Russia growls across the border as Lithuania readies for euro

[inanna]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Geopolitics plague Lithuanians at this frozen Russian border post, where a return trip by car can mean 48 hours of queuing. It is a reminder for some of why the former Soviet republic will cement its move to the West by joining the euro zone next month.

Tensions with Moscow have simmered ever since Lithuania became the first republic to declare independence from the Soviet Union in 1990, although only 6 percent of the population are Russian speakers, far fewer than in its Baltic neighbours.

<snip>

Market reforms and wider economic crisis have been tough for Lithuanians, driving many to emigrate. But few oppose its shift towards the West.

Russia’s move into Ukraine has awoken fears the Baltics could be next. NATO has scrambled its jets over 150 times this year after Russian sorties, three times more than last year. Moscow held surprise military exercises in Kaliningrad in December with 9,000 troops and 55 ships.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/12/21/uk-lithuania-euro-idUKKBN0JZ08F20141221

[Scootaloo]

1. Lithuania's a NATO member; Russia can growl all it wants, but that's all it'll be

Putin's an asshole not an idiot.

[True Blue Door]

2. That's true, but it's not something to depend on.

Listening closely to the history of World War 2, you realize that Hitler was actually playing exactly the same kind games Putin is at first - trying to break off pieces of territory, then making diplomatic noises to try to tame the reaction. But he miscalculated, and the rest is history. Putin is clearly not immune to miscalculation.

[Scootaloo]

3. Do you think that NATO will let Lithuania hang the way the allies did Poland?

[True Blue Door]

4. No. But that doesn't mean Vladimir Putin might not decide we would.

And, like Hitler, not being the type to acknowledge error, he might prefer to double down on the mistake by launching larger offensives on a larger and larger front.

He has a personality type. It's not the personality type you want in control of nuclear weapons.

[happyslug]

5. And that is a bigger problem, part of Russia is WEST of Lithuania.

Kaliningrad is WEST of Lithuania, NATO should NEVER have expanded east of Kaliningrad until it was clear by treaty that Russia had NO objections. Russia has objections for American forces are now in a position where they can be used to block Russia forces from reinforcing part of their own country WITHOUT attacking Russia. i.e. the US can FORCE Russia to attack first, by the simple means of a US blockade of Kaliningrad.



Now, Belarus and Latvia are between Lithuania and Russia, Russia has the capacity to take both countries over. Russia does NOT have the ability to hold both countries against a united NATO attack (and for that reason no such attack should occur) but under the right circumstances it will.

Thus why did the US (and its NATO ally) expand and admitted Lithuania, why did the US for all practical purposes kick Russia in the teeth?

Now, Russia does NOT care if the Baltic States are independent of Russia or not. Independent Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia causes no harm to Moscow. Historically Russia only moved into these areas to drive out the Germans (Middle ages) and later the Swedes (1700 and 1800s) from using them as bases to attack Russia.

In simple terms, if any of these countries ally themselves with a country that can threaten Russia, that is a threat to Russia. Russia is one huge open plain, easy terrain to move large armies through quickly. Russia like the Baltic as a border. It likes the Pripet Marshes as a border (Which is most of Belarus) but would prefer mountains. The problem is the nearest mountains to Russia are the Silesian Mountains in Western Poland, the Carpathian mountains in Southern Poland and Romania. The Carcarus

[NuclearDem]

6. BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT

Kaliningrad is WEST of Lithuania, NATO should NEVER have expanded east of Kaliningrad until it was clear by treaty that Russia had NO objections.

Maybe think twice before thinking about suggesting negotiations between a Western power and Russia over the fate of the Baltics.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states

Early in the morning of August 24, 1939, the Soviet Union and Germany signed a ten-year non-aggression pact, called the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact. The pact contained a secret protocol by which the states of Northern and Eastern Europe were divided into German and Soviet "spheres of influence".[48] In the north, Finland, Estonia and Latvia were assigned to the Soviet sphere.[48] Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its "political rearrangement"—the areas east of the Narev, Vistula and San Rivers going to the Soviet Union while Germany would occupy the west.[48] Lithuania, adjacent to East Prussia, would be in the German sphere of influence, although a second secret protocol agreed in September 1939 assigned the majority of Lithuanian territory to the Soviet Union.[49]

Historically Russia only moved into these areas to drive out the Germans (Middle ages) and later the Swedes (1700 and 1800s) from using them as bases to attack Russia.

Ask Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia about that and they'll remind you of the USSR's illegal occupation of their countries under Molotov-Ribbentrop. This was in the 1940s.

In simple terms, if any of these countries ally themselves with a country that can threaten Russia, that is a threat to Russia.

Unbelievable.

Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are sovereign nations with rich cultural histories going back centuries, most of it separate from their Slavic neighbors.

They are NOT chess pieces or buffer zones. That's an utterly arrogant, imperialist, might-makes-right attitude that deserves to die.

They're free to choose to ally with whoever the fuck they want, and if Russia doesn't like it, tough shit. They choose to ally with NATO because of exactly the sort of behavior Russia's displaying with them now.

[happyslug]

7. There are chess players in the Russian-USA game

And if they do not know it, they will lose out. Let we paraphrase Charles De Gaulle "Would you let (insert your home city) be nuked to kept Russian Troops out of Lithuania". If the answer to that is YES (and willing to leave your whole family be nuked) then you can say this alliance makes sense, but if the answer is NO, then the alliance makes no sense for the US or NATO.

As to Molotov–Ribbentrop, England and France were discussing the same terms with Stalin BEFORE the Germans made they offer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

In simple language England and France were willing to turn over the Baltics to Stalin, provided they could have political cover in case of problems back home. Hitler learned about these discussion and just made a better offer:

By the end of May drafts were formally presented. In mid-June the main Tripartite negotiations started. The discussion was focused on potential guarantees to central and east European countries should a German aggression arise. The USSR proposed to consider that a political turn towards Germany by the Baltic states would constitute an "indirect aggression" towards the Soviet Union. Britain opposed such proposals, because they feared the Soviets' proposed language could justify a Soviet intervention in Finland and the Baltic states, or push those countries to seek closer relations with Germany. The discussion about a definition of "indirect aggression" became one of the sticking points between the parties, and by mid-July the tripartite political negotiations effectively stalled, while the parties agreed to start negotiations on a military agreement, which the Soviets insisted must be entered into simultaneously with any political agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

i.e. England and France needed political cover and they were working on the wording to provide such cover, when Hitler made an offer Stalin could not refuse.

Worse, France and Britain (and Poland) all decided NOT to declare war on Russia when the Russian invaded they part of Poland. It was part of the understanding that all three countries were giving up on anything east of Poland. I.e. they still were all willing to make a deal with Stalin and by then it was quite clear they had to beat Hitler's offers and that included anything East of Poland (and the defeat of France in 1940, made it clear the Western Allies had to give Stalin everything east of Germany to get his support, remember 3/4 (and some estimates are higher) of all German Casualties occurred in Russia from 1941 to 1945, every other part of the war was minor compared to the Russian Front. Without Russia, the Normandy Invasion could NOT have occurred, 90% of all German Troops were tied up in Russia, if even 10% of them could have been in France instead, it would have been enough to defeat any naval invasion. The German lack of troops by 1944 was the key to the Normandy Invasion and the cause of that shortage was Russia.

France and Britain also remember WWI, yes they "won" WWI after Russia had collapsed, but the Russian Front, a minor front in WWI compared to WWII, tied up so many German Soldiers that it prevented any massing of German Troops In France till US troops arrived in force in 1918. Even then the French and British refused to invade Germany on the grounds they had to few men, thus the armistice was signed in 1918 BEFORE Germany was invaded. The loss of Russia as an ally in 1917 killed any allied invasion into Germany in 1919. AND remember in WWI, the US had the ability to land troops and Supplies in France WITHOUT any opposition, something the US could NOT do in 1942-1945 (Some French and Dutch ports were open by January 1945, but most were held by German Troops till Germany's Surrender in May 1945 (or so destroyed that they could NOT be used, Brest France is the best known example of the later).

Thus in short, the US also agreed to the Baltics being part of Russia, we protested against it, but talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, and the US ACTIONS show clear support for the Soviet Annexation of the Baltics states. That the US has adopted a different attitude to the Baltics since the break up of the Soviet Union means nothing, even the expansion of NATO meant nothing for Russia under Yeltsin could do nothing about it.

Furthermore my objection is NOT with Lithuania allying with the US through NATO but the US Agreeing to it. It is the US that is the threat to Russia NOT Lithuania and if the US did not want to be a person kicking a sleeping dog, the US would NEVER have entered into such an alliance. I blame the US not Lithuania.

Any you never did address my point about these being bases used by Sweden in the 1600s and 1700s, and Germany in the Middle ages AND WWII as bases to attack Russia. Russia does not fear these countries as independent states, but as fiefdoms or other countries (and that is where all three countries are slowing becoming fiefdoms of Germany via NATO and the EURO).

[NuclearDem]

8. Alright, so 90% of that post was just one big whataboutism

Nobody--and I mean, nobody--has the right to treat the Baltics like bargaining chips. Not the Nazis, not the Soviets, not the British, not the French, and not the US. The majority of your post comprising of "well, the West was going to do it too", we'll just move on from that. It was despicable when the Nazis did it, and it would've been just as despicable if the western allies had done it.

Furthermore my objection is NOT with Lithuania allying with the US through NATO but the US Agreeing to it. It is the US that is the threat to Russia NOT Lithuania and if the US did not want to be a person kicking a sleeping dog, the US would NEVER have entered into such an alliance. I blame the US not Lithuania.

Well, tough shit for Russia. Those centuries of beating up on the Baltics were bound to come back to bite it in the ass, weren't they?

ny you never did address my point about these being bases used by Sweden in the 1600s and 1700s, and Germany in the Middle ages AND WWII as bases to attack Russia. Russia does not fear these countries as independent states, but as fiefdoms or other countries (and that is where all three countries are slowing becoming fiefdoms of Germany via NATO and the EURO).

Because it's irrelevant. Again, tough shit for Russia, but they still have enough of a nuclear stockpile to completely eradicate all of NATO. All this nonsense about the fears of a potential NATO invasion of Russia completely ignores that very important fact.

[jakeXT]

9. A good one with two black sites

REPORT: Two CIA Black Site Prisons in Lithuania

The Lithuanian government has concluded that the CIA operated a secret "black site" in Lithuania for high-level Al Qaeda detainees, and that a second secret CIA facility was established in the heart of the capital city of Vilnius. The government began an investigation after an exclusive ABC News report that the CIA operated a secret black site prison for terror suspects in the Baltic country in 2004 and 2005.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cia-black-sites-lithuania/story?id=9400744