The Baltic states--next hotspot?

[mendeleyev]

Yes, I know that they are NATO countries, but I'm not convinced that most Western citizens are ready to defend Latvia or Estonia in a real war. I think that VP may sense that too.

I am not saying that the Baltic states are a future flashpoint, but recent comments by the Kremlin lead one to wonder.

http://www.trust.org/item/20141201122943-1o8sb/

[Misha]

I am certain that in 1913, nobody in France or Great Britain and distant lands such as Canada and Australia among many others would have thought they would send millions to die in the trenches all for an Archduke over a conflict in a faraway land... A good piece: http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/

[AC]

I am certain that in 1913, nobody in France or Great Britain and distant lands such as Canada and Australia among many others would have thought they would send millions to die in the trenches all for an Archduke over a conflict in a faraway land... A good piece: http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/

A very good article and parallel to todays events.

excerpt
The truth, as the world discovered in 1914 and is re-discovering today in Ukraine, the Middle East and the China seas, is that economic interests are swept aside once the genie of nationalist or religious militarism is released. As I pointed out in this column, Russia has in past conflicts withstood economic losses unimaginable to politicians and diplomats in the Western world — and the same is true of Iran and China. Thus the U.S. strategy of “escalating economic costs” cannot be expected to achieve major geopolitical objectives, such as preserving Ukraine’s borders or Japan’s uninhabited islands. Either territory must be open to renegotiation or the West must be prepared to fight to protect the “sanctity” of borders, which shows the really unsettling parallels with the world of 1914.

[LAman]

I am certain that in 1913, nobody in France or Great Britain and distant lands such as Canada and Australia among many others would have thought they would send millions to die in the trenches all for an Archduke over a conflict in a faraway land... A good piece: http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/

Interesting article Misha, I love to read anything about history and viewpoints but it reminds me of something put together knowing events in both cases and matching up what is possible. Much like Nostradamus's prophecies of future events by matching up what is said to current or past events. From what I understand, most of WW1 came from treaties by the different countries thus forming alliances and sides. My belief it was simply Austro-Hungary appetite for trying to get back lands lost in Balkans War from Serbia and the assassination ( which was an event that failed to impress Austrian people or the Emperor) was just the 'flashpoint'.
Of course first Austria allied itself with Germany......then Russia through a treaty backed Serbia...Germany declares war on Russia...France from a treaty with Russia declares war on Germany......Germany invades Belgium which has a treaty with Britain, so Britain which also has treaty with France declares war on Germany.... now with Britain now warring with Germany, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa enter the war as they were colonies of Britain.... now Japan honors an existing treaty with Britain and declares war on Germany ....
 .... Austria-Hungary declare war on Japan for declaring war on Germany....

AND NOW YA GOT ONE BIG MESS.... 
What is curious to me is some of the countries involved had 'Emperor's' who were closely related on opposite sides.
sorry to get off subject matter.   

[AC]

Interesting article Misha, I love to read anything about history and viewpoints but it reminds me of something put together knowing events in both cases and matching up what is possible. Much like Nostradamus's prophecies of future events by matching up what is said to current or past events. From what I understand, most of WW1 came from treaties by the different countries thus forming alliances and sides. My belief it was simply Austro-Hungary appetite for trying to get back lands lost in Balkans War from Serbia and the assassination ( which was an event that failed to impress Austrian people or the Emperor) was just the 'flashpoint'.
Of course first Austria allied itself with Germany......then Russia through a treaty backed Serbia...Germany declares war on Russia...France from a treaty with Russia declares war on Germany......Germany invades Belgium which has a treaty with Britain, so Britain which also has treaty with France declares war on Germany.... now with Britain now warring with Germany, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa enter the war as they were colonies of Britain.... now Japan honors an existing treaty with Britain and declares war on Germany ....
 .... Austria-Hungary declare war on Japan for declaring war on Germany....

AND NOW YA GOT ONE BIG MESS.... 
What is curious to me is some of the countries involved had 'Emperor's' who were closely related on opposite sides.
sorry to get off subject matter.

Interesting post.  The Great War ie WWI often seems to be forgotten in favor of discussion of WWII.  One book I remember seeing makes the claim that the war happened simply because so many countries were armed to the teeth and because of the inherent chauvinism of the age; which in the case of Russia today is the same. 

IIRC the author of that book made the claim that prior to war Europe was a powder keg just waiting to go off -- if the Archduke was not assassinated, they would have found another reason to go to war.

[LAman]

Interesting post.  The Great War ie WWI often seems to be forgotten in favor of discussion of WWII.  One book I remember seeing makes the claim that the war happened simply because so many countries were armed to the teeth and because of the inherent chauvinism of the age; which in the case of Russia today is the same. 

IIRC the author of that book made the claim that prior to war Europe was a powder keg just waiting to go off -- if the Archduke was not assassinated, they would have found another reason to go to war.

I do agree there was much conflict!!!

[Muzh]

Interesting post.  The Great War ie WWI often seems to be forgotten in favor of discussion of WWII.  One book I remember seeing makes the claim that the war happened simply because so many countries were armed to the teeth and because of the inherent chauvinism of the age; which in the case of Russia today is the same. 

IIRC the author of that book made the claim that prior to war Europe was a powder keg just waiting to go off -- if the Archduke was not assassinated, they would have found another reason to go to war.

Did you actually read the book? Or was it digested for you by a talk-show demagogue?

[Muzh]

Now, regarding the Baltics, will Putin push the Narva Paradox?


Brass, your thoughts?

[Brasscasing]

Now, regarding the Baltics, will Putin push the Narva Paradox?


Brass, your thoughts?

Hiya Muzh 

Short answer? No. At least not without everybody and their dog knowing about it.

Putin's conquests depended on flying below the (EU's, NATO, US) radar until ready to strike a la Georgia and as was supposed to happen in Ukraine.

MH17 blew his quiet little operation in Ukraine right out of the shadows and on to the world stage. From that moment on Putin/Russia was under the proverbial microscope and on the defensive. I likened it in an earlier post to Putin standing on a dark stage with his hand in the cookie jar like a deer in the headlights after having a bright stage light turned on him.

Prior to MH17 he might well have secured Ukraine with about the same fuss by the West/NATO/US as what transpired with Georgia, or at least that was what he was gambling on, then moved on to the Baltics probably along the same time line, five years or so, using the same recipe -disrupt, destabilize then invade under the pretext of liberation/protection of ethnic Russians.

That won't happened now. NATO has shown, albeit reluctantly at first, that they are willing to enforce Article 5 and have reinforced Estonia (strong NATO presence), not to mention other areas in the Baltics and other surrounding NATO countries.

Putin/Russia cannot risk a full scale conventional war or rely on the 'Nuc' card anymore to pave the way for them. Regardless of what we read in the media Russia's military (conventional and strategic) are a house of cards. They may be the Regional powerhouse (as long as China doesn't assert itself) but are no match for the western nations (NATO core nations).

Good opinion piece explaining things a lot better than I can and coincidentally published this date here...

http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.ca/2014/12/window-on-eurasia-is-putin-prepared-to.html

Brass

[southernX]

I am certain that in 1913, nobody in France or Great Britain and distant lands such as Canada and Australia among many others would have thought they would send millions to die in the trenches all for an Archduke over a conflict in a faraway land... A good piece: http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/

yes , good article , thanks for posting it misha

SX

[mendeleyev]

I agree that the Russian population will endure much for the fatherland. Those here who know me personally understand that my favourite place in Moscow for quiet contemplation and introspection is Victory Park on Poklonnaya Hill. I have sat there over countless hours, in every season, in all sort of weather, and it is there where I seem to find the closest communion to what is called the Russian soul.

There are 1,418 fountains, one fountain for each day the war lasted, and at night the lights under the fountains turn red, making it seem as if the blood of those who died still flows. I have cried, countless times, at this moving sight.

The tallest structure is the obelisk on which the base portrays Saint George (patron Saint of Russia, and of Moscow) slays the dragon. High above is Nike, the Greek goddess of Victory. It is exactly 141.8 meters in height, 10 cm for each day of World War II, the Great Patriotic War, or as a well-schooled Russian child will say, the "War of Nazi Aggression."

If you have the time, buy a ticket for the museum. You might not only come across one of my wife's paintings of Russia's war hero's, but spread among the halls are books of remembrance--containing the names of over 26 million souls who perished during that conflict.

Yes, they will endure far more than many of our generations could imagine.

However, sanctions are having an impact. What remains to be seen is whether the sanctions will remain to be blamed on the West, or whether the population will someday wake and understand that many of the sanctions are targeted against specific individuals and companies. The sanctions that are foremost in impacting the everyday citizen are the counter sanctions and bans that the Kremlin has levied in retaliation.

Admittedly, Western banking restrictions and cutting off access to lines of credit is crippling large Russian banks and businesses. On the street one could hear that the Ruble would never fall below 40 against the evil, (but stashed in every growing numbers under every mattress), dollar.

"It will never fall below 42."

"Damn the West, it will never fall lower than 45."

"It has bottomed out at 50. Do not worry, our glorious Ruble will soon rise like a trusty Soviet rocket launched from the deserts of Kazakhstan."

"Oh crap, did someone say 52?"

Oops, it has dropped past 53. http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=RUB

There is growing unrest in Crimea as social payments and government salaries have been slow lately, in spite of pay raises after Russia annexed the former historic Greek/Ottoman Turk territory known as Crimea from Ukraine in a coup.

Despite the fact that the Kremlin is backing independence movements in Eastern Ukraine, Russia is demanding that Kyiv continue supporting those regions financially. Why? Because Russia can afford to send regular units on training missions to bolster the local terrorists, but seemingly cannot afford to fund social services and salaries in those disputed areas. That seems to make about as much sense as demanding that Berlin continue to fund Kaliningrad! Why not demand that Sweden fund Saint Petersburg, while we're at it?

The real reason Moscow needs Kyiv money: because if Kyiv doesn't supply funding for disputed Eastern regions, Moscow can claim that ethnic Russians need help and protection.

The other real reason: as Kyiv pays for disputed areas, less funds are left to turn on the gas in time for winter.

I do not believe, however, that sanctions are a substitute for political or military solutions. They are, nonetheless, a non-lethal way to get the other fellow's attention.

[calmissile]

Nice write-up Mendy.

[lordtiberius]

At $ 4 a gallon of gasoline, Putin might stab at the Baltics. 

The Russians are very proud of their victory over the wretched Nazis.  So quick to label  contrarians with the epithet without really looking at themselves.  When I look at a Soviet monument, I don't think of the 26 million killed.  I think of this man:



And what he said of Russia is still true today