More US troops for eastern Europe

[Grouse]

Seems Russia isn't happy with Poland now:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/01/russia-angry-as-poland-erases-communist-past.html?

Poland's plans to demolish around 500 Soviet-era monuments have angered Russia, according to media reports, further damaging relations between the former Soviet satellite state and the country.

Poland is planning a mass demolition of monuments that are relics of the country's Communist past which are seen as reminders of Soviet Russia's invasion and subsequent decades-long political dominance of the eastern European nation until a popular uprising in 1989 overthrew Communist rule.

Is that in the 50% of Poland never returned to Poland by the Soviet Union. Or in the part stolen from Germany?

[mopar71]

Seems Russia isn't happy with Poland now:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/01/russia-angry-as-poland-erases-communist-past.html?

Poland's plans to demolish around 500 Soviet-era monuments have angered Russia, according to media reports, further damaging relations between the former Soviet satellite state and the country.

Poland is planning a mass demolition of monuments that are relics of the country's Communist past which are seen as reminders of Soviet Russia's invasion and subsequent decades-long political dominance of the eastern European nation until a popular uprising in 1989 overthrew Communist rule.

Is that in the 50% of Poland never returned to Poland by the Soviet Union. Or in the part stolen from Germany?

A big part of 1930's Poland wasn't Polish in the first place. It is now western Ukraine, where the people are mostly Ukrainian, not Polish. After Austro-Hungary collapsed after WWI, the Polish-Ukrainian War was fought and the Poles won.

full-size: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/West-Ukraine_1918.jpg

Note: Russia never had any of that territory until after WWII.

Edited April 2, 2016 by mopar71

[NeverSure]

So, this all costs US taxpayers a fortune to be "the world's police". Europe complains bitterly about that term so the US should just pull out.

Here's an idea: Let Russia and the Muslims fight over who gets Europe. No one else really cares, anyway.

Cheers.

It is none of the US business who gets Europe, isn't it? Or is it that the US wants it themselves?

The US for all its faults isn't in the habit of taking countries as spoils of war. That's not the objective. The US wants stability in Europe for the stability of the whole world.

If you think the US wants a Europe that's fast becoming Muslim you need to think again. Europe is getting by with very little military expenses because the US maintains a large presence there. The haughty Germans have more US firepower in-country than should ever have been and the US IS their defense.

This all has to stop.

Vote Trump.

[kamahele]

Drop in the bucket. More a show of support than a deterrent. I'm all for our Nato involvement but would be nice if Germany or France were committing troops to Eastern Europe. I mean these people are their neighbors...

[Publicus]

SecDef Ashton Carter is a hawk with a good judgement so one can have confidence in his deployments and preparation of the US armed forces across the board. This one reported in the OP along with deployment of the 7th Fleet in the South China Sea, is his work.

As to Nato, it is an alliance of 28 countries, to include the USA and Canada.

Nato GDP is $18 Trillion.

With each member state (excluding the US) averaging 1.4% military expenditures on their armed forces, Nato has a huge armed force, modern, highly skilled, trained, prepared, well coordinated.

The Nato Supreme Commander of all Nato armed forces is always a US four-star general with an accomplished record of combat experience and an expertise in high tech and satellite warfare etc. No one should doubt the military supremacy of Nato against any single country outside of the alliance.

Putin is more likely than not to use a tactical nuclear weapon against an eastern European city than anything else. A guy who knows Putin and who is one among many who have insight of Putin the Chekist says this is Putin's present approach.

\

Andrevi Pointkovsky, an associate fellow at the Hudson Institute of New York and Sydney, and executive director of the Strategic Studies Center in Moscow, is a respected analyst of Putin who has published several books on the Russian Chekist....

Piontkovsky does not provide direct evidence for this, but his argument is both suggestive and disturbing because if he has read Putin correctly, the world is in a far more dangerous situation than most have thought and the risks to Russia’s neighbors, the West and Russia itself are far greater.

According to the commentator, “even the most modest practical realization of [Putin’s] idea of ‘assembling the Russian lands’ requires changes of state borders at least of two NATO member countries, Latvia and Estonia.” Because of the Western alliance’s Article 5 in which an attack on one is an attack on all, that would seem impossible given MAD.

But as many analysts have suggested before, “the MAD doctrine considered only a single most destructive scenario of a military conflict between nuclear powers, total war.” But there are other scenarios, including the limited use of nuclear weapons by one side under conditions when the other side does not respond lest that lead to “mutual suicide.”

It is “theoretically clear,” Piontkovsky argues, “that in a more volatile geopolitical situation, a nuclear power focused on changing the existing status quo, enjoying the advantage of political will and indifferent to the values of human lives (its own and others), and affected by a certain adventurism, could achieve serious foreign policy results by the threat of the application or the limited application of nuclear weapons.”

http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-believes-he-can-win-a-war-with-nato-piontkovsky-says/

The OP refers specifically to Putin and his "revanchism." Let's take a look...

From revanchisme

1. 
   

   revanchism(Noun)

   
   

   The political policy of endeavouring to regain lost territory.

   
   
   

Revanchism is a term used since the 1870s to describe a political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war or social movement. Revanchism draws its strength from patriotic and retributionist thought and is often motivated by economic or geo-political factors.

Revanchist politics often rely on the identification of a nation with a nation-state, often mobilizing deep-rooted sentiments of ethnic nationalism, claiming territories outside of the state where members of the ethnic group live, while using heavy-handed nationalism to mobilize support for these aims.

Sounds like the CCP Dictators in Beijing in the South China Sea btw.

Revanchism is also coupled with irredentism.....

irredentist

a member of anItalian association that became prominent in1878, advocating the redemption, or theincorporation into Italy, of certain neighboringregions (Italia irredenta) having a primarilyItalian population.

Irredentism is any position of a state advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged. It is often advocated by pan-nationalist movements and has been a repeated feature of identity politics, cultural and political geography.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irredentism

Putin is a Chekist. The term originates from the Soviet Cheka, its secret police. On taking power in 2000, Putin brought in his KGB Bois and the goons of the GRU, former Soviet military intelligence. Putin is a Czarist-Soviet-Chekist. Look out for him. He's armed and extremely dangerous.

[mopar71]

Putin dropped the ball in April 2014. He could have taken a small chunk of NATO Estonia or Latvia and nothing would have or could have been done about it.

That would have ended NATO right there. Collective security right out the window.

[Publicus]

Putin dropped the ball in April 2014. He could have taken a small chunk of NATO Estonia or Latvia and nothing would have or could have been done about it.

That would have ended NATO right there. Collective security right out the window.

Collective security will remain collective because it is the post World War II way to do it. The world knows collective security is what has precluded another major world war.

Nato has become prepared for anything Putin would do, to include Putin using a tactical nuclear weapon.

Putin is OTT and everyone in Nato recognises it, knows it, realises it. He's doing in Ukraine what hasn't happened since everything that was World War II, i.e., change the borders of a state using military force. A state in Europe-Eurasia. This is forever OTT to all of Nato.

It started coming down on Putin soon after spring 2014 regardless. (The hammer was going to come down on Putin in any event.)

Putin for instance could not move against Estonia and Latvia because he was strapped for resources in Ukraine. Nato ended up freezing Putin in Ukraine to the point he still does not have his Ukraine land corridor from Russia to Crimea. Ukraine is still being supplied by Russian boats.

Putin is the ultimate born loser.

The EU sanctions on top of the crashed oil prices knocked his GDP back by minus five percent last year. Nato is upgrading in several major ways, to include its existing 3000 Ready Reaction Force and it is adding a new 30,000 Ready Response Force; Nato has positioned combat ready Nato land and air forces in the Baltic states, Poland and other Nato states that border Russia. If Nato sees any more little green men in a member state Nato will run 'em right out immediately and Putin knows it.

There is no Nato pussyfooting with Putin any more. His criminal regime is currently being exposed in the Panama Papers. One could strongly suspect there is yet more to come to force Putin out and to change Russian attitudes and policies.

[Grouse]

Seems Russia isn't happy with Poland now:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/01/russia-angry-as-poland-erases-communist-past.html?

Poland's plans to demolish around 500 Soviet-era monuments have angered Russia, according to media reports, further damaging relations between the former Soviet satellite state and the country.

Poland is planning a mass demolition of monuments that are relics of the country's Communist past which are seen as reminders of Soviet Russia's invasion and subsequent decades-long political dominance of the eastern European nation until a popular uprising in 1989 overthrew Communist rule.

Is that in the 50% of Poland never returned to Poland by the Soviet Union. Or in the part stolen from Germany?

A big part of 1930's Poland wasn't Polish in the first place. It is now western Ukraine, where the people are mostly Ukrainian, not Polish. After Austro-Hungary collapsed after WWI, the Polish-Ukrainian War was fought and the Poles won.

full-size: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/West-Ukraine_1918.jpg

Note: Russia never had any of that territory until after WWII.

I was referring to pre and post World War II borders

Do you have a map for that?

Thanks for your very interesting map though!

[mopar71]

Is that in the 50% of Poland never returned to Poland by the Soviet Union. Or in the part stolen from Germany?

A big part of 1930's Poland wasn't Polish in the first place. It is now western Ukraine, where the people are mostly Ukrainian, not Polish. After Austro-Hungary collapsed after WWI, the Polish-Ukrainian War was fought and the Poles won.

full-size: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/West-Ukraine_1918.jpg

Note: Russia never had any of that territory until after WWII.

I was referring to pre and post World War II borders

Do you have a map for that?

Thanks for your very interesting map though!

I found a couple nice maps but the file types can't be shown here so you would need to follow the link to see them,

Border changes in history of Poland 1569, 1939 & 1945

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland#/media/File:Border_changes_in_history_of_Poland.png

Here is a really cool animated gif that shows how Poland's boundaries changed from 1635 to present day...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland#/media/File:Territorial-changes-of-Poland-1635-2009-small.gif

[geriatrickid]

So, this all costs US taxpayers a fortune to be "the world's police". Europe complains bitterly about that term so the US should just pull out.

Here's an idea: Let Russia and the Muslims fight over who gets Europe. No one else really cares, anyway.

Cheers.

USA is not the world's police man, particularly since no one asked it to be. The motivation is self interest and nothing more.

I am so sick of American troops used as fodder for other nations and the wild fantasies of cigar smoking buffoons.

What? Since when?

[geriatrickid]

Drop in the bucket. More a show of support than a deterrent. I'm all for our Nato involvement but would be nice if Germany or France were committing troops to Eastern Europe. I mean these people are their neighbors...

France has been shouldering much of the burden of fighting ISIL in Africa, and of keeping the peace in several war torn areas.

Most Americans are clueless to this.

Germany is an absolutely useless waste of space when it comes to these issues. It is quick to criticize, but also quick to profit from the risks assumed by other western countries in its defense. In fairness though, many of Germany's are leery of a stronger Germany. After all the Germans have a history of abusing their power.

The biggest myth spat out by this thread is that the costs of US foreign bases are a burden to the USA. Americans forget that the European countries are covering much of the costs of those bases. The bases exist because it serves US economic interests. If the USA was serious about reducing waste and cutting costs, it could save billions overnight by cutting redundant US bases. Why does the USA need so many obsolete military bases? Those US bases are the biggest boondoggle of military spending and the GOP has been the most vocal in not allowing any US base closures.

[Publicus]

The US is the bad cop with its armed forces and Europe/EU is the good (bad) cop with its laws, rules, regulations.

It's been this way since the Korean War (1950-53) and since Europe got rebuilt by the Marshal Plan and managed to get its affairs back into a reasonable order.

It is by default and also by a mutual understanding since.

The Vietnam War was a US project separate from Nato. Since then the US military has been hard pressed to combat guerilla warfare and now terrorism.

Since Declaring the EU into existence, the continent and eventually the global trade regime has been significantly impacted by EU laws, rules, regs. The direct result is that everyone has a complaint about EU and USA.

Still, the Brics countries have come and gone without any impact and only minor effect at IMF, WTO. Russia is in the tank and CCP China is slowing down yet is proceeding at a full speed toward a great brick wall. Brazil is a goner and the South American socialist regimes are virtually collapsed. Iran is staggering but India is emerging, with the PM Modi having signed up in "strategic partnership" with the United States. Beijing's Silk Road to connect to Europe has no money but plenty of Muslim terrorists en route and anti-colonial armed groups to keep the CCP's dream nightmare out of its reach.

Europe-Nato and the United States-Canada are inextricably connected and tied. The nutcase jibberish of recent years of Germany, France and other core EU/Nato states aligning with Russia and CCP Beijing and Brics was always a delusional crackpot fantasy.

It's getting so I don't accept or believe anything against the United States any more because it comes not from Europe, but from the nutcase global right. To include the von Mises Institute and his baby the Austrian School of Economics which is still in the 19th century.