Poland & Lithuania Request US Bases

[Kathianne]

In defensive stance:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/to-counter-putin-poland-and-lithuania-officials-want-u-s-bases-durbin-says/?dcz=


To Counter Putin, Poland and Lithuania Officials Want U.S. Bases, Durbin SaysBy Niels Lesniewski (http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/author/nielslesniewskicqrollcall-com/)

Officials in Lithuania and Poland told Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (http://www.rollcall.com/members/176.html) they’re concerned enough about the threat posed by Russia that they want to host U.S. military bases.


The Illinois Democrat traveled to the two NATO member states, as well as to Ukraine, during the Memorial Day break, meeting with officials in the three countries. Durbin told reporters Friday he met in Lithuania with the country’s president and prime minister, as well as members of Parliament.


“They went so far to say they want the United States, if they will consider it, to put in a permanent military base in Lithuania, which I thought was an interesting request,” Durbin said.


At a subsequent stop in Poland, Durbin said he heard similar sentiments from officials there, including from representatives for Polish President-elect Andrzej Duda.


“They, too, expressed concern about Putin’s aggression and a desire to have the United States place permanent military facilities in their country,” Durbin said. “We have, I might say, in both Lithuania and in Poland, ongoing exercises, maneuvers and training between American forces and NATO forces, but clearly they want more.”


But Durbin, the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said he made clear the current budgetary constraints back in the United States, including the statutory spending caps established by the Budget Control Act.

...

[Balu]

If they and Americans want to have the potential targets on their territory with their personnel , this is THEIR mutual choice. Russia is not Libya http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs36PwdOJ-I

[Drummond]

If they and Americans want to have the potential targets on their territory with their personnel , this is THEIR mutual choice. Russia is not Libya http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs36PwdOJ-I

What was the first sentence in Kathianne's quote ? Let me remind you.


To Counter Putin, Poland and Lithuania Officials Want U.S. Bases, Durbin Says

And doesn't your reply help to validate the basis for their concerns ?

I think it's no less than thoroughly reasonable for a country to want to defend against a threat, rather than take an appeasement route, instead.

In the first example, they take responsibility for their fate, saying that they want to be their own master. In the second, they defer TO that threat, and put their safety in the hands of the source of that threat.

[Kathianne]

Related:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/05/29/answer-the-baltics-s-o-s/


RUSSIA AND THE WESTAnswer the Baltics’ S.O.S.ALAN W. DOWD (http://www.the-american-interest.com/byline/alan-w-dowd/)Approving the Baltic states’ request for a permanent NATO military presence is the best way to prevent war with Russia and preserve the alliance.

NATO’s Baltic members—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—are formally asking (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/baltic-countries-request-permanent-nato-troop-presence-31036366)the alliance to deploy a “brigade-level permanent allied military presence” on their territory to deter Russia from repeating its salami-slice invasion of Ukraine. NATO should swiftly approve this request. It’s the best way to prevent war and preserve the alliance.

The Baltics are not overreacting. Just consider what’s happening in their neighborhood.

After deploying troops to wage asymmetric, anonymous warfare against a sovereign, peaceful neighbor in Ukraine, annexing Crimea, and carving out an armed Russian zone in eastern Ukraine, Vladimir Putin unveiled a new military doctrine focused on confronting NATO and pledging the use of Russia’s armed forces “to ensure the protection of its citizens outside the Russian Federation.” Given that there are seven million Russians in Ukraine and a million in the Baltics—and that Putin has reserved the right to determine when, where, and whether they need to be protected—this is a recipe for something much more complicated than the Cold War.

...

To be sure, Putin and his apologists argue that Moscow is simply reacting to NATO’s eastward expansion, which Putin insists is a violation of agreements made at the end of the Cold War. But as Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution details (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/06-nato-no-promise-enlarge-gorbachev-pifer), “Putin’s NATO narrative” that the alliance double-crossed its way to the Russian border doesn’t match the recollections of the highest levels of the Soviet leadership. Mikhail Gorbachev “made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement,” Pifer writes. Mary Elise Sarotte, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California, adds (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30sarotte.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) that Gorbachev signed “accords that allowed NATO to extend itself over the former East Germany in exchange for financial assistance.” Gorbachev himself concedes,
“The topic of NATO expansion was not discussed at all.

”Insurance is a good way to contemplate a permanent NATO presence in the Baltics. Insurance, after all, is about providing protection against worst-case scenarios. Since its founding in 1949, NATO has been in the insurance business.

Prudent people hope they never have to use their insurance, but they realize that paying a little each month or each year protects them against having to pay a lot—or losing everything—if disaster strikes. The same is true in the realm of international security.

If Putin follows his Ukraine playbook and covertly violates the sovereignty of the Baltics, he will force the alliance to either blink or fire back. Neither alternative leads to a happy outcome. The former means NATO is neutralized and neutered; the latter means war.

One way to prevent that scenario is to base permanent NATO assets where they are most needed: on the territory of NATO’s most-at-risk members. That’s what the alliance did during the Cold War, and it kept the peace—as it will today. This is the best insurance against Putin. The goal here is not to start a war but quite the opposite: to prevent what Churchill called “temptations to a trial of strength.

”What the Balts are requesting is compatible with NATO’s core mission, politically feasible and militarily credible.

...

[Gunny]

In defensive stance:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/to-counter-putin-poland-and-lithuania-officials-want-u-s-bases-durbin-says/?dcz=

Too bad they're requesting it from the wrong President.