Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
1. He's putting the Soviet Union back together then destroying America.
Fri Oct 18, 2019, 11:07 PM
Oct 2019

He's sore he lost the first Cold War and isn't going to lose the next. Why is this so hard for so many to grasp?

Liberal In Texas

(13,556 posts)
2. Yes. Completing what was started just after WW2.
Fri Oct 18, 2019, 11:18 PM
Oct 2019

It's pretty much world domination.

Welcome to 1984. Not the novel. The reality.


tavernier

(12,392 posts)
6. Being of Latvian heritage and first generation Latvian American,
Fri Oct 18, 2019, 11:37 PM
Oct 2019

I learned early on that any “Let” votes would never go to democrats, going back to Yalta. Even when I suspected that Trump was being a pawn, I couldn’t convince the older generation.

Now things have changed and they are frightened. I wish I could just say I told you so, but that doesn’t help my frustration.

Celerity

(43,409 posts)
7. No, Article 5 (NATO) collective defence
Fri Oct 18, 2019, 11:46 PM
Oct 2019

The Baltics hate Russia, and are a completely different kettle of fish compared to the Crimea, which is a historical part of Russia, and has a very large Russian majority. Putin would never roll the dice on a direct attack (at least not now) of an actual NATO member state.


Collective defence - Article 5

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm





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 recognized 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.”

tavernier

(12,392 posts)
8. I would have laid money on that in all previous years.
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 12:00 AM
Oct 2019

Now I’m not as certain.

But I truly hope you are correct.

Celerity

(43,409 posts)
9. Putin traffics in nonlinear warfare when it comes to superior forces in terms of enemies/competitors
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 12:05 AM
Oct 2019

He will make kinetic moves when a low risk, high return situation presents itself (Crimea, Syria, etc), but is not suicidal in the slightest. He is a vastly rational actor.

TheBlackAdder

(28,209 posts)
10. In my US Intel Course, the professor (Dept. Head) said losing Poland would be acceptable loss.
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 12:14 AM
Oct 2019

.

NATO would not risk a European theater war over a few former Soviet nations being reclaimed.

Military generals consult with this Doctor of PoliSci, from time to time, who specializes in Eurasian & Asian affairs.

.

Celerity

(43,409 posts)
11. most of my academic experience (mostly in the UK and the EU), research, professors, and
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 12:28 AM
Oct 2019

professional colleagues say otherwise, but obviously on something as nebulous and speculative as this, opinions will vary. Poland would not be a 'first strike' target for Putin IMHO, for multivariate reasons, including size, predisposition of the present regime and overall populace there, and especially its surrounding nation state boundaries.

tavernier

(12,392 posts)
12. That is the official and ideal definition of NATO.
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 07:48 AM
Oct 2019

But as we know, Trump looks upon NATO as a protective service offered to countries who can afford to pay for the privilege, much like the mafia sells “protection” to the weak. He has already singled out Baltic states as not paying their share and therefore not entitled to the protection of the US forces, despite the opinion of our congress and generals, and other NATO members.

Iterate

(3,020 posts)
13. No. Libya, because one Syria isn't enough.
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 07:57 AM
Oct 2019

Starting last March at least, it looks like he's putting all his ducks in place. I can't tell how close he is to pulling the trigger.

pecosbob

(7,541 posts)
15. Russia still maintains a naval base in Kaliningrad sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 09:30 AM
Oct 2019

but I don't think Putin has any need (economic reason) to go back into the Baltics. Ukraine was about gas pipelines, as is the recent move against the Kurds.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Are the Baltics next?