• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘They Will Die in Tallinn’

Westphalian said:
Why does the West always seek to create a dichotomy between having Russia as an enemy or being subservient to it?


There is a middle ground called being independent and having constructive relationships with all states.

Facts of geography can't be changed, and the Baltics can't float off to the west. They are a long way from most of the west's military power, and very close to Russian power. They have no means of defending themselves. They need Russia for trade and their economy. They are, and this is simply irrevocable, closely in Russia's shadow no matter how much they may hate that.

So, given this, the question becomes what sort of relationship they want. Currently they opt for one of a degree of hostility, almost deliberately trying to needle Russia. I get that given their history and newness. But that policy will not make them secure or benefit their economy. A more constructive relationship with Russia, a less aggressive tone, a move away from trying to re-militarise the Baltics - these things will reduce tensions and make them more secure.

I expect that eventually the Baltic states will change their policy and tone. It will come because true security can only come when Russia is no longer demonised and cultivated as an enemy.
Click to expand...

Because that's the way Russia has literally always operated. It's how it operated in countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia after the Second World War, for example. Russia doesn't feel secure unless its "allies" are little more than puppets.

You arguing that the Baltics "can only be truly secure" if they are Russian puppets is extremely telling.

And a big part of why they have no interest in buddying up with Vlad.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Because that's the way Russia has literally always operated. It's how it operated in countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia after the Second World War, for example. Russia doesn't feel secure unless its "allies" are little more than puppets.

You arguing that the Baltics "can only be truly secure" if they are Russian puppets is extremely telling.

And a big part of why they have no interest in buddying up with Vlad.
Click to expand...


I've never once suggested that the Baltic states should become Russian puppets.

What I have said is that they must strive, in their own interests, for better relations with Russia, and that means toning down the Russophobic hysteria.

Is that so very hard to understand?
 
Westphalian said:
I've never once suggested that the Baltic states should become Russian puppets.

What I have said is that they must strive, in their own interests, for better relations with Russia, and that means toning down the Russophobic hysteria.

Is that so very hard to understand?
Click to expand...

What "Russophobic hysteria"?
 
humbolt said:
The US isn't leaving NATO.
Click to expand...

I hope not, but I wouldn't put it past Trump to propose doing so, thinking it's a fun negotiating tactic. Who knows? Someone one day might call his bluff. Actually, Kim Jong-Un seems to be doing that right now, and the Don has nothing to say about it.
 
Trump is considering canceling US participation in NATO exercises in the Baltics to appease Putin.

Trump did just that (canceled US military drills with South Korea) to appease Kim.

Rather than being the Great Negotiator, Trump is the Grand Appeaser.
 
Andalublue said:
I hope not, but I wouldn't put it past Trump to propose doing so, thinking it's a fun negotiating tactic. Who knows? Someone one day might call his bluff. Actually, Kim Jong-Un seems to be doing that right now, and the Don has nothing to say about it.
Click to expand...

It is a negotiating tactic. I don't know how much fun it is for him. NK is on and off again more than a digital switch, so as much as I hate to say it, we'll just have to wait and see with regard to them.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump is considering canceling US participation in NATO exercises in the Baltics to appease Putin.

Trump did just that (canceled US military drills with South Korea) to appease Kim.

Rather than being the Great Negotiator, Trump is the Grand Appeaser.
Click to expand...


Do you want to see arms control agreements with Russia .... START extended, INF reaffirmed?


Or would you rather see a thermo-nuclear war which will destroy the world (beating up on Russia is not a virtually consequence free option - it's not the usual weakling the US chooses)?


It seems to me that your evident Russophobia indicates the latter.
 
humbolt said:
It is a negotiating tactic. I don't know how much fun it is for him.
Click to expand...
He may think it is a negotiating tactic, but if so it is one that has the effect of destabilising the western military alliance. Who is going to commit more money to that when the supposed leader of that alliance may be colluding with the rival military power and undermining confidence in his commitment to mutual defence. An alliance only works if the members trust one another. Who in their right mind can trust a word Trump says? He utterly contradicts himself every effing day!
 
Westphalian said:
I've never once suggested that the Baltic states should become Russian puppets.

What I have said is that they must strive, in their own interests, for better relations with Russia, and that means toning down the Russophobic hysteria.

Is that so very hard to understand?
Click to expand...

There is no reason to "strive for better relations" with an aggressive neighboring nation with a long history of inventing total lies to justify brutally invading their neighbor.

There's nothing "hysterical" about remembering the fact that Russia has repeated unjustly invaded and occupied the Baltic States.
 
Andalublue said:
He may think it is a negotiating tactic, but if so it is one that has the effect of destabilising the western military alliance. Who is going to commit more money to that when the supposed leader of that alliance may be colluding with the rival military power and undermining confidence in his commitment to mutual defence. An alliance only works if the members trust one another. Who in their right mind can trust a word Trump says? He utterly contradicts himself every effing day!
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily condone Trump's negotiating methods because they are sometimes too public. The money NATO countries spend on defense is not NATO dedicated money. It's simply additional money they are spending on their own defense on the face of it. If they are required to offer another NATO member assistance, those additional assets will be helpful. As it stands today, I don't find the Trump-Putin connection so many talk about credible. I could be swayed by solid evidence, but I've yet to see anything meaningful.

I agree that Trump shoots from the hip too often.
 
humbolt said:
I don't necessarily condone Trump's negotiating methods because they are sometimes too public. The money NATO countries spend on defense is not NATO dedicated money. It's simply additional money they are spending on their own defense on the face of it. If they are required to offer another NATO member assistance, those additional assets will be helpful. As it stands today, I don't find the Trump-Putin connection so many talk about credible. I could be swayed by solid evidence, but I've yet to see anything meaningful.

I agree that Trump shoots from the hip too often.
Click to expand...

Trump has, to my recollection, never said anything negative about either Putin or the Russian Federation.

Despite the fact that our military leaders and intelligence agencies and 99% of Congress all label Russia as the main enemy of the US.

Just yesterday Trumps DNI - Dan Coats - said the level of Russian cyber-attacks is extraordinary and the warning lights are blinking red.

I've never ever in my lifetime seen any US president from either party suck-up to a US enemy as Trump sucks-up to Putin.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump has, to my recollection, never said anything negative about either Putin or the Russian Federation.

Despite the fact that our military leaders and intelligence agencies and 99% of Congress all label Russia as the main enemy of the US.

Just yesterday Trumps DNI - Dan Coats - said the level of Russian cyber-attacks is extraordinary and the warning lights are blinking red.

I've never ever in my lifetime seen any US president from either party suck-up to a US enemy as Trump sucks-up to Putin.
Click to expand...

I've probably been around much longer than you have. That has it's advantages, as well as the obvious disadvantages. We've come a long way from Hillary's reset button, haven't we?

Just because Trump doesn't revile Russia publicly at every turn (or at any turn, in your view) doesn't mean he thinks Russia and Putin aren't an adversary. Lately the US has increased deployment of both personnel and equipment to the EU, has announced the intent to field nuclear capable cruise missiles in response to the Russian Iskanders, and taken various other steps to indicate our commitment to containing an adventurous Russia. What is being done is far more important than what is being said, or not said, for that matter.

Trump was correct in criticizing Germany and Merkel for the gas deal. Putin needs to understand that if the west is serious, they could virtually bankrupt his nation in short order, and that's the message Trump was sending to Vlad. Germany and the EU need to understand that Russia will not be a reliable partner in energy, and that Putin is using that leverage and money to develop the forces that could be the EU's undoing.

In any case, perhaps we'll see something of significance come from their meeting.
 
humbolt said:
I've probably been around much longer than you have. That has it's advantages, as well as the obvious disadvantages. We've come a long way from Hillary's reset button, haven't we?

Just because Trump doesn't revile Russia publicly at every turn (or at any turn, in your view) doesn't mean he thinks Russia and Putin aren't an adversary. Lately the US has increased deployment of both personnel and equipment to the EU, has announced the intent to field nuclear capable cruise missiles in response to the Russian Iskanders, and taken various other steps to indicate our commitment to containing an adventurous Russia. What is being done is far more important than what is being said, or not said, for that matter.

Trump was correct in criticizing Germany and Merkel for the gas deal. Putin needs to understand that if the west is serious, they could virtually bankrupt his nation in short order, and that's the message Trump was sending to Vlad. Germany and the EU need to understand that Russia will not be a reliable partner in energy, and that Putin is using that leverage and money to develop the forces that could be the EU's undoing.

In any case, perhaps we'll see something of significance come from their meeting.
Click to expand...

Several points:

1. Russia (as distinct from the unreliable transit state Ukraine) has always been a reliable supplier of gas to Europe.

2. The West can't bankrupt Russia because the West is an ever shrinking proportion of the whole world.

3. Your comment on the US intent to field nuclear capable cruise missiles seems factually incorrect to me. The US is bound by the INF Treaty and I've not seen any such announcement of US intent. In any case, were the US to do that, it would simply make Europe the subject of a missile battle ground (nuclear or not) - why you'd see that as a good thing for Europe is quite beyond me although I can see why it would be attractive for Washington.
 
Westphalian said:
Several points:

1. Russia (as distinct from the unreliable transit state Ukraine) has always been a reliable supplier of gas to Europe.

Right. So the Russians are reliable, except when they aren't.

2. The West can't bankrupt Russia because the West is an ever shrinking proportion of the wholearen't.

Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's, their demographics aren't cheery, and energy is their single export of note.

3. Your comment on the US intent to field nuclear capable cruise missiles seems factually incorrect to me. The US is bound by the INF Treaty and I've not seen any such announcement of US intent. In any case, were the US to do that, it would simply make Europe the subject of a missile battle ground (nuclear or not) - why you'd see that as a good thing for Europe is quite beyond me although I can see why it would be attractive for Washington.
Click to expand...

Right, again. Russia has already violated the INF with the fielding of the Islanders, and hilariously used China's fielding of such missiles as justification. That explains perfectly why Russia placed those missiles around the Baltics - to hit China. We haven't fielded the cruise missiles I mentioned. We announced an intent to develop them. That's a very short jump for us, and to my knowledge, no mention of land based cruise missiles was included in the announcement.
 
humbolt said:
Right, again. Russia has already violated the INF with the fielding of the Islanders, and hilariously used China's fielding of such missiles as justification. That explains perfectly why Russia placed those missiles around the Baltics - to hit China. We haven't fielded the cruise missiles I mentioned. We announced an intent to develop them. That's a very short jump for us, and to my knowledge, no mention of land based cruise missiles was included in the announcement.
Click to expand...


Facts matter and you are simply wrong.

Iskanders have a maximum range of less than 500km so do not violate INF, even with a nuclear warhead.

So, to be clear, there has been no Russian violation of INF.

Back to my original point - what use is the proliferation of medium range missiles to Europe?
 
Westphalian said:
Facts matter and you are simply wrong.

Iskanders have a maximum range of less than 500km so do not violate INF, even with a nuclear warhead.

Well, no. The published range is offered by the Russians, and it has not been verified. Further, some variants of that missile are stated to be 500 miles, though that too has not been verified. So They're in violation in spite of your claims to the contrary. Facts do matter.

So, to be clear, there has been no Russian violation of INF.

Back to my original point - what use is the proliferation of medium range missiles to Europe?
Click to expand...

Ask Russia. They started it. I was incorrect about the US developing land based cruise missiles. We are developing them.
 
Westphalian said:
Facts matter and you are simply wrong.

Iskanders have a maximum range of less than 500km so do not violate INF, even with a nuclear warhead.

So, to be clear, there has been no Russian violation of INF.

Back to my original point - what use is the proliferation of medium range missiles to Europe?
Click to expand...

A threat to the EU.
 
humbolt said:
Ask Russia. They started it. I was incorrect about the US developing land based cruise missiles. We are developing them.
Click to expand...

Iskanders are a direct response to the US missile defence station in Poland. Their purpose is simply to destroy that station.

This was first warned about by President Medvedev in 2008.

Normally when sequencing, one would start at the causal beginning ...... strategically de-stabilising US missile defence in Poland, which was a follow on from the unilataral US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2001.
 
Westphalian said:
Iskanders are a direct response to the US missile defence station in Poland. Their purpose is simply to destroy that station.

Yes, That's the Russian excuse. Naturally, that ignores the defensive nature of out missile system.
This was first warned about by President Medvedev in 2008.

Yeah. He was full of that kind of crap.

Normally when sequencing, one would start at the causal beginning ...... strategically de-stabilising US missile defence in Poland, which was a follow on from the unilataral US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2001.
Click to expand...

Actually, had Russia not been threatening their neighbors to start with, there'd be no need for defensive systems, and Russia's recent history in Ukraine, Crimea, and Georgia proves the need for such defensive systems.
 
humbolt said:
Actually, had Russia not been threatening their neighbors to start with, there'd be no need for defensive systems, and Russia's recent history in Ukraine, Crimea, and Georgia proves the need for such defensive systems.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Westphalian is badly trying to argue that defensive systems (such as in Poland) are offensive in nature. Pure poppycock.

The defensive station in Poland is a response to Russian Iskander-B missiles in Kaliningrad which are nuclear capable and can target 5 NATO capitals.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Precisely. Westphalian is badly trying to argue that defensive systems (such as in Poland) are offensive in nature. Pure poppycock.

The defensive station in Poland is a response to Russian Iskander-B missiles in Kaliningrad which are nuclear capable and can target 5 NATO capitals.
Click to expand...


You really are being obtuse and ms-leading, and I assume deliberately.

The interceptor station in Poland is part of a US ballistic missile defence system. The Iskanders have only recently been deployed in response ot the upgrading and development of the Polish station.

You may just be ignorant on this subject.

Medvedev: Russia to Deploy Missiles in Response to U.S. Missile Shield | Fox News


MOSCOW – Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev has warned, setting a combative tone that clashed with global goodwill over Barack Obama's election.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Precisely. Westphalian is badly trying to argue that defensive systems (such as in Poland) are offensive in nature. Pure poppycock.

The defensive station in Poland is a response to Russian Iskander-B missiles in Kaliningrad which are nuclear capable and can target 5 NATO capitals.
Click to expand...


Complete tosh.

The US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001, pre-dating all of Russia's alleged misdemeanours.
 
Westphalian said:
Iskanders are a direct response to the US missile defence station in Poland. Their purpose is simply to destroy that station.

This was first warned about by President Medvedev in 2008.

Normally when sequencing, one would start at the causal beginning ...... strategically de-stabilising US missile defence in Poland, which was a follow on from the unilataral US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2001.
Click to expand...

Offensive missiles placed to destroy defensive missiles...

How are LOCAL defensive missiles "strategically de-stabilising"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom