Now...what about this. What about the suggestion (of Putin and Lavrov) of a pan-European security "architecture?" In architecture you build stuff, right? Building stuff creates jobs.
Include Russia in NATO! No, the Russians didn't want that. I read something recently that said the Russians didn't want that back then. They wanted a little more independence from Europe and America and a little more "influence" in Europe. So they created the conditions for NATO's eastward expansion, too! We can see how this has played out in Ukraine. Before all this upset Ukrainians saw NATO as a threat. Now they see NATO as a guarantor. Well, see that's a problem.
The Russians wanted a bi-polar Eurasia without everybody going bipolar on them.You're going to get bipolar with bi-polar. In architecture, you either build the damn thing or you don't. You're either in or you're out, you're either with us or agin us. What Lavrov and Putin mean by architecture too is a "treaty," their word. So, first of all, it's paper architecture they're talking about, which there aren't many jobs in that, duh. Second, a treaty presumes a bi-polar Europe and it's not, it's uni-polar right now. See, they want bi-polar and they want to be the second pole. Well, first of all, ask the Poles about that. And the rest. They don't want a bi-polar Europe again. They done tried that. They don't want any more Russian "influence," They don't want Russia as one of two poles.
No, the Russians wanted to be a little agin us too, not really with us; they wanted to help with the architecture about half-way up; they want a bi-polar Europe without bipolar behavior. Well, see that's a problem.
Now that I write this it seems to me that once Russia started acting schizophrenic about being in Europe or out of Europe, of building half-way up, of being for us or agin us, fear of Russia was reasonable, keeping NATO intact was the prudent thing to do. To "contain" the bipolar Bear, to keep him in his cage.
Now: should NATO still have expanded east? Once the Soviet Union disbanded and Russia exhibited schizophrenic behavior, "containing" the Bear within his new confines seems to me "logical," perhaps even far-sighted, opportunistic. If they're agin us let's get together as many people as possible that they're agin. That's logical.
Eastward to Vilnius! then? See, that's a problem. At least for me. America now has a treaty, Lavrov's and Putin's favorite word, with Lithuania. Vilnius is Washington, D.C. for Department of Defense purposes. There is an important access route for Russia through Lithuania. Access to what, I forget, but it's important! It's not important access for the United States I know that. It's not important for the national security of the United States. But we have made it a national security obligation of the United States. So that's a problem for me.
The purpose of alliances like NATO is to deter. Well, so far so good! An alliance will deter when it is seen by the deterree not to be in his interest to take on the combined might of the alliance. That calculus depends on the strength of the commitment of the deterers and on the perception of the commitment of the deterrers by the deterree. I, as one American, do not have that commitment to Lithuania; I do not think most Americans have that commitment to Lithuania. But another American, Barack Hussein Obama, does have that commitment, and he is more important than I am and those of my ilk. There are a lot of Barack Hussein Obamas in Official and quasi-official America. Oodles of them.
What can we say about the perception of the commitment of NATO members as seen by the deterree, Russia? This question is also sometimes called the "Die for Narva" question and we cannot say much for certain about it!
The entire eastern border of Estonia is shared with Russia. Estonia is a NATO member. President Obama visited Estonia is September as symbolic reinforcement of the commitment of America, through NATO, to defense of the Baltic states. Narva is a city of 58,000 people at the extreme eastern point of Estonia. And Narva is 88% ethnic Russian. We recall Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
The "Die for Narva" question therefore truly is, as Crimea and eastern Ukraine (and Georgia) weren't a "Die for NATO" question. Would I be willing to have my son die for Narva? No. It is believed by all that I am not special in this or any other manner and that many--many,many,many,many,many--American fathers and mothers would not want their sons to die for Narva, nor for Estonia. There are some who believe that Vladimir Putin believes this too, although he has not spoken directy to the issue directly. I am also one of those.
Would the American people die for NATO? They don't even know that Estonia is a NATO member! They've never heard of Narva! But that is not how little green men infiltrating from Ivangorod into Narva would be put to the American and European peoples. It would be put as:
Russia Attacks NATO.
If Vladimir Putin is unsure about about how the American and European peoples would respond to that headline, I, for one (and I am not special), say that that headline would cause war; war between Russia and NATO, which includes most of Europe, so that would be general war in Europe, PLUS war with the United States of America. I'm just sayin'.
From what I've read, Putin is not sure that that headline would lead to that result but he is willing to push the envelope. There is a powerful segment of Official Russia that believes that if push came to shove, if Narva came to Sarajevo, Russia could even employ tactical nuclear weapons against Narva, and Americans via NATO would still not risk general nuclear war with Russia over Narva.
Russia Drops Atomic Bomb on NATO Troops in Estonia, Thousands Die.
Include Russia in NATO! No, the Russians didn't want that. I read something recently that said the Russians didn't want that back then. They wanted a little more independence from Europe and America and a little more "influence" in Europe. So they created the conditions for NATO's eastward expansion, too! We can see how this has played out in Ukraine. Before all this upset Ukrainians saw NATO as a threat. Now they see NATO as a guarantor. Well, see that's a problem.
The Russians wanted a bi-polar Eurasia without everybody going bipolar on them.You're going to get bipolar with bi-polar. In architecture, you either build the damn thing or you don't. You're either in or you're out, you're either with us or agin us. What Lavrov and Putin mean by architecture too is a "treaty," their word. So, first of all, it's paper architecture they're talking about, which there aren't many jobs in that, duh. Second, a treaty presumes a bi-polar Europe and it's not, it's uni-polar right now. See, they want bi-polar and they want to be the second pole. Well, first of all, ask the Poles about that. And the rest. They don't want a bi-polar Europe again. They done tried that. They don't want any more Russian "influence," They don't want Russia as one of two poles.
No, the Russians wanted to be a little agin us too, not really with us; they wanted to help with the architecture about half-way up; they want a bi-polar Europe without bipolar behavior. Well, see that's a problem.
Now that I write this it seems to me that once Russia started acting schizophrenic about being in Europe or out of Europe, of building half-way up, of being for us or agin us, fear of Russia was reasonable, keeping NATO intact was the prudent thing to do. To "contain" the bipolar Bear, to keep him in his cage.
Now: should NATO still have expanded east? Once the Soviet Union disbanded and Russia exhibited schizophrenic behavior, "containing" the Bear within his new confines seems to me "logical," perhaps even far-sighted, opportunistic. If they're agin us let's get together as many people as possible that they're agin. That's logical.
Eastward to Vilnius! then? See, that's a problem. At least for me. America now has a treaty, Lavrov's and Putin's favorite word, with Lithuania. Vilnius is Washington, D.C. for Department of Defense purposes. There is an important access route for Russia through Lithuania. Access to what, I forget, but it's important! It's not important access for the United States I know that. It's not important for the national security of the United States. But we have made it a national security obligation of the United States. So that's a problem for me.
The purpose of alliances like NATO is to deter. Well, so far so good! An alliance will deter when it is seen by the deterree not to be in his interest to take on the combined might of the alliance. That calculus depends on the strength of the commitment of the deterers and on the perception of the commitment of the deterrers by the deterree. I, as one American, do not have that commitment to Lithuania; I do not think most Americans have that commitment to Lithuania. But another American, Barack Hussein Obama, does have that commitment, and he is more important than I am and those of my ilk. There are a lot of Barack Hussein Obamas in Official and quasi-official America. Oodles of them.
What can we say about the perception of the commitment of NATO members as seen by the deterree, Russia? This question is also sometimes called the "Die for Narva" question and we cannot say much for certain about it!
The entire eastern border of Estonia is shared with Russia. Estonia is a NATO member. President Obama visited Estonia is September as symbolic reinforcement of the commitment of America, through NATO, to defense of the Baltic states. Narva is a city of 58,000 people at the extreme eastern point of Estonia. And Narva is 88% ethnic Russian. We recall Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
The "Die for Narva" question therefore truly is, as Crimea and eastern Ukraine (and Georgia) weren't a "Die for NATO" question. Would I be willing to have my son die for Narva? No. It is believed by all that I am not special in this or any other manner and that many--many,many,many,many,many--American fathers and mothers would not want their sons to die for Narva, nor for Estonia. There are some who believe that Vladimir Putin believes this too, although he has not spoken directy to the issue directly. I am also one of those.
Would the American people die for NATO? They don't even know that Estonia is a NATO member! They've never heard of Narva! But that is not how little green men infiltrating from Ivangorod into Narva would be put to the American and European peoples. It would be put as:
Russia Attacks NATO.
If Vladimir Putin is unsure about about how the American and European peoples would respond to that headline, I, for one (and I am not special), say that that headline would cause war; war between Russia and NATO, which includes most of Europe, so that would be general war in Europe, PLUS war with the United States of America. I'm just sayin'.
From what I've read, Putin is not sure that that headline would lead to that result but he is willing to push the envelope. There is a powerful segment of Official Russia that believes that if push came to shove, if Narva came to Sarajevo, Russia could even employ tactical nuclear weapons against Narva, and Americans via NATO would still not risk general nuclear war with Russia over Narva.
Russia Drops Atomic Bomb on NATO Troops in Estonia, Thousands Die.
