As stated we have tried being "sensitive" to Russia and it seems to have failed. What about the threat that the Baltic Nations feel. Given that they have Russian-speakign minorities that Russia might want to "Protect". I'd rather see NATO deploy some troops now rather that have to fight their way in after. This isn't because I want to see a conflict, but because really I don't want to see one and want to deter it.
OK so what we need is "Moral Authority". Which clearly we don't have in your view. So therefore we must not act and perhaps someone with "Moral Authority" can. Who is that? Is their any state that you concieve of as being sufficiently moral to object to Russia's actions. And do you think Russia will take a measure of the altitude of their moral high ground and fee l deterred? Really? Or will Putin look at then and just ask "How many fivisions has he got?" in the words of one of his predessors. And that's it. No sactions, No defence of the Baltic states so I guess we should dissolve NATO as well. Seriously flesh out your proposal and ask what would happen if the west took those actions. Becuase if you aren't willing to explain how what you are proposing would play out then what is it for? More moral high ground?
I'll have to disagree with you there. =16b5925d-6d24-4715-ad8e-701ad505a2cc&insight[search_result_index]=4]Source Not to mention air incidents/accidents. I'm not personally saying this is damning evidence with no rhetoric, but in my eyes it's realistic and paints a picture of a world that is really none too happy with itself. I'm awaiting the great big handle on the cistern to be pressed.
I'm not sure how the expansion of NATO is seen as being "sensitive" if anything NATO has been the aggressor, maybe not directly, probably more passive-aggressive. If NATO started to deploy large amounts of troops it would probably been seen as out right provocation, or aggressive behavior. The threat the Baltic nations feel are just that, a feeling. That's not to say we should just dismiss that feeling of anxiety, but if we reacted every time a nation or person felt anxious the world would be full of conflict. You say you don't want to see a conflict, but one of the ways to do that is to De-escalate the situation, not escalate it.
No, we must strive to gain moral authority through our actions. We could start by being consistent, open and measuring ourselves with the same yardstick as we do other nations. I think it is more a question of: "How many divisions have we got, sold to us by the West and funded by their doing business with us?" Moral authority is not just an ethical standpoint; it is a pragmatic one as well. We don't act like dicks in daily life not just because it's right, but also because acting like a dick sooner or later comes back to bite you in the ass. Moreover when you get beaten up for being a dick, nobody will take your side because nobody will stand up for a dick. We have a habit of supporting evil regimes that then turn on us (surprise, surprise). We have a habit of selling them the means to oppress their own people, and then we wonder why their population doesn't see us as the good guys. We have a habit of selling them weapons to use against us. With Russia we are doing it right now: France is selling them a warship as we speak. Russia doesn't see us as weak because we don't put troops on the borders; it sees us as weak because we keep buying its gas, keep investing its millions in the City and keep selling it weapons to use against its bordering nations, and eventually, against us. NATO talks tough, but it can't even stop one of its members doing arms deals with Russia. Me: "We should acquire moral authority: not sell weapons to evil regimes that they can then use against our own troops, or against their own people who then get resentful with us. We should not do business with them so they have the money to buy the weapons we sell to them. We should be seen by other countries as the Good Guys, not just another Bad Guy squabling with another Bad Guy, so they know which side to choose to align themselves with". You: "So we shouldn't impose sanctions and dissolve NATO?" Seriously, WTF? Are you even reading what I type? I did say: relatively. This is a more densely populated world in which news travels fast, so we can see all sorts of bad on our TV screens now. But a thousand years ago, that bad was the norm. It was everywhere. Even here. Even in your street. And nobody thought it was anything out of the ordinary.
These states asked to join NATO, partly becuase they had previously been invaded by the USSR (In the case of the Baltics, once with the cooperation of the Nazis and again afterwards. It was not unreasonable for they to look to NATO for security and we offered them that, but in deference to Russia's sensitivities did not station troops there. Now Russia is finding it appropriate to do a little invading here and there, we need to make it clear than we will defend the NATO states. Becaus ethe previous appeasement has failed, we now need deterrance.
So asking to join a club is different than the club asking you to join how exactly, the outcome is the same.
And Britian is one of the countries leading the push to have sanctions, stating that we are willing to take the financieal hit to the city that it will cause. Isn't that moral enough? I missread you on sactions. Apologies. But my point on NATO is that we are either in, in which case we are obliged to defend the Batlics or we're out. And I'd rather defend them by deploying forces now to deter Russia, that have to consider how to respond after a "spontaneous" rebellions of suspiciously highly armed and trained russian speakers in some baltic state. Because that sort of thing seems to be happening in Russia's near-abroad. The point is that Putin has stated and demonstated an interest in a "Greater Russia" policy that clearly threatens it's neighbours. Some of those neighbours are nembers of the NATO alliance that pledges collective defence, Article 5, no if's or buts. I do not think that Putin will be deterred from repeating his territorial grabs and militarty interference by the west announcing a policy of increased self-criticism and navel-gazing. I do think that he would be detterred by us making it bloody clear that he can't have a repeat of the Crimea in the Baltics at all, not a little bit. And deplying a defenscive force there will make it clear that he can't bully small neighbouring countries and expect us to just issue more diplomatic statements. Bear in mind this isn't unilateral. The Baltics and Poland have asked for NATO support.
Asking and not being accepted is very different to asking and being accepted. Furthermore Ukraine hasn't asked and it hasn't been offered. The EU is not NATO. And it hasn't asked to join the EU or had a pathway to EU membership even offered. It's Russia claiming that they are going to join nato and invading them because of it. And given that Russia just invaded a bit of their territory could you have blamed them for askign to join NATO if they had. Which they haven't. So exactly where has NATO expanded in the last ten years? Does Albainia really threaten Moscow?
Once it actually does it, and not just talks about it, it's a good start. I think that would actually work. Putin needs the support of those oligarchs. And I apologise for the exasperated tone of my post. I don't disagree with you there, but at the moment NATO cannot even stop one of its members doing arms deals with Russia. That is weakness. NATO members spy on each other. That is weakness. But he would be deterred by a consistent NATO response, immediate economic sanctions and seeing most of the world's nations, including its people siding with NATO over this. No country wants to be like North Korea. I think a defensive force will be pointless if we keep arming and funding its enemy. Mixed messages are also a sign of weakness.
Yes asking and not being accepted is very different to asking and being accepted, but so far all but two countries (AFAIK) that have asked to join NATO have either been accepted, allowed to join the action plan, or promised they can join at a later date. During the 2008 Bucharest summit, the US demanded that Georgia and Ukraine be allowed into the membership action plan (a programme of advice, assistance and support tailored to countries wishing to join the alliance) while promising the countries would be able to join one day. Russia has even stated that its annexation of Crimea in March was influenced by Nato's expansion into eastern Europe. They have also warned that if NATO places additional troops in Central and Eastern Europe, it will be regarded as a breach of obligation under basic agreements with Russia. In this case, Russia’s withdrawal from the Russia-NATO Founding Act is just one of the possible options
So NATO should refuse deploy troops to defend it's members because Russia has invaded Crimea? Not deploying troops in Central Europe didn't help there. What this is a neigbour smashing a window and blaming it on you dog barking. Except it wasn't barking. And now he wants you to get rid of your dog or else. To confuse it the window was in the house between you? You'd conclude he was a thug and a bit unhinged. And you wouldn't go blaming your dog. Now to stop mangling metaphors, I contened that Putin isn't a nice reasonable liberal bloke. He thinks force works and attack likes the weak because that is where force works best. Look strong and he is less likely to use force.
And what would deploying troops do exactly, Crimea isn't a part of NATO, Russia has stated they only "invaded" it because of the threat it felt from NATO's expansion eastwards, they have stated that if NATO places additional troops in Central and Eastern Europe that they would withdraw from the Russia-NATO Founding Act, among other possible actions. Not that tearing up the Russia-NATO Founding Act would matter that much as NATO would have pretty much torn it up them selves by placing troops in the Baltic states, as that is one of the agreed no, no's This isn't a neighbour smashing a window and blaming it on your dog barking, it's more akin to coming home and finding your neighbour has moved the garden fence and he blames you for being annoyed about it. Your contention that Putin isn't a nice reasonable liberal bloke is probably correct, but the conclusion that you should deal with such a person by rattling your saber and threatening them is not (imho) you don't resolve a situation were the protagonist feels threatened by threatening them some more.
But I'm talking specifically about the Baltics (and Poland by extension). Explain why they shouldn't be troubled and why they shouldn't request support from NATO. Or explain why we shouldn't give them that support?
Well forgetting for a moment that personally i don't think the Baltics (and Poland by extension) should have become a part of NATO, and forgetting for a moment that you failed to answer any of the questions i raised. I don't think i could argue that they shouldn't be troubled and why they shouldn't request support from NATO, that doesn't mean that we should give it though. The reason we shouldn't give it is because we would in effect be tearing up the Russia-NATO Founding Act, that committed to building a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, that committed both sides to reducing its conventional and nuclear forces, and that ensured both sides respect for human rights and civil liberties. So should we risk going back to the cold war days where each side gathered an ever increasing conventional and nuclear force, where the whole of Europe lived in fear of Russia launching a nuclear attack, and i dare say Russians had the same fear. Should we risk all that because the Baltics (and Poland by extension) are feeling a little anxious, and want reassuring.
Ah so again "a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing"? I had a skim read of that NATO-Russia treaty and if Russia is in compliance with that text then I'd reckon Putin is likely to show at a gay pride event. Did you actually read the text? You'd say NATO should honor that but give up Article 5 which is at the heart of it's existance? Because a mutual defence treaty where you have no intention of defending anyone but yourself isn't worth much is it.
That kind of logic leads to stuff like Munich Agreement. Before that agreement, Czechs were feeling a little anxious too. It's like you never learn, as if the war is not at your doorstep, then it doesn't exist.
Yes i did. No one is saying Article 5 should be ignored, but do tell us what country has been invaded without democratic elections ? Because Crimea voted to become part of Russia, doggy elections or not, shady influences or not. Russia sent in a peace keeping force, as it had a right to do according to the Russia-NATO Founding Act, Crimea held elections and voted to join Russia. No one has breached Article 5 as no country has attacked another. EDIT: AFAIK the Czechs didn't hold a vote on if they should join Germany, they didn't profess a want to join, Germany didn't send in a peace keeping force, it threatened them with war, in fact there was an outburst of national indignation. In demonstrations and rallies, Czechs and Slovaks called for a strong military government to defend the integrity of the state.
You can't be serious. The Ukrainan constitution, under which Crimea was in that part of legal system (Crimea didn't had complete autonomy), clearly said the referendum must be in whole Ukraine, not only in separatist part. It's like if Ireland had sent troops to North Ireland, then made up a fake voting (as the results in Crimea were faked) which would result in 90% of North Ireland citizens voting for leaving UK. After that they would instantly ask for joining Ireland. This is exactly what happened in Crimea/Ukraine.
