So predicts--a "high probability"--NATO's former secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen who was head of the alliance until last September. Putin, says Rasmussen, is determined to reassert the role Russia had in Eastern Europe under the Soviet Union, to restore Russia's "greatness." Rasmussen predicts not a 1956 or 1968-style full invasion but more "little green men" as Putin inserted into Ukraine.
Rasmussen says Putin knows that Russia would be defeated in any war with NATO but that Putin wants to test the alliance's stickiness. That sounds irrational, implausibly irrational, but that is similar to what Khrushchev attempted with JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev had sized up Kennedy as a soft pretty-boy at Vienna in their first meeting. Putin thinks Obama is weak: he draws red lines that turn into yellow lights.
Khrushchev certainly knew that in any war with the U.S. the Soviet Union would be utterly obliterated, that the only "missile gap" that existed in 1962 was on the Soviet side. Knowing that, Khrushchev tried to sneak the missiles into Cuba. Putin sees an opportunity to pick some low-hanging fruit from under Obama's nose and doesn't think Obama has the stomach to stop him.
Khrushchev did not know how pissed JFK was at how Khrushchev had treated him in Vienna, how eager JFK was to reassert his manhood. JFK's response, pushing the world to the brink, was completely disproportionate to the strategic change that would have been affected had the missiles been installed in Cuba. Once Kennedy went on television however Khrushchev knew and didn't challenge the "quarantine."
So, there seems to me to be a predisposition in Russian leaders to see their American counterparts as weak and subject to fleecing. Beyond that predisposition however the parallels end. Putin knows how pissed Obama is. Cuba was not invaded by the Soviets, Cuba was friendly to the Soviets and, of course, America was not treaty-bound to defend Cuba. Just the opposite, Kennedy had a predisposition to invade Cuba and Obama is treaty-bound to defend the Baltics.
For about the millionth time since 2002 I restate my position that NATO should not have expanded East. But it did and Barack Obama has given no indication that I know of that he is not going to enforce Article 5's collective security agreement in defense of Vilnius. Therefore I assume that Obama does not share my strong feelings, in fact he seems to feel at least as strongly the other way and if Mr. Rasmussen is correct there will be war. If I, or one of my ilk, were president America, via NATO, would not go to war with Russia over Vilnius, treaty be damned.
I am unaware that Vladimir Putin knows that Russia would surely lose a war with NATO. In fact, at the height of the Ukraine crisis different Russian advisers were stating that Putin believed he could win even a limited nuclear war in Europe. One of those advisers "reminded" "Comrade Obama" that Russia was still the only power on earth capable of reducing the United States to "ashes."
"We must be clear," wrote Bernard Lewis after 9/11/01 about the messages we send to Islam. So too with Russia. Article 5 of NATO's treaty is clear and is in writing. I assume that President Obama has been clear to Russia and to Putin that an attack on Vilnius is an attack on Washington but treaties, agreements, road maps, red lines, those writing things never meant anything to the Soviet bear and they mean nothing to the Russian bear. "We Russians may not understand puts and calls but we understand tanks and missiles!" a Russian defense official told the Clintons in protesting NATO expansion. Obama's intent is not clear enough for a Russian to understand. If the Obamas share Rasmussen's assessment and intend to defend Vilnius as they would Washington maybe a nationwide address to the American people establishing a line of steel bear traps would get through to them.
Rasmussen says Putin knows that Russia would be defeated in any war with NATO but that Putin wants to test the alliance's stickiness. That sounds irrational, implausibly irrational, but that is similar to what Khrushchev attempted with JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev had sized up Kennedy as a soft pretty-boy at Vienna in their first meeting. Putin thinks Obama is weak: he draws red lines that turn into yellow lights.
Khrushchev certainly knew that in any war with the U.S. the Soviet Union would be utterly obliterated, that the only "missile gap" that existed in 1962 was on the Soviet side. Knowing that, Khrushchev tried to sneak the missiles into Cuba. Putin sees an opportunity to pick some low-hanging fruit from under Obama's nose and doesn't think Obama has the stomach to stop him.
Khrushchev did not know how pissed JFK was at how Khrushchev had treated him in Vienna, how eager JFK was to reassert his manhood. JFK's response, pushing the world to the brink, was completely disproportionate to the strategic change that would have been affected had the missiles been installed in Cuba. Once Kennedy went on television however Khrushchev knew and didn't challenge the "quarantine."
So, there seems to me to be a predisposition in Russian leaders to see their American counterparts as weak and subject to fleecing. Beyond that predisposition however the parallels end. Putin knows how pissed Obama is. Cuba was not invaded by the Soviets, Cuba was friendly to the Soviets and, of course, America was not treaty-bound to defend Cuba. Just the opposite, Kennedy had a predisposition to invade Cuba and Obama is treaty-bound to defend the Baltics.
For about the millionth time since 2002 I restate my position that NATO should not have expanded East. But it did and Barack Obama has given no indication that I know of that he is not going to enforce Article 5's collective security agreement in defense of Vilnius. Therefore I assume that Obama does not share my strong feelings, in fact he seems to feel at least as strongly the other way and if Mr. Rasmussen is correct there will be war. If I, or one of my ilk, were president America, via NATO, would not go to war with Russia over Vilnius, treaty be damned.
I am unaware that Vladimir Putin knows that Russia would surely lose a war with NATO. In fact, at the height of the Ukraine crisis different Russian advisers were stating that Putin believed he could win even a limited nuclear war in Europe. One of those advisers "reminded" "Comrade Obama" that Russia was still the only power on earth capable of reducing the United States to "ashes."
"We must be clear," wrote Bernard Lewis after 9/11/01 about the messages we send to Islam. So too with Russia. Article 5 of NATO's treaty is clear and is in writing. I assume that President Obama has been clear to Russia and to Putin that an attack on Vilnius is an attack on Washington but treaties, agreements, road maps, red lines, those writing things never meant anything to the Soviet bear and they mean nothing to the Russian bear. "We Russians may not understand puts and calls but we understand tanks and missiles!" a Russian defense official told the Clintons in protesting NATO expansion. Obama's intent is not clear enough for a Russian to understand. If the Obamas share Rasmussen's assessment and intend to defend Vilnius as they would Washington maybe a nationwide address to the American people establishing a line of steel bear traps would get through to them.
