Posted on 07/23/2014 7:24:41 AM PDT by tcrlaf
A team of Pentagon officials is heading to Ukraine to help the country rebuild its fractured military, a mission that lawmakers and analysts expect will result in recommendations for greater military assistance in the country’s fight against pro-Russia separatists amid international outrage over the downing of a commercial airplane.
Within the next few weeks, a group of Defense Department representatives who specialize in strategy and policy will head to Kiev to evaluate specific programs that the United States may want to help bolster, said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman.
Their objective is to work with Ukrainians to “shape and establish an enduring program for future U.S. efforts to support the Ukrainian military through subject-matter expert teams and long-term advisers,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Not really interested in US troops getting in a fight against the rebels but am interested in securing Kiev against Putin’s invasion, which I think is inevitable. Why would he stop at the Crimea? It is the domino effect all over again. First Ossetia, then Crimea, then Ukraine, Poland, ect...
They have a full share in it behind the scene.
Perhaps one of the Balkand states.
Should read.
Baltic
Sorry about that.
I make this very point about every two weeks. We are experiencing Cloward-Piven on overdrive, with each successive shock greater than the one before. I like to ask people to name the major crisis that we faced last week, two weeks ago, last month, and the months before that. The GOP remained passive for too long, and now they are swinging at old ghosts while getting sucker punched by new ones. Our nation is on its heels, reeling with every new punch. And the hits just keep coming...
Crimea has been Russian for a very long time, and was only given to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev at a time when the Soviet breakup was unthinkable. Russia never gave up its naval base at Sevastopol or the airfields that protect it, and its annexation of the Crimean peninsula was a logical defensive step to prevent those strategic bases from falling to NATO's hands -- especially in light of the West's role in this February's overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected leader who was allied with Russia.
We can draw all the Hitler parallels we want, but Russia's real concern is NATO's expanding military presence all along its borders. That is a legitimate for any nation, and is the reason why we have enforced the Monroe Doctrine since 1823 throughout our hemisphere. Just imagine if a hostile power signed a mutual defense treaty with Mexico or British Columbia and stationed its troops, planes and ships there.
[Throughout history Russia has been invaded through Ukraine... -AAM]
Really? What about the invasion of Russia by Napoleon and during the two World Wars. Should the same logic you are using for Ukraine, i.e., Russia's strategic concerns, be also used for Poland, which is a member of NATO?
Yes, really. The Germans invaded through Ukraine before being stopped at Stalingrad (now Volgograd), which is only about 200 miles east of Ukraine. And Poland is definitely a concern to Russia, as it has always served as a strategic buffer between Germany and Russia to the defensive benefit of both larger powers. NATO promised the post-Soviet CIS that we would not expand eastward if Russia pulled its troops out of the former SSRs, and then added 12 new member countries in Central and Eastern Europe in 1999 and 2004. Russia has to wonder why NATO is pressing all the way to its borders -- a legitimate question to ask of an alliance that was chartered as a defensive shield. Borderlands serve as strategic buffers to prevent wars, while their absence increases the likelihood of small conflicts escalating into major wars. Almost all of those buffers have vanished.
As far as I am concerned, this is a matter to be settled between Russia and Ukraine and is not our business. What occurs on Russia's border does not affect our national security, but is of vital, existential interest to Russia. Why in the world do we want to stick our nose into such a mess that is infinitely more important to Russia than to us?
What would be our goal in doing that? How would we define success, or failure? Are will willing to go to war if the ante keeps increasing? This not some distant neutral corner of the world but Russia's own border, so total war would be on the table with Russia's existence threatened. If we aren't willing to go all the way then we should not go at all. Our strength would be diluted by overreach, and our stature would be further diminished by half-measures and failure. And economically, waging a major war in our newly weakened state would be catastrophic to the US Dollar.
No, I spent a career planning and training to fight the old Soviet Union that threatened to invade Western Europe. I am thinking rationally because too many people are letting their emotions sweep them into irrational war fever without knowing whether it is justified and without counting the potential costs. Now is the time to step back and examine "Who's zooming who?" before the world stumbles into a major war that almost nobody but Satan wants.
It does concern me that NATO -- a government program that once served a useful purpose -- is looking for a new mission and is hell-bent on finding one by pressing all the way to Russia's borders. Old scores always itch to be "settled" but borderlands serve to keep the old antagonists at bay. While I was willing to fight to defend the British, Germans and Italians, but I am not willing to shed American blood for Albania, Bulgaria, Romania or Slovenia. It concerns me that NATO is seeking to erase the borderlands, and that one of these newly-joined little angry chihuahuas is going to bite the bear so it can drag us by our treaty into fighting their battle for them. No thanks! Our national security is not threatened there.
Pure rationalization. Crimea is part of Ukraine. It became the Autonomous Republic of Crimea within newly independent Ukraine in 1991, with Sevastopol having its own administration, within Ukraine but outside of the Autonomous Republic.
The Russian Ukrainian Naval Base for Gas treaty, widely referred to as the Kharkiv Accords or the Kharkiv Pact in the Russian and Ukrainian media, was a treaty between Ukraine and Russia whereby the Russian lease on naval facilities in Crimea would be extended beyond 2017 by 25 years (to 2042) with an additional 5 year renewal option (to 2047) in exchange for a multiyear discounted contract to provide Ukraine with Russian natural gas. The agreement, signed on 21 April 2010 in Kharkiv, Ukraine, by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian President Dimitry Medvedev and ratified by the parliaments of the two countries on 27 April 2010, aroused much controversy in Ukraine. The treaty was a continuation of a treaty signed in 1997 between the two nations. Shortly after the (disputed) March 2014 accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation Russia unilateral terminated the treaty on March 31, 2014.
We can draw all the Hitler parallels we want, but Russia's real concern is NATO's expanding military presence all along its borders. That is a legitimate for any nation, and is the reason why we have enforced the Monroe Doctrine since 1823 throughout our hemisphere. Just imagine if a hostile power signed a mutual defense treaty with Mexico or British Columbia and stationed its troops, planes and ships there.
Why is NATO perceived as a threat to Russia? NATO is a defensive alliance among democratic countries. It has been in existence since 1947. NATO now includes such former Warsaw Pact countries as Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. And it includes the former Soviet Republics of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Why do you think those countries eagerly wanted to join NATO?
The Monroe Doctrine is a false comparison. The relation that the Soviets had with its former empire is not the same as our relationship to the rest of the countries in this hemisphere. And Russia is currently on establishing Russian bases in Latin America. It is reopening a spy base in Cuba.
Yes, really. The Germans invaded through Ukraine before being stopped at Stalingrad (now Volgograd), which is only about 200 miles east of Ukraine. And Poland is definitely a concern to Russia, as it has always served as a strategic buffer between Germany and Russia to the defensive benefit of both larger powers.
Operation Barbarossa used three routes of invasion with only one being thru Ukraine. Belarus serves as the current buffer between Russia and Poland.
NATO promised the post-Soviet CIS that we would not expand eastward if Russia pulled its troops out of the former SSRs, and then added 12 new member countries in Central and Eastern Europe in 1999 and 2004. Russia has to wonder why NATO is pressing all the way to its borders -- a legitimate question to ask of an alliance that was chartered as a defensive shield. Borderlands serve as strategic buffers to prevent wars, while their absence increases the likelihood of small conflicts escalating into major wars. Almost all of those buffers have vanished.
You may be able to peddle this BS to the uninformed, but not to me. I lived two years in Communist Poland during the days of Solidarnosc'. The countries of the Warsaw Pact as well as the Baltic countries (aka captive nations) were really occupied by the Soviets and their puppet governments. You may call them buffers, but the reality is that the Soviets were oppressing the people and individual liberties.
When the Soviet Union collapsed these countries sought almost immediately a way to get into NATO. They wanted the collective protection of the alliance fearing that the old Soviet Union would emerge again and try to regain control over their country. NATO has no territorial ambitions, but the Soviets and now the Russians have looked to expand their empire for over 300 years. The Crimea and Georgia are just the latest examples. There is no moral equivalency between the Soviet Communists and Western democracies. I witnessed firsthand what it is like to live under a communist dictatorship. The Poles hated the Soviets and wanted them out of their country. The same can be said in Hungary and Czechoslovakia where the people challenged their Soviet masters.
As far as I am concerned, this is a matter to be settled between Russia and Ukraine and is not our business. What occurs on Russia's border does not affect our national security, but is of vital, existential interest to Russia. Why in the world do we want to stick our nose into such a mess that is infinitely more important to Russia than to us?
I don't know how you define "sticking our nose into such a mess" means. We should support Ukraine's sovereignty to the maximum extent possible. We should support all people who want to be free. When JFK went to the Berlin Wall, was he sticking his nose into a mess? Or in his inaugural address when he said,
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge--and more.
I also lived four years in Berlin before the Wall came down. I was at Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate. I was present when Sharansky was exchanged at the Glienicke Bridge. You have no idea what it means to the oppressed people of the world when an American leader champions their cause and lets them know that they are not forgotten. Our containment policy, a product of Kennan's Long Telegram, caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. It took many years, but it worked.
Tony Blair addressed Congress in 2003 and said this,
There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior.
Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere...
Anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.
The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty.
We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal.
Abraham Lincoln said, "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.
Great posts BTW.
You are creating a phony strawman. No American politician is suggesting that we fight a war in Ukraine. There is no public support for boots on the ground. There are other choices. We can support the legitimate government of Ukraine in other ways.
It does concern me that NATO -- a government program that once served a useful purpose -- is looking for a new mission and is hell-bent on finding one by pressing all the way to Russia's borders. Old scores always itch to be "settled" but borderlands serve to keep the old antagonists at bay.
NATO is expanding because those countries formerly under the heel of the Soviets want protection from the Russians wishing to return to the days of the Soviet empire. "Borderlands" don't keep nations free or protect them from invasion. Strong and credible defenses do. Do you honestly believe that NATO is a threat to the Russians? Or that the Russians fear NATO? Give me a break. The US has just a token force in Europe. Most of the NATO countries spend about 1% or less of GDP on defense.
I served in Italy as a naval officer 1968-70. There is no comparison between force levels then and now. It is preposterous to paint NATO as a threat to Russia.
While I was willing to fight to defend the British, Germans and Italians, but I am not willing to shed American blood for Albania, Bulgaria, Romania or Slovenia. It concerns me that NATO is seeking to erase the borderlands, and that one of these newly-joined little angry chihuahuas is going to bite the bear so it can drag us by our treaty into fighting their battle for them. No thanks! Our national security is not threatened there.
Nonsense. First, Sovenia and Albania have no contiguous border with Russia. And neither do Bulgaria and Romania except they are on the Black Sea. The NATO Charter requires all members to support Article 5. The only time that was implemented was NATO's support of us after 9/11, which is why Afghanistan is under NATO command.
The real threat is a Russian miscalculation by asserting its right to protect ethnic Russians in the Baltics or elsewhere. This is why the Russian Ukrainian adventurism sparks such fear in Europe, especially among those countries that were freed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They understand the Russian mentality far better than apparently you do. It is precisely the reason why they elected (read desperate) to join NATO.
The first item on their agenda will be how can the Ukranian army increase the combat roles of women. The second item will be loscting and enlisting the closed Ukranian Queers.The thir item will be to develop the ceremonies for the marriage of dykes in the military .
After all that, there will be no further effort
One of my older cousins, served in the Army in Korea.
He said that the Turks were one of our best allies and probably saved his butt a couple of times.
BOL!
With the fairy princes and princesses in charge of our military, you are probably correct with your satire.
To kabar:
Thanks for the data. I have added this reply of yours as a link to the Nam history/data in my post.
Obama to Make Case for Sending Special Forces to Iraq (Now wants ‘boots on the ground’)
We have been there and done that under rat presidents in Nam.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html
January 20, 1961- John Fitzgerald Kennedy is inaugurated as the 35th U.S. President and declares “...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to insure the survival and the success of liberty.” Privately, outgoing President Eisenhower tells him “I think you’re going to have to send troops...” to Southeast Asia.
The youthful Kennedy administration is inexperienced in matters regarding Southeast Asia. Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense, 44-year-old Robert McNamara, along with civilian planners recruited from the academic community, will play a crucial role in deciding White House strategy for Vietnam over the next several years. Under their leadership, the United States will wage a limited war to force a political settlement.
However, the U.S. will be opposed by an enemy dedicated to total military victory “...whatever the sacrifices, however long the struggle...until Vietnam is fully independent and reunified,” as stated by Ho Chi Minh.
May 1961 - Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visits President Diem in South Vietnam and hails the embattled leader as the ‘Winston Churchill of Asia.’
May 1961 - President Kennedy sends 400 American Green Beret ‘Special Advisors’ to South Vietnam to train South Vietnamese soldiers in methods of ‘counter-insurgency’ in the fight against Viet Cong guerrillas.
The role of the Green Berets soon expands to include the establishment of Civilian Irregular Defense Groups (CIDG) made up of fierce mountain men known as the Montagnards. These groups establish a series of fortified camps strung out along the mountains to thwart infiltration by North Vietnamese.
Fall - The conflict widens as 26,000 Viet Cong launch several successful attacks on South Vietnamese troops. Diem then requests more military aid from the Kennedy administration.
October 1961 - To get a first-hand look at the deteriorating military situation, top Kennedy aides, Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow, visit Vietnam. “If Vietnam goes, it will be exceedingly difficult to hold Southeast Asia,” Taylor reports to the President and advises Kennedy to expand the number of U.S. military advisors and to send 8000 combat soldiers.
Defense Secretary McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend instead a massive show of force by sending six divisions (200,000 men) to Vietnam. However, the President decides against sending any combat troops.
October 24, 1961 - On the sixth anniversary of the Republic of South Vietnam, President Kennedy sends a letter to President Diem and pledges “the United States is determined to help Vietnam preserve its independence...”
President Kennedy then sends additional military advisors along with American helicopter units to transport and direct South Vietnamese troops in battle, thus involving Americans in combat operations. Kennedy justifies the expanding U.S. military role as a means “...to prevent a Communist takeover of Vietnam which is in accordance with a policy our government has followed since 1954.” The number of military advisors sent by Kennedy will eventually surpass 16,000.
December 1961 - Viet Cong guerrillas now control much of the countryside in South Vietnam and frequently ambush South Vietnamese troops. The cost to America of maintaining South Vietnam’s sagging 200,000 man army and managing the overall conflict in Vietnam rises to a million dollars per day.
Thanks to Kabar for providing the info/data below to show the involvement in Nam way before JFK/LBJ.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3183965/posts?page=38#38
Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself. Again.
“Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself. Again.”
Our sons are too old for combat.
However, we have grandkids and grand nephews/nieces in their early to late teens, and we don’t want to see them become a statistic in a wasted war.
It is also dangerous to view any alliance as permanent in the face of changing realities. Western Europe has been largely democratic post-WWII and democracy has spread to Central and Eastern Europe since the Soviet collapse, but the growing EU superstate is anything but democratic. Its leader and ruling bureaucrats are unelected, its parliament has no authority to author legislative bills or to amend what the Brussels bureaucrats present to them, and the members' own courts and legislatures are subordinated to dictates from Brussels. As the EU's noose stangles whatever national sovereignty remains, Europe will emerge as a completely different entity. Things change, and prudent governments make strategic decisions based upon what might happen, not upon what is presently obvious.
NATO was a solid alliance when the Soviet threat loomed over Western Europe, and Americans were fully committed to wage total war in defense of West Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the UK and other real allies. But NATO has since adopted 12 new treaty members that are relative strangers to the West. Regardless of what the North Atlantic Treaty requires, America will not fight for Bulgaria or Estonia or Romania or Slovenia. The American people never signed on to such an expanded obligation, and will not spend our blood for these strangers. Despite this unspoken reality, much of the world continues to engage in reckless gamesmanship under the mistaken hope that we will always protect them.
You and I espouse different views of America's role in the world. America has made itself the arbiter of every dispute, the surety for every bad loan, and the guarantor of every treaty. We lived up to those promises for decades, but in the process we created bitter enemies and fair weather friends, bankrupted our treasury and mortgaged our future, and exhausted the military power and resources that should have been preserved to fight a necessary future war. Like every empire before us, we have spent our blood, treasure and national will to the point that exhaustion and collapse are on the horizon. America has written more checks than we can cash at one time, with promises payable in American blood. If too many of those checks come due at once, the bank crashes. In my view, spending even more, promising even more and fighting even more is the wrong answer, and will lead to our own destruction.
It is still is a defensive alliance. We can debate about whether NATO should have intervened in the Balkans, but something had to be done in reaction to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the war crimes being committed within Europe.
As I have stated repeatedly, the additional countries that were added to NATO did not constitute an offensive action against Russia. Those countries actively sought entry as a way to protect themselves from potential future actions by Russia. Each country had to meet certain standards and be approved by all the members. It took years to gain admittance. It is a multi-step process. Cyprus and Macedonia are stalled from accession by, respectively, Turkey and Greece, pending the resolution of disputes between them. Russia was provided an observer status at NATO Headquarters.
Regardless, the aggressive US/EU actions to destabilize Russia's economy and influence are a clear provocation in Russia's eyes. And make no mistake, non-lethal warfare is still warfare, and when taken too far often leads to shooting.
If Russia had its way, NATO would not exist. The corrupt oligarchy that runs the country should not dictate our actions and policies. We made a major mistake in canceling the defensive missile installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. The governments of both countries overcame major domestic obstacles and put their countries on the line in terms of Russian threats, veiled and otherwise.
If any shooting starts in Europe, Russia will be the instigator. And frankly, Russia lacks the military wherewithal, except for its nuclear arsenal, to pose a real danger to Europe. You continue to buy into the premise of a moral equivalency between European democracies and Russia, which is run by a tyrant who has little concern for freedom and individual liberties.
It is also dangerous to view any alliance as permanent in the face of changing realities. Western Europe has been largely democratic post-WWII and democracy has spread to Central and Eastern Europe since the Soviet collapse, but the growing EU superstate is anything but democratic. Its leader and ruling bureaucrats are unelected, its parliament has no authority to author legislative bills or to amend what the Brussels bureaucrats present to them, and the members' own courts and legislatures are subordinated to dictates from Brussels. As the EU's noose stangles whatever national sovereignty remains, Europe will emerge as a completely different entity. Things change, and prudent governments make strategic decisions based upon what might happen, not upon what is presently obvious.
The trend is actually in the other direction. The recent EU parliamentary elections show a move to the right. Nigel Farage and Marine Le Penn won major victories. There is a growing movement in the EU to reduce the control from Brussels and in the case of the UK, pull out of the alliance. The EU is crumbling in the light of the deteriorating economic conditions in Southern Europe. A single currency is hurting recovery. The EU is failing badly and in my opinion, will fall apart or become a weak overall trade alliance.
NATO was a solid alliance when the Soviet threat loomed over Western Europe, and Americans were fully committed to wage total war in defense of West Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the UK and other real allies. But NATO has since adopted 12 new treaty members that are relative strangers to the West. Regardless of what the North Atlantic Treaty requires, America will not fight for Bulgaria or Estonia or Romania or Slovenia. The American people never signed on to such an expanded obligation, and will not spend our blood for these strangers. Despite this unspoken reality, much of the world continues to engage in reckless gamesmanship under the mistaken hope that we will always protect them.
If the US backs away from Article 5, there will be no alliance. In order to be credible, an attack against one must be an attack against all. We cannot selectively decide which country can be attacked without consequence.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
You and I espouse different views of America's role in the world. America has made itself the arbiter of every dispute, the surety for every bad loan, and the guarantor of every treaty.
Overstated and wrong. We are a superpower (at least for now) and global leader. We are the indispensable nation when it comes to defending human rights and freedom. If we retreat from that role, someone else will try to fill it and the result will be a far more dangerous world. We are seeing that now with Obama's leading from behind. He is implementing the strategy you seem to advocate.
There are limits to our power and influence. We have recognized that since 1945. We act out of protecting our strategic national interests. We didn't stop North Korea or Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons. We didn't help the Hungarians when their revolution ended in failure. And our ability to act is going to be even more limited in the future as our resources decline. We are now engaged in the classic battle between guns versus butter. And butter wins every time because it has more constituents. The welfare state is going to limit our ability to project power globally. We have not yet reached a "No troops East of Suez" yet, but we are headed in that direction. It is inevitable.
Like every empire before us, we have spent our blood, treasure and national will to the point that exhaustion and collapse are on the horizon. America has written more checks than we can cash at one time, with promises payable in American blood. If too many of those checks come due at once, the bank crashes. In my view, spending even more, promising even more and fighting even more is the wrong answer, and will lead to our own destruction.
As I indicated above, I agree with you. We are in decline, which is why our options to act are going to be limited. We can't afford it. The Soviet empire collapsed for that reason. The UK is no longer a global power. This all speaks to the need for sharing the defense burden and using alliances to reduce our costs. The West and Japan must develop a shared world view and structure our national security strategy to support it. Putin is an enemy of freedom and must be dealt with. We have various non-military levers to contain his adventurism. We should not cede him a sphere of influence, which he will seek to enlarge.
We are spending less on defense. The Army is being reduced by 100,000 personnel. More cuts are on the horizon. Politicians from both parties are now rationalizing those cuts. Rand Paul is calling for less US involvement in the world, a popular view. Obama wants a smaller military and less US influence globally. You are going to get your wish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.