NATO: give Vladimir Putin free rein over Estonia.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Feb 23, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Nothing would please me more than drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and watching Russian tanks roll over this puny little flyspeck, pulverizing these ungrateful racists into dust. Unfortunately, Obama is spending billions of dollars protect these swine, and he wants to quadruple that amount of U.S. forces on the Baltic borders with Russia. Obama is perfectly willing to start WWIII over Estonia.

    Back in the day when we had Air Force bases in Iceland, the Icelandic government would not permit U.S. black servicemen to leave their bases, lest their pure blonde, blue-eyed Viking goddesses be sullied by dating the black Americans protecting their crappy little nation. Both Republican and Democratic administrations acquiesced to this for decades until Nixon closed our bases in 1973.

    We need a president who puts American interests first. We need a president who will tell the rest of the world to stuff it. We need a president who will Make America Great Again!
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    At least their military leaders are speaking out against it.
    Unfortunately with you calling Estonians "swine" and the country a "puny little flyspeck" you are demonstrating exactly the kind of behavior that you are criticizing the Estonians for.
     
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    Having a hard time here. You support an overt racist for President but have issues when some "puny" little country is racist.

    And the 1950s are over dude, we can't act the bully and prosper anymore.
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    And you think abandoning the Baltic states to invasion or annexation by a revanchist Russia would be telling the rest of the world how great the USA is? Do you think abrogating the NATO treaty would be putting American interests first?

    There have always been problems around places where large numbers of troops, especially foreign troops, are stationed. Young men; released from tight discipline, exposed to alcohol and women, are all but certain to get into trouble. Guess how many GIs were convicted of rape in Britain during WWII? Guess how many bar fights and DUI arrests happen around bases here in the US?

    This is one of your sillier rants. And thats saying something.
     
  5. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #5
    "Abandoning?" When did the Baltics become our charge and who made that decision?

    Anyway, if Russia did move against the Baltics--which I doubt--it would take the form of hybrid warfare like in Ukraine and could occur all around U.S. forces without directly involving them. We'd either stand by and watch, join what would for all intents and purpose be a civil war, or take overt action against Russia.

    I don't know what you mean by "abrogating the NATO treaty." Nothing in the treaty requires the United States to quarter troops and material in any NATO nation. If by abrogate you mean withdraw from NATO then yes, that would be putting American interests first.

    That's the non sequitur of the year.
     
  6. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    If Russia attacked a NATO state then all of Nato would be obligated to fight Russia. Ukraine is not part of Nato, but the same kind of attack by Russia there would likely result in the US and the rest of NATO being drawn into a war. And as for when they became our charge it was when we let them into NATO.
     
  7. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #7
    Quite possible that some of these incedents allready are stage 1 of the hybrid warfare.

    Also don't forget that the baltics have strong Russian minorities allready causing quite some internal issues.
     
  8. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #8
    That's fine. If Estonia is attacked then NATO can ride to the rescue. That still doesn't explain how the NATO treaty requires the United States to quarter troops and material in Estonia or (for example) build a multi-billion missile defense system in Poland (hint: it doesn't.)
     
  9. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #9
    Let me explain military geopolitics 101 to you:

    Russia could probably militarily overrun Estonia in less than 36 hours. And while that would probably result in a worldwide diplomatic crapstorm; you can bet your bottom dollar that the next morning there would be Republicans going on Fox News to tell us we don't need to get into a war with Russia over Estonia.

    And they'd actually be right. We don't have to get into a war over Estonia. We don't have to get into a war over France, or Britain, or Mexico.

    But while Vladimir Putin might calculate that his country could deal with the economic sanctions and diplomatic backlash of invading Estonia - he'd think twice about ordering his troops to actually fire on US military personnel. Because he'd lose.

    In 1938-39 Britain and France gave guarantees to Czechoslovakia and Poland against Nazi Germany. But they were all but worthless, because Britain and France had no means of putting troops into those countries. Hitler figured that neither Britain or France would actually get into a war over those countries. He was right about Czechoslovakia - he was wrong about Poland.

    Putting US military assets in Poland and Estonia now - before Russia starts playing games, raises the stakes to a level where Putin, and his Generals, realize the game isn't worth it.
     
  10. aaronvan, Feb 24, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2016

    aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    Thanks for the lesson, Metternich. I learned more from your post than I did in at the NATO school in Oberammergau. :rolleyes:

    Maybe, maybe not. If Moscow chose to mount an invasion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, it would use proxies drawn from the pro-Putin Russian population in the Baltic states who would be very careful to avoid the very small U.S. forces in those nations. The United States and NATO would have few options. Attacking Russia could result in an Eastern Front-style meatgrinder or even a limited European nuclear war. Attacking forces wearing Estonian or Latvian uniforms would draw us right into a civil war. NATO might have to accept a fait accompli. Remember, Russia occupied the Baltics for nearly 50 years after WWII and there was little we could do about it.

    Man, I remember when Ronald Reagan was a warmonger who wanted to start WWIII because he put a few nuclear-tipped cruise missiles in the U.K. and Germany. Today a U.S. president positions offensive weapons right on the border with Russia and it's all good because he's a Democrat.
     
  11. Ulenspiegel macrumors 68020

    Ulenspiegel

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Location:
    Land of Flanders and Elsewhere
  12. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #12
    Man I don't think you're going to explain military geopolitics to aaronvan I think he has a bit more experience than most of us in that subject .
     
  13. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #13
    The RAND Corporation recently conducted a war game to examine the implications of a Russian invasion of the Baltics. The report (link to .pdf) makes for some interesting reading. Although I should note it posits a conventional invasion and assumes at least one week's warning. As stated above, I believe any Russian aggression would take a hybrid form.

    Of course, everything is IMO and I value vrDrew's thoughtful posts even when we disagree.
     
  14. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #14


    I always enjoy reading those RAND corporation reports. They unfailing provide a highly informed level of technical military detail. And I'm sure after many years of reading similar RAND Corporation reports, it must have puzzled Presidents Johnson and Nixon greatly that we kept losing the Vietnam War.

    I'm not being cute about that. RAND is probably absolutely correct about the slim military chances for NATO mounting a successful defense of the Baltics. But that misses the point: By the time the Russian tanks rolled, we've all already lost. The trick is understanding the mindset of your opponent (in this case Vladimir Putin) and get inside his Decision Cycle (OODA loop) - and outflank him before he decides to act.

    And Obama and the NATO military have done that, admirably well. Those nasty, racist Estonians are giving us free parking for a couple of brigades worth of surplus tanks. And we get to give a couple hundred GIs a few months of interesting overseas duty doing fluid changes on them. Costing us a few million dollars they probably found stuck in the Pentagon couches. Compared to what it would cost us to maintain three or four armored brigades there - forces we actually need much more someplace else.

    Yes: Putin might try the "persecuted Russian minority" gambit in Estonia. But even the possibility of coming into contact with the handful of US military stationed in that country makes serious meddling too costly, even for Putin.
     

Share This Page