or Ukrainian, who bore the brunt of the border changes last time.

3 They keep that war going, despite promises under Minsk 2 to agree to keep the conflict stabilised. They have not fulfilled that agreement a damn.

4 Still feel the need to antagonise European nations, even those that are not actually part of NATO for fear that they might join NATO. Refusing to recognise that its their intimidation that is threatening to drive many unaligned states into Joining NATO. This is not the other way around. They are driving this trend, just as they did in the 1990s and 2000's. You would have though tthey would have woken up to this by now, but no.

 

We have been over this ad nauseum, but I feel I ought to point them out because, by doing nothing, this all happened. What is happening now, is not safe. So basically your idea of sitting on our hands and pretending the world is a nice and safe place has if anything eroded the European security we have all been happy to take for granted.

 

Is there risk in my proposals? Yes. I would counter that by saying I would point to our not having done them cumulatively ruined the security we all take for granted, whereby its now necessary to send troops to Eastern Europe, something we always resisted, and STILL you say 'well lets not be aggressive'. When will you stop your pig headed attitude that its NATO doing all the running aggravating the bear and recognise that the bear is going out of his way to be aggravated by things he already agreed to 20 years ago! He is even throwing away security guarantees the USSR agreed to, for no other reason than to thumb its nose at NATO. And still its NATO that is being the aggressive one.

 

I will leave it there. Unfortunately I dont think you can be reasoned with, and in that case I really can see no further purpose wasting photons trying to change your mind. You will happily throw any Eastern European state (or best I can tell, ANY state) under the bus in the illusion of international security, refusing to recognise that doing so is making the world less, not more safe.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

Swerve You keep saying "We shouldn't do anything, Ukraine should seek an agreement with Russia", etc. Too late! We did something, 20 years ago, & pretending we didn't (as you say we should) is perfidious. You're also ignoring the reality that Ukraine can't reach an agreement with Russia unless Russia wants one…

 

 

Ukraine will be better off if they pick up the pieces and move on.

What part of "Ukraine can't without Russian co-operation & Russia won't cooperate" don't you understand? You keep talking as if Russia will suddenly start being reasonable, despite the complete lack of evidence for that opinion & the massive weight of evidence to the contrary.

 

Well Russia signed Minsk II which among other things promised;-

 

Pullout of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under OSCE supervision. Disarmament of all illegal groups.

 

Effective monitoring and verification of ceasefire regime and pullout of heavy weapons by OSCE will be provided from the first day of pullout, using all necessary technical means such as satellites, drones, radio-location systems etc.

 

And the net result has been;-

 

American Defence Department official Michael Carpenter said on 2 March 2016 that at least 430 Ukrainian soldiers had died since the signing of Minsk II, that Russia maintained "command-and-control links" over the DPR and LPR, and that Russia was "pouring heavy weapons" into the Donbass.^[41] Deputy head of the OSCE mission in Ukraine Alexander Hug said on 25 March 2016 that the OSCE had observed "armed people with Russian insignia" fighting in Donbass from the beginning of the conflict, that they had talked to prisoners who said they were Russian soldiers, and that they had seen "tire tracks, not the vehicles themselves, but the tracks of vehicles crossing the [Russo-Ukrainian] border"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II

 

Putin has broken his word, many, many times. He has lied to the world and the Russian people. And even more worrying, seemingly has no concerns about owning up to said lies and THEN wonders why the international community doesnt trust his word! If we cant trust his word on Ukraine, and quite clearly we cant, then why trust his word on far bigger issues, such as reclaiming former Soviet territories even in NATO territory? I dont personally think he will. Is there any solid reason to trust him in that regard? Absolutely none. And still they keep saying 'Well lets trust his word, this time he might be serious'. Sure, thats bound to work out really well. No wonder the Poles are rearming to the teeth.

 

Our lack of will to help Ukraine is sending absolutely all the wrong messages about how we wont help our friends when they are in the lurch. Just because Ukraine is not in NATO does not mean Russia is not looking and taking notes about how we look after our allies. And still they say 'Throw them under the bus'. Ukraine today, Estonia tomorrow is the way I look at it.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith