British newspaper The Guardian has published this December 2009 US Embassy cable out of Tallinn, noting the Estonians' welcoming of the decision to expand NATO contingency plans to cover Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Paul Teesalu, director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Security Policy Division, is quoted as calling the decision an "early Christmas present."Global media outlets have already published NATO's "secret plan" to defend the Baltics in case of Russian aggression. To me, this seems like old news. I've known about the contingency planning for months, for so long that I can't even remember where I found out about it. I have no special security clearance.
This article provides some more detailed information that I didn't know before: "Nine Nato divisions – US, British, German, and Polish – have been identified for combat operations in the event of armed aggression against Poland or the three Baltic states. North Polish and German ports have been listed for the receipt of naval assault forces and British and US warships."
Also interesting is from where the resistance to the contingency planning came. There are the usual suspects: "Attempts [in the past] ... to push through defence planning for the Baltic were stymied by German-led opposition in western Europe, anxious to avoid upsetting the Kremlin." The Germans were later assuaged to back the planning to reassure the edgy Baltics, on the condition that the Baltics agreed to the reset with Russia. But the Poles at first were also hesitant to expanding contingency plans to cover the Baltics. "They did not want the Polish plan to be diluted or held hostage in case other allies opposed adding the Baltic states."
12 kommentaari:
what else is new? Estonian diplomats warned their US counterparts of the secret protocols of the MRP 2 days after it was signed.
Super-secret, yet everyone knows about it all. if not in details, at least the whole idea...
There's a very interesting map shown during the latter part of this presentation by a Russian official, given at the recent FIFA event (where WC 2018 was decided). Provocative, I'd say...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcbxFJjvfTQ&feature=player_embedded
Seems to me that more not less public awareness is needed, particularly in Western Europe, if we have curious events occurring such as France talking about selling warships to Russia at the very same time that they take their turn in NATO air surveillance over Estonia.
very understandable German reaction I would say. I don´t like the current German government at all (like the majority of my fellow citizen in Germany)- but at least I have to admit that they have understood that cold war games are over. in big contrast to the current Estonian government. what they are doing is dangerous. I just don´t know for sure if baltic politicians cold war games are just pure stupidity or a calculated issue: historically it was always a well-known game to seek for conflicts with other countries in order to avoid thinking of inner problems. and Estonia has a lot of inner problems...
Seems to me that more not less public awareness is needed, particularly in Western Europe, if we have curious events occurring such as France talking about selling warships to Russia at the very same time that they take their turn in NATO air surveillance over Estonia.
I don't think the problem is public awareness but cynicism among the elite in France and other Western European countries. The Baltics they see as an annoying element that disturbs them in trying to deal with Russia in a way favorable for their own national interests. By providing contingency plans for the Baltic states, they try to keep them silent, like giving a candy to a cry-baby. France acts according to its own national interests, not those of the Baltics.
But frankly, what is the risk of a real military problem in the Baltics? My impression is that things would have to get a lot worse elsewhere (say, the Southern Caucausus or the Asian 'stans) before any real military action could happen in the Baltic countries. Even in the absence of contingency plans for a real counterattack, such an action would have terrible consequences--unless Russia was prepared to pay the price.
In other words: we would have lots of warning signs and red flags. After all, Hitler annexed Austria and took the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia before he attacked Poland.
In other words: we would have lots of warning signs and red flags. After all, Hitler annexed Austria and took the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia before he attacked Poland.
uh... Georgia, anyone?
uh... Georgia, anyone?
You cannot compare Georgia to the Baltic states. I think that in 'Western Europe' Georgia is seen as a backward country with a crackpot as president while the Baltic states have a more positive image and are seen as genuine members of the European community . Like Lingüista said, an attack on the Baltic states would have farreaching consequences for Russia, and Russia probably recognizes this.
Exactly, Temesta.
Not that Russia (or at least certain Russians) wouldn't love to launch such an attack. But they would need preparations -- i.e. something to avert the very negative consequences that such an attack would have (even assuming they could be sure that NATO wouldn't simply respond with a military counterattack).
Georgia is the Sudetenland (wtf? where? what? never heard of it reaction from most people) as Baltics are to Czechoslovakia while Poland is Poland.
Justin, by the way -- I'm hoping you're going to write a post about Mayor Savisaar's current problems... Keskerakond getting money from the Russian Federation! Aaviksoo came to the Russian-language Aktuaalne Kamera to talk about how "impressive" the evidence was... Ilves considers it "unacceptable"... I'm looking forward to your thoughts!
Postita kommentaar