Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Poland’s defence ministry has announced it will re-launch plans to establish a joint Polish, Ukrainian and Lithuanian military brigade.
The ministry said defence ministers will meet this week to discuss the formation of the brigade that would straddle Nato’s eastern border and bring Ukraine’s armed forces closer to the Western fold.
Its a good idea although one brigade would not do much militarily so its mostly for symbolic effect. Poland probably wants to maintain the independence of Ukraine and keep the Russian army as far from Poland as possible.
Lithuania is probably concerned that once the Russians are done with Ukraine, they will come next to the Baltic States including Lithuania.
However, any action they take, and consequences of, will not have the support of NATO.
NATO is a defensive alliance, members do not get NATO support for offensive and/or antagonism actions they take. Merely including a non-NATO member in this brigade undermines any support they will have from NATO.
SO in this instance, if this brigade decides to make a military move on Crimea, then Russia will be free to respond to the countries in the brigade, and NATO is under no obligation to support.
NATO hasn't been a defensive alliance for some time, or are you forgetting NATO actions in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and NATO involvement in Syria.
If the Polish set up a brigade with Ukraine, then the Poles are without doubt willing to go to Ukraine's aid, and any potential conflict between Poland and Russia does concern NATO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
This is an example of the clear thinking that plunged Europe and the World into the First World War. By the way August 1914 was almost 100 years ago.
I agree, it does have echoes of WW1, a hundred years ago, when bickering and opposing pacts drew Europe in to World War. Which is why all diplomatic options must be exhausted in an attempt to avert war.
Whilst the British have already made it clear under Foreign Secretary William Hague and Prime Minister David Cameron that the last thing they want is opposing sides in relation to NATO and Russia engaging each other in Ukraine, as the potential for large scale conflict would be extremely dangerous.
Damn Skippy! And they SHOULDN'T be able to rely on us anymore.
Since when did Poland, Lithuania or Ukraine rely on the US, if I recall rightly they were all Warsaw Pact and not NATO countries during the Cold War, whilst Lithuania and Ukraine are also old Soviet States. Even during WW2 when Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939 the US did nothing, and didn't do much when the Soviets annexed Poland following WW2. So to be fair the Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainians never really relied on the US for much in the first place.
NATO hasn't been a defensive alliance for some time, or are you forgetting NATO actions in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and NATO involvement in Syria.
If the Polish set up a brigade with Ukraine, then the Poles are without doubt willing to go to Ukraine's aid, and any potential conflict between Poland and Russia does concern NATO.
Those offensive action did not have the participation of all NATO countries, nor did it invoke Article 5 with the exception of Afghanistan. Even with Afghanistan, there was limited participation and NATO countries stopped supporting all together, or wanted limited participation.
NATO only participated in Iraq after the main combat action, and in the form of training for the Iraqi army.
If a separate alliance like this brigade engaged Russia or any other country, NATO is in no way obligated to assist. That does not prevent them or any one country to assist, but NATO is not obligated to jsut as NATO was not obligated to in other unilateral actions by member countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesons
I agree, it does have echoes of WW1, a hundred years ago, when bickering and opposing pacts drew Europe in to World War. Which is why all diplomatic options must be exhausted in an attempt to avert war.
Whilst the British have already made it clear under Foreign Secretary William Hague and Prime Minister David Cameron that the last thing they want is opposing sides in relation to NATO and Russia engaging each other in Ukraine, as the potential for large scale conflict would be extremely dangerous.
No, nothing like WW1. This issue is actually clear and straight forward. People are making way too much out of it. Russia took an area that all in all, is Russian and was only part of Ukraine due to the actions of Soviet leaders. How in the world are Soviet leaders given so much legitimacy for the borders they drew is beyond me.
Also, Ukraine is nearly bankrupt, poor quality of life, and two revolts in ten years; who in the heck would want to be part of that?
Its a good idea although one brigade would not do much militarily so its mostly for symbolic effect. Poland probably wants to maintain the independence of Ukraine and keep the Russian army as far from Poland as possible.
Lithuania is probably concerned that once the Russians are done with Ukraine, they will come next to the Baltic States including Lithuania.
Crimea is an obvious issue, I do not see why people keep including Poland and the Baltic countries in it. Everyone points to one time in history, yet fail to point out the numerous back and forth invasions throughout history that has gone on. I can easily point to 200 years ago and say Russia should be wary of France because France might invade Russia, but that would be a historical fallacy I think.
Even if Russia does manage to somehow gobble up all the Eastern bloc countries, the resistance of the subject peoples to Russian rule will make maintaining this state very expensive and unsustainable. It happened before under fifty years of communism. Of course those countries also suffered through fifty years of moving backgrounds while the rest of Europe moved forward.
Those offensive action did not have the participation of all NATO countries, nor did it invoke Article 5 with the exception of Afghanistan. Even with Afghanistan, there was limited participation and NATO countries stopped supporting all together, or wanted limited participation.
NATO only participated in Iraq after the main combat action, and in the form of training for the Iraqi army.
If a separate alliance like this brigade engaged Russia or any other country, NATO is in no way obligated to assist. That does not prevent them or any one country to assist, but NATO is not obligated to just as NATO was not obligated to in other unilateral actions by member countries.
Article 5 was invoked on Sep 12th, the day after the 9/11 attacks and a lot of European countries did send troops to both Iraq despite the UN not sanctioning the invasion and in terms of Afghanistan, whilst in terms of Libya, Britain and France took the main role, but it was still within the remit of a NATO operation.
In terms of a joint Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian Battalion being deployed it runs the risk of becoming embroiled in conflict with Russia thereby drawing Poland, a full NATO member in to direct conflict with the Russians. A situation which could very easily involve NATO forces and other European countries.
It should also be noted that the new brigade will be used to fulfill NATO, EU and UN tasks and that if it were used in Ukraine, it would mainly be a peacekeeping force, and that any attack by the Russians on such a force would without doubt involve the EU and UN, whilst any subsequent attack by the Russians on Poland or Lithuania, both full NATO members would without doubt invoke Article 5.
No, nothing like WW1. This issue is actually clear and straight forward. People are making way too much out of it. Russia took an area that all in all, is Russian and was only part of Ukraine due to the actions of Soviet leaders. How in the world are Soviet leaders given so much legitimacy for the borders they drew is beyond me.
Also, Ukraine is nearly bankrupt, poor quality of life, and two revolts in ten years; who in the heck would want to be part of that?
It's not as clear cut, as many would like to believe, there's a good analysis of the situation here.
Whilst in terms of WW1, old alliances and Empires coupled with the Austrian hatred of the Serbs went along way to starting a world war in Europe, as did the fact each side refused to back down over an obscure assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, a man who most people had never even heard of at the time. It was indeed a very complicated state of affairs, made worse by the German Kaiser, who had engaged in a naval arms race with Britain and who had a poor grasp when it came to the realities of industrialised warfare. Even today Europe is full of such incendiary areas and local tribalism, particularly with reference to this region, and if anything the justification for force may be as great if not greater than what happened 100 years ago.
Even if Russia does manage to somehow gobble up all the Eastern bloc countries, the resistance of the subject peoples to Russian rule will make maintaining this state very expensive and unsustainable. It happened before under fifty years of communism. Of course those countries also suffered through fifty years of moving backgrounds while the rest of Europe moved forward.
I don't think Russia wants to gobble up anything. The Crimean ports are important to Russia both economically and militarily. The Ukraine has been increasingly unstable. The Crimea was part of Russian territory until the 1950's, when it was gifted to the Ukraine. Russia/Putin has been trying to keep the Ukraine stable. He backed the last President in an effort to stabilize the country. When that went up in smoke, he has a problem. The Crimea is an important asset. It was always self-autonomous in regards to the Ukraine, enjoying a separate legislature and having a predominantly Russian culture. The people of the Crimea identified more with Russia than with the Crimea. The previously weak Ukrainian governments had allowed Russia to use the ports to the point of Russian domination anyway. Russia/Putin didn't want to see that area become politically unstable, which was possible if the Ukrainians were unable to put together a stable government. Rather than take the chance, Putin intervened to protect what he regarded as a Russian asset. The Ukrainians regard the Crimea as a Ukrainian asset. But the people of the Crimea seem to prefer Russia to the Ukraine, and who can blame them, with the current problems besetting the Ukraine?
Poland and Lithuania are acting in their own interests by going forward with this alliance with the Ukraine. First, its a clear sign to Russia that further aggression will be met with resistance. Secondly, it's an action that can help stabilize the Ukraine, bringing it closer to the West, to NATO, to the European Union. And that is good for Poland and Lithuania, who don't want the instability of the Ukraine spreading to them.
They know they are next............and were under the Iron Curtain before and don't want it again. Liberals for some reason want that all to happen all over again as they support us doing nothing. Millions were killed.........I guess liberals figure as long as it's not me they don't care.......like usual.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
