This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Would America Go To War With Russia?
By James Robins Of The National Interest
Would America Go To War With Russia?
Vice President Biden was in Warsaw last week to reassure our eastern NATO allies that they have the support of a “steadfast ally.” But if Russia moved against Poland or the Baltic States, would the United States really go to war? Or would we do nothing and effectively destroy the NATO alliance?
President Obama has ruled out a “military excursion” in Ukraine. America is not obligated legally to take action against Russia for annexing Crimea. We would not go to war if Russia mounted a large-scale invasion of Ukraine to restore the ousted, pro-Moscow government of Viktor Yanukovych, currently under U.S. sanctions. And we would not even send troops if Ukraine was partitioned, or absorbed by Russia. Americans have no interest in such a conflict, and no stomach for it.
NATO allies are a different matter. The North Atlantic Treaty is a mutual-defense pact, and Article 5 says that an armed attack against one member state “shall be considered an attack against them all.” This is a clear red line. The only time Article 5 has been invoked was in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and most NATO allies sent troops to support the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Could the current crisis expand to touch NATO? The developing situation in Ukraine has been compared to Germany’s absorption of Austria in 1938, or the subsequent partition and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Hillary Clinton compared Russian president Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, which by extension puts President Obama in the role of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who famously failed to achieve “peace in our time” at Munich.
Push the analogy further. The Second World War was sparked by Warsaw’s resistance to Berlin’s demand to annex the Polish Corridor, a small stretch of land—smaller than Crimea—separating the German provinces of Pomerania and East Prussia. Hitler responded by invading Poland and partitioning it with the Soviet Union. Britain and France had pledged to defend Polish independence, and two days after Germany invaded, they declared war. In his war message, Chamberlain explained that Hitler’s actions showed “there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.”
This may or may not describe Mr. Putin, as Mrs. Clinton alleged. But if similar circumstances arise in the near future, will the United States honor security guarantees made to Poland and the Baltic States when the Russian threat was only a theory?
Mr. Biden stood with Estonian president Toomas Ilves Tuesday to “reconfirm and reaffirm our shared commitment to collective self-defense, to Article 5.” He wanted to make it “absolutely clear what it means to the Estonian people” and that “President Obama and I view Article 5 of the NATO Treaty as an absolutely solemn commitment which we will honor—we will honor.” Shortly thereafter, Moscow “expressed concern” about the treatment of ethnic Russians in Estonia. Mr. Putin justified his actions in Crimea as “restoring unity” to Russian people. Estonia’s population is 25 percent ethnic Russian, compared to 17 percent in Ukraine, mostly in the north and east part of the country. Suppose anti-Russian riots “spontaneously” broke out in Estonia. What would the United States do if Moscow invoked a “responsibility to protect” these people and bring them “back” to the Motherland? Would President Obama take military action against Russia over a small, secluded piece of a tiny, distant country? Would it be like the Polish Corridor in 1939? This is highly doubtful—highly doubtful.
Aren’t we obligated by treaty to intervene? Mr. Biden mentioned the “absolutely solemn commitment which we will honor.” It was so important he said it twice. However, Article 5 says that NATO members pledge to come to the assistance of the attacked state using “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” It doesn’t take a White House lawyer to see the gaping loophole—President Obama can simply deem that the use of U.S. force isn’t necessary. He can walk back the red line, as he did with Syria. Stern talk and minimal sanctions would follow, but Estonia would lose some, if not all of its territory. And in practical terms it would mean the end of NATO, which is one of Moscow’s longstanding strategic objectives. Mr. Putin’s chess game does not end in Crimea.
»
- 32671 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Others/Escobar.html
http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-210314.html
Joe Biden has got a shotgun and knows how to use it.
Watch out Putin.
We could get Biden out of the picture if someone would just give him a loaded gun, he'd shoot himself. It would be a self-assassination.
"The developing situation in Ukraine has been compared to Germany’s absorption of Austria in 1938, or the subsequent partition and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Hillary Clinton compared Russian president Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, which by extension puts President Obama in the role of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who famously failed to achieve “peace in our time” at Munich.
Push the analogy further. The Second World War was sparked by Warsaw’s resistance to Berlin’s demand to annex the Polish Corridor, a small stretch of land—smaller than Crimea—separating the German provinces of Pomerania and East Prussia. Hitler responded by invading Poland and partitioning it with the Soviet Union. Britain and France had pledged to defend Polish independence, and two days after Germany invaded, they declared war. In his war message, Chamberlain explained that Hitler’s actions showed “there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.”
This may or may not describe Mr. Putin, as Mrs. Clinton alleged. But if similar circumstances arise in the near future, will the United States honor security guarantees made to Poland and the Baltic States when the Russian threat was only a theory?"
Pardon me, it is almost bullshit in my view. Comparing the facts preceding ww2, with some biased view, to force a justaposition of those facts with what is rolling in Ukraine, is almost and insult to a common man with memory.
Munich accord was not an appeasement, but a clever trick to not engage in war with Hitler with only France and UK. Although, Stalin promise to stand for Czech integraty, but when the war begun nothing guarantee that URRS would not stand neutral. Only France have frontier with the Nazis not URRS. So, it would be a war in the West, which would bearing the brunt of germans attacks. Chamberlain sacrifice of Czechs were very selfish, but to his country interests he did it, hoping turning Hitler to the East.
The guarantee UK, France gave to Poland was more understandable, because it was in the East and naturally could draw URRS in. Unfortunately, for them Stalin never thrust the West and after Munich fiasco he turned paranoid about UK intention and Hitler schrewdly pick up the mistrust to his advantage. And Stalin, just as Chamberlain in Munich, made and agreement to turn Hitler to the West. What Stalin didnt expect was the quick victory by the nazis in France. This only show both the West and URRS lose to nazis by their own mistrust.
Now, the biased analogy, since the demised of URRS in the 90s, who started wars in Europe to expand to East? And since 2000 who invade and occupied countries around the World? Before Ukraine crisis, there were Syria, before, Libya, before, Iraq, before Afghanistan, not to mention Ivory Coast, Mali, and coup d`etat in Honduras, Tunisia, Egypt, etc., Even in Ukraine who started a coup to derrube an elected government? Who void an agreement signed in 21th February for early elections in May, broken by Germany, Poland and France between the elected president and the opposition?
What they want is to force the eastern ukranianes, pro-russians, to accept the ilegal government of Kiev which are not elected by them. If USA want a genuine peaceful solution, it could agree to hold a free election in Ukraine as soon as possible. But they are afraid because certainly those guys in power now in Kiev would not stand a chance in free election.
Why USA are more interested in derrubing the elected government of Ukraine than EU? Are they afraid of something and want to cut the EU from Russia?
Concluding, in my humble opinion, US is more like Nazi Germany, with NSA spying on all citizens around the World and Angela Merkel in particular.
That would be idiotic, so it is therefore very possible given the players and the arena. I guess TPTB will attempt anything to maintain reserve currency status. Without that the whole house of cards starts crumbling.
export LNG and cut putins cash flow.... too bad we dont have the terminals....becasue of the global warming tree hugging irrational libtards.... besides obama is here to take down the ussa, not honor his oath.... he and putin are partners working together.... obama has allegience to the muslim brotherhood, is a traitor just as benedict arnold was... if repubs take the senate they should imeapch this traitor...regardless of how stupid biden is...
hic!...
go home drunk!
you're america!
Jesus i have read some rubbish on the comments section of this thread.
People talk about Oil, but its Natural Gas that is the key resource now and will be for the medium term future. This is what Iran / Qatar and Russia have in common.
People talks about Gold not being useful in Russia's society, i guess the continued increase in imports of gold by Russia is 'for the laugh', clearly they know nothing of what real money is and the impact gold can have when people lose faith in the paper system or the reserve currency.
Will Russia and America go to war? they are already at war, a financial war.......will this result in physical on the ground war......not unless there is a severe red flag, both politicians need public backing for a physical war, the public doesnt give a flying fuck about Ukraine (particularly the US) but if there is a inside bombing job in a US state (god forbid) then the emotion by the sheeple will get the war going.....i dont think Russia want a physical war but are up for some financial war and have more cards on the table with the support of China to cause harm to an already dying reserve currency.