Guest Post by Pat Buchanan
Sweeping through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania this week, Joe Biden reassured all three that the United States’ commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty remains “solemn” and “iron clad.”
Article Five commits us to war if the territory of any of these tiny Baltic nations is violated by Russia.
From World War II to the end of the Cold War, all three were Soviet republics. All three were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to by FDR, and on the other side of the NATO red line, the Elbe River in Germany.
No president would have dreamed of waging war with Russia over them. Now, under the new NATO, we must. Joe Biden was affirming war guarantees General Eisenhower would have regarded as insane.
Secretary of State John Kerry says that in the Ukraine crisis, “All options are on the table.” John McCain wants to begin moving Ukraine into NATO, guaranteeing that any Russian move on the Russified east of Ukraine would mean war with the United States.
Forty members of Congress have written Kerry urging that Georgia, routed in a war it started with Russia over South Ossetia in 2008, be put on a path to membership in NATO.
Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, other voices are calling for expanding NATO to bring in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and for moving U.S. troops and warplanes into Poland and the Baltic republics.
President Obama says, “All options are on the table” if Iran does not give us solid assurances she is not building a bomb. Members of Congress support U.S. military action against Iran, if Tehran does not surrender even the “capability” to build a bomb.
End all enrichment of uranium, or America attacks, they warn.
In the Far East we are committed to defend Japan if China seizes the Senkakus that Beijing claims as Chinese territory, a collection of rocks in the East China Sea. If Kim Jong-Un starts a war with South Korea, we are committed by treaty to fight a second Korean War.
We are committed by treaty to defend the Philippines. And if China acts on its claim to the southern islands of the South China Sea, and starts a shooting war with Manila’s navy, we are likely in it.
Is this not an awful lot on Uncle Sam’s plate?
Is America really prepared to fight all of these wars that we are obligated by treaty to fight?
The national recoil at attacking Syria, for crossing Obama’s “red line” last summer and using poison gas, suggests that there is a vast gulf between what America is obligated by treaty to do, and what the American people are willing to do in sending their soldier sons into a new war.
Indeed, the latest mantra of the war hawks, “no boots on the ground,” is meant to reassure the nation that in our next war, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, there will be no more planeloads of dead coming into Dover, no new generation of Wounded Warriors arriving at Walter Reed.
Soon, the United States is going to have to come to terms with this reality — the unwillingness of the American people to fight the wars they are committed to fight by the American government.
Yet, the immediate problem is how to avoid a military confrontation or clash with Vladimir Putin’s Russia over Crimea, which almost no American wants.
Apparently, the West has decided to start down the sanctions road.
But where does that road lead?
While sanctions may cripple the Russian economy, will they break Putin? Did they break Castro? Did they break Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il? Did they break the Ayatollah? Does Putin look like someone who will respond to an economic squeeze by crying uncle?
Moreover, in this age of interdependence that America did so much to launch, sanctions are a two-edged sword.
If Ukraine cuts off oil, gas, water and electricity into a seceded Crimea, whose tourist trade is drying up, this could provoke Putin into invading Eastern Ukraine and seizing the lone land bridge onto the peninsula.
It could provoke Russia into cutting off imports from Ukraine, turning off the oil and gas, and calling in Ukraine’s debts. This would precipitate a default by Ukraine, without more Western aid than the $35 billion it is now estimated Kiev will need by 2016.
Are House Republicans willing to vote America’s share of that vast sum and make Ukraine a recipient of U.S. foreign aid roughly equal to what we provide annually to Israel and Egypt?
And if we severely sanction Russia, she could cut off oil and gas to Europe, cause a recession in the eurozone, and move closer to China.
Nixon’s great achievement was to split China off from Moscow. President Reagan’s great achievement was to preside over the conversion of the “evil empire” into a country where he was cheered in Red Square.
What our Greatest Generation presidents accomplished, our Baby Boomer presidents appear to have booted away.
“What our Greatest Generation presidents accomplished, our Baby Boomer presidents appear to have booted away.”
Hilarious. Incompetent idiots (Bush, Obama) using the war machine while bankrupting our country. Obama’s alienated Saudi, and we’re no longer Saudi’s biggest customer (China is). Obama’s alienated China, the largest holder of our IOU’s, pushing China into the arms of Russia. Obama’s reinstated the cold war, the one we spent into oblivion during Reagan to win (we did, Russia was bankrupted and collapsed). Now, we’re the bankrupt nation, on the precipice of collapse, and we will collapse; like Europe, we’re a bankrupt welfare state, a debtor nation, owing trillions that we can never pay back. It’s just a matter of time.
When Obama heads out of office, we’ll be $20 trillion in debt. Our trade deficit is more than $500 billion a year. We keep issuing IOU’s to our creditors, and the Fed is buying more than 60% of our debt. We’re beyond bankrupt, a dead nation walking. Who’s going to supply our “war machine” with oil? Russia? Saudi? Venezuela? It’s such a farce it’s unbelievable. Russia and China sense our weakness, because bankrupt nations are weak. They will, when the time is right, finish us off without firing a shot; they’re dump our IOU’s and start using a different currency. Petrodollars are finished, and the dollar will no longer be the reserve currency. This country will suffer like it never has before in history.
Obama has turned back the foreign policy hand of time by 30 years. He’s erased all the gains made by real presidents, real leaders, not incompetent community organizers. He’s done more damage in five years than all the presidents combined in the last 30 years. We can say we’re going to war, but can it actually happen? I don’t think so, we’re finished, and our leaders just don’t seem to know it yet.
By James Robins Of The National Interest
Would America Go To War With Russia?
Vice President Biden was in Warsaw last week to reassure our eastern NATO allies that they have the support of a “steadfast ally.” But if Russia moved against Poland or the Baltic States, would the United States really go to war? Or would we do nothing and effectively destroy the NATO alliance?
President Obama has ruled out a “military excursion” in Ukraine. America is not obligated legally to take action against Russia for annexing Crimea. We would not go to war if Russia mounted a large-scale invasion of Ukraine to restore the ousted, pro-Moscow government of Viktor Yanukovych, currently under U.S. sanctions. And we would not even send troops if Ukraine was partitioned, or absorbed by Russia. Americans have no interest in such a conflict, and no stomach for it.
NATO allies are a different matter. The North Atlantic Treaty is a mutual-defense pact, and Article 5 says that an armed attack against one member state “shall be considered an attack against them all.” This is a clear red line. The only time Article 5 has been invoked was in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and most NATO allies sent troops to support the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Could the current crisis expand to touch NATO? The developing situation in Ukraine has been compared to Germany’s absorption of Austria in 1938, or the subsequent partition and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Hillary Clinton compared Russian president Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, which by extension puts President Obama in the role of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who famously failed to achieve “peace in our time” at Munich.
Push the analogy further. The Second World War was sparked by Warsaw’s resistance to Berlin’s demand to annex the Polish Corridor, a small stretch of land—smaller than Crimea—separating the German provinces of Pomerania and East Prussia. Hitler responded by invading Poland and partitioning it with the Soviet Union. Britain and France had pledged to defend Polish independence, and two days after Germany invaded, they declared war. In his war message, Chamberlain explained that Hitler’s actions showed “there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.”
This may or may not describe Mr. Putin, as Mrs. Clinton alleged. But if similar circumstances arise in the near future, will the United States honor security guarantees made to Poland and the Baltic States when the Russian threat was only a theory?
Mr. Biden stood with Estonian president Toomas Ilves Tuesday to “reconfirm and reaffirm our shared commitment to collective self-defense, to Article 5.” He wanted to make it “absolutely clear what it means to the Estonian people” and that “President Obama and I view Article 5 of the NATO Treaty as an absolutely solemn commitment which we will honor—we will honor.” Shortly thereafter, Moscow “expressed concern” about the treatment of ethnic Russians in Estonia. Mr. Putin justified his actions in Crimea as “restoring unity” to Russian people. Estonia’s population is 25 percent ethnic Russian, compared to 17 percent in Ukraine, mostly in the north and east part of the country. Suppose anti-Russian riots “spontaneously” broke out in Estonia. What would the United States do if Moscow invoked a “responsibility to protect” these people and bring them “back” to the Motherland? Would President Obama take military action against Russia over a small, secluded piece of a tiny, distant country? Would it be like the Polish Corridor in 1939? This is highly doubtful—highly doubtful.
Aren’t we obligated by treaty to intervene? Mr. Biden mentioned the “absolutely solemn commitment which we will honor.” It was so important he said it twice. However, Article 5 says that NATO members pledge to come to the assistance of the attacked state using “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” It doesn’t take a White House lawyer to see the gaping loophole—President Obama can simply deem that the use of U.S. force isn’t necessary. He can walk back the red line, as he did with Syria. Stern talk and minimal sanctions would follow, but Estonia would lose some, if not all of its territory. And in practical terms it would mean the end of NATO, which is one of Moscow’s longstanding strategic objectives. Mr. Putin’s chess game does not end in Crimea.
Ukraine Official Warns “Chance Of War With Russia Growing” As Mike Rogers Calls For Sending Weapons To Ukraine
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/23/2014 12:44 -0400
Concurrently with out post on what the odds are of a war between the US and Russia over Ukraine, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, and war hawk, appeared on TV this morning saying that the United States ought to provide weapons to the Ukrainian army “so it could defend the country from a Russian invasion.” This is the same Mike Rogers who last August did everything in his power to perpetuate the lie that Syrians had used chemical weapons against “rebels” (who subsequently turned out to be mostly Qatari-funded Al Qaeda mercenaries and other Islamic extremists) “There are things that we can do that I think we’re not doing. I don’t think the rhetoric (from Obama administration officials) matches the reality on the ground,” he said.
Seemingly oblivious that all Russia desperately wants is further escalation in the conflict, which can then immediately be seen as a provocation for further incursions into either the Ukraine and/or other former Soviet counteries, Rogers said that, while ruling out the deployment of U.S. military forces in Ukraine, he called for sending small arms and radio equipment that the Ukrainian military could use to “protect and defend themselves. And I think that sends a very clear message.”
Absolutely it does: the message it sends is that US foreign policy has just hit rock bottom in terms of game theoretical escalation cluelessness. At least in Syria someone put some effort in fabricating YouTube videos and at least putting together a media campaign demonizing Assad. And still failed.
More from NBC:
Speaking from Tblisi, the capital of Georgia, a country that Russian forces invaded in 2008, Rogers said on NBC’s Meet the Press that the Ukrainians “passionately believe” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “will be on the move again in Ukraine, especially in the east.”
He said both Ukrainian and U.S. intelligence officials “believe that Putin is not done in Ukraine. It is very troubling. He has put all the military units he would need to move into Ukraine on its eastern border and is doing exercises.”
If Putin orders Russian forces into the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – which are NATO member states and which the United States is obligated by the NATO treaty to defend — then “we (will) have allowed people who want to be free, who want to be independent, who want to have self-determination, and we’ve turned our back and walked away from them.”
In an apparent allusion to the seizure of Czechoslovakia which was a prelude to Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, Rogers added, “The world did that once – and it was a major catastrophe.”
And while US neocons are warmongering, Ukraine is all too happy to raise the tension level just a bit more, hoping that NATO will finally intervene and present Putin with at least some hurdle to overrunning all of East Ukraine, using exactly the same template as already show in Crimea. From WSJ:
Ukraine’s top diplomat warned Sunday that the chances of war with Russia “are growing” due to the buildup of Moscow’s forces along his country’s eastern border. In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” acting Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia said Kiev “is ready to respond” should Russia–which has already seized the Crimea–move further in Ukrainian territory.
“The situation is becoming even more explosive than it was a week ago,” Mr. Deshchytsia said.
He said Ukraine’s first approach to the Russian threat on the frontier would be diplomatic. But, he said, “people are also ready to defend their homeland.”
Meanwhile, Putin is sitting back in his chair and smiling, since everything so far continues to unwind precisely according to his plan.
Meanwhile Netanyahu has approved $3 billion for an attack on Iran to remind the US whose bitch they are. Can’t have Russia take center stage when there is an interim nuclear agreement that has to be squished.
Z, I doubt the US is the Israeli’s bitch, but that would be the point of view of someone who is anti-Western.
The US should call Russia’s bluff by “re-evaluating” the US position on Iran, and see how serious he is about fighting in the Ukraine and Georgia.
If we’re going to fight, let’s get it on.
AWD is being his usual hilarious self bitching about the US is bankrupt. We can get rid of the fed and issue new greenbacks. The only thing that matters is winning any regional wars in the Russian Steppes.
No one is ready to give up the Western way of life. If AWD calls it bankrupt, it’s only because of the socialism that has been allowed to permeate. Kick the bankers and the socialists out, kick Russia back into Russia, problem solved, bitches. You may click down thumb now, if you got this far.
Nonanon, you got it backwards.
Russia should call the US’s bluff by providing Iran S 400 anti-aircraft missiles…their most advanced model. It would be a boost to Russian morale to watch them blow American-built Israeli jets out of the sky; it would make me feel pretty good as well 🙂
There will be no nuclear war. All it takes is two nuclear blasts over the East and West coasts to set off an EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) or possibly one large blast over the center of the country to disable all electronic devices. This would result in the death of over 90% of the population. This is why the US is so concerned about other countries acquiring nuclear weapons.
All this talk of war is to garnish support for MIC funding. The Media’s support is mostly a condition of employment although there area few who are actually this stupid. The late Dr. Lawrence J Peter described a Thesis as the movement of old bones fro one graveyard to another. To attribute this to our media would be a complement.
I know you think I have it backwards.
I know you would like to fight a war, as well, considering you’ve been on the losing side of history up to now.
It’s called war gaming, and it always goes nuclear. That’s why proxy wars are fought, and we invade countries nobody cares about, or are hostile. No one challenged the US in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Now, Putin is pushing back. I don’t think Israel is up to the task of fighting Iran, but Nato is. Then you’ll be up against the British, French, and the US. I don’t think Iran is up to the task, without direct intervention by the Russians. A theater conflict could be engaged in Iran, without spreading. I think Putin knows better, because he would get kicked back into Russia with his tail between his legs, which is exactly what needs to happen, you persian princess.
[img
[/img]
All you bitches got that? Carry on
@AWD
The myth that Reagan defeated the USSR by “bankrupting” them has been disproven so many times that it pains me to bring it up again.
The Kremlin, unlike our government, budgets for 5 years (the 5 year plan). The Russians had one opportunity during Reagan’s presidency to increase spending but did not increase military spending by a single Ruble. Russian scientists informed their government that Star Wars was an impossibility given the current technology and that there was no reason to even bother trying to counter it.
The myth that that somehow won the cold war has been perpetrated by the very same people that profited by having us purchase $50,000 coffee machines and $245 dollar hammers.
Also one must remember back then there was the Pact of Wasasw, of wich my contry was part of, against the rest of the world. And the fact that back then all central banks were fighting to grab Treasuries now not so much. Most of the world is fed up of Pax Americana and the USD.
Peace.
Two things broke USSR:
– the low oil prices thanks to the Saudis, that now face the depleting of their reserves
– Tchernobil
Gorbatchev admitted it. this isn’t this star wars hollywood science from the 80’s
as for the kind of Russian answer to this kind of concern: firing ten time more missiles
an undetonated missile that is shot down over your territory creates a local fukushima with its plutonium…good luck cleaning that shit.
there’s no way Russians will throw the tovel in a full scale war. If some morons think that in the pentagon, they should be removed before the human race goes the way of the dodo.
The entire Ukraine / New Cold War debacle explained in two quotes from George Orwell.
.
“Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.” —— G. Orwell
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” —— G. Orwell
As stupid as these people are, Eisenhower might’ve defected to lead the Russian army for Putin! DC is the biggest threat to the USA.
After 9/11, I wondered how long it would take before Americans started to hate their government as much as people in the Middle East. While 9/11 was horrible (probably an inside job as the storyline from .gov reeks of bullshit) & killing innocents people is evil, the people over there have a legit beef. As Ron Paul said, it is blowback, not because they hate us for our freedoms.
When that red line is crossed, the US .gov will have to declare martial law & roll out the tanks to stay in power. That day seems very close at hand & the line will be crossed if they start a war with Russia, China, …
The question isn’t who is the US government at war with, it’s who isn’t the US government at war with?
I have also noticed Democrats calling the Tea Party a threat to (what’s left) the USA = they’re so stupid they don’t realize true Libertarians & guns are the last thing standing between them & a FEMA camp. The liberal talking points get repeated without thought just like the bullshit during Bush’s years.
I am now sick of Libtards too, no disrespect to retarded people.