Though no official announcement has yet been made on the plan, NATO officials say they are determined to “create a spearhead” pointed at Russia in Eastern Europe, that will include a substantially more “visible” presence of NATO troops there.
The plan is likely to involve putting troops in the tiny Baltic States as well as a more substantial deployment in Poland, which has been pushing hard for NATO troops for months.
The nominal impetus for this deployment is tensions in eastern Ukraine, though after many months of predicting an “imminent” Russian invasion of Ukraine and near daily claims of a Russian “buildup,” nothing has actually happened.
Still, NATO’s desperation to find some justification for its continued existence in a post-Cold War world has a lot of momentum, and the determination now is to start a new Cold War, by hook or by crook, and start wasting billions of dollars annually defending Eastern Europe from a threat that simply doesn’t exist.
Next week’s NATO meeting in Cardiff is expected to involve creating a specific plan for this deployment, and while there’s certainly no rush, expect nations to start sending the first troops not too long thereafter.
In one article, Mr Ditz says the threat "simply doesn’t exist" and in the other the says that the "war" in Ukraine is "escalating"! Can't have it both ways! The Soviet Union never invaded the rest of Europe either but was that because it didn't want to or because it realised that force would be met with force. You don't take out fire insurance after your house catches fire! You don't wait for someone to invade before building up your defences. That's just common sense. Putin has already annexed Crimea in open violation of Articles III and IV of the Helsinki Final Act, a treaty much beloved of the Soviet leaders, while swearing high and holy that he didn't intend to annex it. He has thus become a Kadaffi-like wildcard in the international system and everyone must be prepared for every eventuality. Putin has no one but himself to blame for that situtaion and, no doubt for that very reason, no Soviet leader ever did anything so stupid.
Stupid? He gained the Crimea, a very valuable piece of real estate, and it didn't cost him a penny or one Russian soldier. That looks pretty good to me in comparison to our Vietnam and Iraq disasters. What did we gain from them?
NATO expanded to 12 new members through the late 1990s and to mid 2000s, five of those new members on along Russia's border with air (the Baltics) and seaport (Bulgaria , Romania) bases. Georgia has a "partnership" with NATO; then there are Turkey and Finland.
An on again off again on again off again missle defense system was to be set up in the Czech Republic or Poland. Presumably against Iran. Putin offered an area just outside of the Iranian-Azerbaijani border in Russia to base this radar system. The US declined.
The US has invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and went in and killed Qaddafi. Russia impeded nothing.
The US is just as guilty of behind the scenes shenanigans as Russia may be said to be–re read the Nuland -Pyatt phone call, the famous one where our sophisticated chick-diplomat expresses herself so eloquently.
As for the international law implications of annexation in the event of a coup d'etat–one US inspired as well–there you hae me. But nary a protest out of Crimea seems to have been the result.
Russia was the first on the phone to the US after 9-11 offering intelligence support. Russia offered to help during our bumbling of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. Russia helped the US save face on Syria by co-authoring the UN Security Council Resolution of September 2013.
Thus, Russia has been nearly surrounded by American force since the collapse of the Soviet Union and has done…nothing; all the while Russia has been relatively cooperative with the US. And Moscow is being demonized….? By whom? For what?
America is 100% to blame for the bad blood between post-USSR Russia and itself.