Is this something the US could do on its own, or are these kinds of deployments open to being vetoed by other members?
ttp://news.yahoo.com/baltics-ask-nato-thousands-troops-135444386.html
Quote
Baltics to ask NATO for thousands of troops.
AFP
By Vaidotas Beniusis, and Stuart Williams in Antalya
10 hours ago
Vilnius (AFP) - The Baltic states will formally ask NATO to deploy several thousand troops as a deterrent to Russia, Lithuania said Thursday, but the alliance gave no assurance that the request would be accepted.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said at meeting of the alliance's foreign ministers in the Turkish city of Antalya that he was aware such a request was being made but emphasised it was too early to assess the demand.
"We are seeking a brigade-size unit so that every Baltic nation would have a battalion," military spokesman Lithuanian Captain Mindaugas Neimontas told AFP.
He said Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian generals would soon send a joint request to US General Philip Breedlove, NATO's top commander.
Neimontas said the Baltic states were to seek "permanent rotational NATO forces" as a "deterrence measure given the security situation in the region".
He refused to elaborate on specific numbers but a standard brigade could have around 3,000 troops.
Latvia's defence ministry also confirmed the move in a Thursday statement saying "the joint letter will be sent next week".
The ministry said military commanders from all three Baltic states recently decided to request a "brigade level permanent Allied military presence with a roughly battalion-level placement of units in each country."
"An Allied presence is an essential prerequisite for Latvia's security in a situation where Russia does not change its policies regarding the Ukraine conflict and at the same time strongly demonstrates its military presence and potential in the Baltic Sea region," the statement said.
In a sign of the continued tensions over Ukraine even after the Minsk truce deal, French President Francois Hollande denounced as "unacceptable" ceasefire violations in eastern Ukraine, after speaking briefly with his Ukrainian counterpart Petro Poroshenko in Germany.
"There is a risk of fresh unrest and we need to warn them of that," he said.
- 'Assess request carefully' -
Stoltenberg said he was aware a letter was going to be sent to NATO by the Baltic states.
"When we receive the letter we will go carefully through the letter and assess the proposals in that letter," he said.
"It is too early to comment on details and specifics in a letter I have not seen," he added.
But Stoltenberg emphasised that NATO had already taken decisions that would help the security of the Baltic states, such as increasing air policing and a naval presence.
"Our main focus is the implementation now of the decisions we have already made," he said.
Baltic and Nordic countries have reported an uptick in Russian military activity in the region over the last year. They claim Russian war planes are flying with their transponders switched off, endangering civil aviation.
Last month, Lithuania also accused Russian warships of thwarting work on a key underwater power link to Sweden that would reduce the Baltic state's dependence on Russian energy.
Since last year, the United States has deployed around 600 troops in the Baltic states and Poland on a rotational basis.
"If NATO fails to react positively to the request (for the troops), it can be interpreted as a certain signal," said Ramunas Vilpisauskas, director of the Institute of International Relations and Political Science in Vilnius.
"The big neighbour in the east now will now be watching closely how the biggest NATO countries will react to the letter," he told AFP, referring to Russia.
Some European NATO allies have been sceptical about a substantial permanent deployment, saying it could breach a 1997 agreement between NATO and Russia.
NATO diplomats also say the alliance is focusing on a new "spearhead force" which could be rapidly deployed to deal crises both in the south or east, rather than new permanent deployments.
"We are constantly discussing the adaptation of the alliance," said Stoltenberg.
"We have always be able to fulfil our main responsibility which is to defend all our allies against any threat," he added.
He said the spearhead force will "make it easier to reinforce the defences of the Baltic States."
The Baltic republics were under Soviet rule from the end of World War II to 1991. They now fear Moscow could try to destabilise them to test NATO's commitment to collective defence.
Huh? What's the point of the alliance if you are not going to help your most vulnerable members at their time of need?
Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2015, 11:44:55 PM
Huh? What's the point of the alliance if you are not going to help your most vulnerable members at their time of need?
Well that is sort of a European tradition so I don't see your issue with it
Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2015, 11:44:55 PM
Huh? What's the point of the alliance if you are not going to help your most vulnerable members at their time of need?
The major NATO members don't have the heart for nuclear combat with the Russians over the Baltic states.
Quote from: The Brain on May 15, 2015, 02:06:55 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2015, 11:44:55 PM
Huh? What's the point of the alliance if you are not going to help your most vulnerable members at their time of need?
The major NATO members don't have the heart for nuclear combat with the Russians over the Baltic states.
Then they need to GTFO. You don't get to vote someone into the alliance and then decide not to come to their defense.
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2015, 09:04:05 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 15, 2015, 02:06:55 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2015, 11:44:55 PM
Huh? What's the point of the alliance if you are not going to help your most vulnerable members at their time of need?
The major NATO members don't have the heart for nuclear combat with the Russians over the Baltic states.
Then they need to GTFO. You don't get to vote someone into the alliance and then decide not to come to their defense.
Would you say the US's position is different?
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 09:04:51 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2015, 09:04:05 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 15, 2015, 02:06:55 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2015, 11:44:55 PM
Huh? What's the point of the alliance if you are not going to help your most vulnerable members at their time of need?
The major NATO members don't have the heart for nuclear combat with the Russians over the Baltic states.
Then they need to GTFO. You don't get to vote someone into the alliance and then decide not to come to their defense.
Would you say the US's position is different?
Maybe. We do actually have troops in the Baltics currently for training exercises. RT is pretty shrill about that fact.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2015, 11:44:55 PM
Huh? What's the point of the alliance if you are not going to help your most vulnerable members at their time of need?
Presumably to help them if and when they are invaded.
IMO, NATO should send the troops, and more including aircraft. Those troops should also be ready to help stamp out revolts if Russia tries its same gamesmanship as it did in Ukraine. Everyone knows that it is Russian troops heavily in the mix in those revolts and it is time to call Putin on it and back up allies. This won't result in nuclear war.
One thing to consider is the Russian leadership's position.
Personally, I would not send troops until there is no trouble, but would respond very quickly and firmly if something is started. Why? Because if we deploy first, that could (and probably would) be interpreted as a challenge toward Russia, and with nationalist fervour upped to 120% there nowadays, the leadership may find itself unable to do anything else but to up the ante in response, or face a serious loss of face in public opinion.
Quote from: Tamas on May 15, 2015, 09:15:57 AM
One thing to consider is the Russian leadership's position.
Personally, I would not send troops until there is no trouble, but would respond very quickly and firmly if something is started. Why? Because if we deploy first, that could (and probably would) be interpreted as a challenge toward Russia, and with nationalist fervour upped to 120% there nowadays, the leadership may find itself unable to do anything else but to up the ante in response, or face a serious loss of face in public opinion.
This is a good point. So maybe instead NATO or the US could send a small number of troops that isn't such a visible issue. Or on the other hand perhaps it could also be said that a point should be made that NATO will defend its allies by sending a battalion per nation as is being equested, which isn't that many troops. I had figured that the Baltics already had at least a small presence of NATO troops there already.
I think NATO should send troops there and I would like to see Germany participating in that with whatever unit is appropriate - unless the Baltic states don't want us there for historical reasons. Deterring external threats is what a military is for after all.
As I don't think the Russian leadership will cave in otherwise, forcing them to up the ante is exactly what we should do. Keep the diplomatic channels open and try to get them to stop the war in Ukraine, but show strength at the same time. I don't care for nationalist fervor in Russia.
Quote from: Tamas on May 15, 2015, 09:15:57 AM
One thing to consider is the Russian leadership's position.
Personally, I would not send troops until there is no trouble, but would respond very quickly and firmly if something is started. Why? Because if we deploy first, that could (and probably would) be interpreted as a challenge toward Russia, and with nationalist fervour upped to 120% there nowadays, the leadership may find itself unable to do anything else but to up the ante in response, or face a serious loss of face in public opinion.
You sound like a Russian agent.
Quote from: Zanza on May 15, 2015, 09:42:07 AM
I think NATO should send troops there and I would like to see Germany participating in that with whatever unit is appropriate - unless the Baltic states don't want us there for historical reasons. Deterring external threats is what a military is for after all.
As I don't think the Russian leadership will cave in otherwise, forcing them to up the ante is exactly what we should do. Keep the diplomatic channels open and try to get them to stop the war in Ukraine, but show strength at the same time. I don't care for nationalist fervor in Russia.
You are probably right.
And I didn't say to cave in when they start making trouble. I was saying that the twisted way Russian politics work, it seems possible that they are able to NOT go against the Baltics at the present moment, but they won't be able to ignore it and do nothing once there is a sizeable force of Americans there. I mean, surely those troops would be Americans, who else has an army capable to field 3 battalions? :P
This is not an easy problem. The Russians must be stopped, but we have had two world wars, one started because everyone thought standing firm and/or bluffing firm action would prevent a global war, and the second one because everyone thought caving in and giving the bad guy some room would prevent a global war. So it's not like one solution or the other is guaranteed to prevent major shit from happening.
Screw Europe.
@Tamas: The situation isn't comparable to the World Wars, but to the Cold War. Showing strength was the right policy for the West to counter the Soviet Union. It is again the right policy towards Putin's neo-imperialist pretensions.
Quote from: Zanza on May 15, 2015, 10:04:17 AM
@Tamas: The situation isn't comparable to the World Wars, but to the Cold War. Showing strength was the right policy for the West to counter the Soviet Union. It is again the right policy towards Putin's neo-imperialist pretensions.
You are probably right, and I sure hope you are.
I'm with Tamas here, I have a hard time starting a military buildup when there's no visible threat to the Baltics. If the Russians ever look like trying something funny, for sure, let's put boots on the ground quickly and decisively, and we can make moves to give assurances on that regard that don't involve stationing thousands near the Russian border. But right now I don't see the point on playing into Russian paranoia.
Quote from: Zanza on May 15, 2015, 10:04:17 AM
@Tamas: The situation isn't comparable to the World Wars, but to the Cold War. Showing strength was the right policy for the West to counter the Soviet Union. It is again the right policy towards Putin's neo-imperialist pretensions.
Agreed. Putin's strategy is to show strength by picking on the weaklings. He knows russia cannot afford a real war against a real opponent. While Tamas is correct that many Russians would see a NATO deployment to defend NATO territory as an intolerable aggression against Russian aggression, we know beyond doubt that those same Russians will swallow any lie Putin's government can come up with. The key to keeping the peace is convincing Putin to alter the lies from "why we must take over EVOL BALTIKS TODAY to REVENGE IS DISH BEST EATEN COLD.
Quote from: celedhring on May 15, 2015, 10:28:49 AM
I'm with Tamas here, I have a hard time starting a military buildup when there's no visible threat to the Baltics. If the Russians ever look like trying something funny, for sure, let's put boots on the ground quickly and decisively, and we can make moves to give assurances on that regard that don't involve stationing thousands near the Russian border. But right now I don't see the point on playing into Russian paranoia.
Because if the Russians commit themselves to aggression, defeating the aggression will be a lot harder and more costly (in lives and money) than deterring it. Words don't deter Putin. Actions deter Putin.
Quote from: Zanza on May 15, 2015, 09:42:07 AM
unless the Baltic states don't want us there for historical reasons.
Hell, I bet you'd have people there volunteering to serve in some of your units.
Yeah, we need to put some soldiers there, we don't need Putin pulling that, "little green men", bullshit again. I don't think Obama has the balls for it though. Hopefully he can prove me wrong, but we need to send a very clear message that Russia can't bite off a chunk of a NATO country. The only way to really do that is a deployment of troops. The alliance needs a shot in the arm. Everyone needs to remember that an attack one is an attack on all.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2015, 11:13:23 AM
Yeah, we need to put some soldiers there, we don't need Putin pulling that, "little green men", bullshit again. I don't think Obama has the balls for it though. Hopefully he can prove me wrong, but we need to send a very clear message that Russia can't bite off a chunk of a NATO country. The only way to really do that is a deployment of troops. The alliance needs a shot in the arm. Everyone needs to remember that an attack one is an attack on all.
Obama already sent some troops there.
If a fox stole your chickens, would you slaughter your pig because he saw the fox? No. You would hunt the fox-- you would find where it lives and destroy it! And how do we do this? Become a fox.
The public opinion that matters is not that of the Russian public, but that of the Baltic public. They share our values, want to be a part of the free, liberal Western world and we should make sure they feel secure in their own country.
I think there's room to come down the middle on this.
You could station a fairly small, even nominal force in the baltics - one small enough it couldn't possibly be a threat to Russia.
However it is there to act as a tripwire - that would inevitably involve NATO if Russia was ever to intervene.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2015, 11:39:57 AM
I think there's room to come down the middle on this.
You could station a fairly small, even nominal force in the baltics - one small enough it couldn't possibly be a threat to Russia.
However it is there to act as a tripwire - that would inevitably involve NATO if Russia was ever to intervene.
That's not coming down in the middle, though. That's just acceding to the request from the Baltic states.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2015, 11:39:57 AM
I think there's room to come down the middle on this.
You could station a fairly small, even nominal force in the baltics - one small enough it couldn't possibly be a threat to Russia.
However it is there to act as a tripwire - that would inevitably involve NATO if Russia was ever to intervene.
A single brigade with 3000 men is a nominal force. Even the most paranoid Russian can't construe that as Operation Barbarossa, part II.
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2015, 11:29:14 AM
If a fox stole your chickens, would you slaughter your pig because he saw the fox? No. You would hunt the fox-- you would find where it lives and destroy it! And how do we do this? Become a fox.
red Dawn? Re-watched last night.
Yep. Good man :wolverines:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 15, 2015, 11:56:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2015, 11:29:14 AM
If a fox stole your chickens, would you slaughter your pig because he saw the fox? No. You would hunt the fox-- you would find where it lives and destroy it! And how do we do this? Become a fox.
red Dawn? Re-watched last night.
Enjoyable again after the recent remake I guess.
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2015, 11:29:14 AM
If a fox stole your chickens, would you slaughter your pig because he saw the fox? No. You would hunt the fox-- you would find where it lives and destroy it! And how do we do this? Become a fox.
wouldn't it be handier to hire an english hunting posse?
Anyways: put troops there. With only talking Putin or a similar guy is only going to pick off the civilised world one by one until nothing's left
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on May 15, 2015, 12:22:40 PM
Enjoyable again after the recent remake I guess.
No Swayze, no way-zee.
I'm all for it. We could even help by sending some tents, minesweepers and guards for the local airport.
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2015, 10:32:23 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 15, 2015, 10:04:17 AM
@Tamas: The situation isn't comparable to the World Wars, but to the Cold War. Showing strength was the right policy for the West to counter the Soviet Union. It is again the right policy towards Putin's neo-imperialist pretensions.
Agreed. Putin's strategy is to show strength by picking on the weaklings. He knows russia cannot afford a real war against a real opponent. While Tamas is correct that many Russians would see a NATO deployment to defend NATO territory as an intolerable aggression against Russian aggression, we know beyond doubt that those same Russians will swallow any lie Putin's government can come up with. The key to keeping the peace is convincing Putin to alter the lies from "why we must take over EVOL BALTIKS TODAY to REVENGE IS DISH BEST EATEN COLD.
This. Plus, if Ukraine is any indication, the "let's wait until shit starts there" method will not work because there will be a lot of grey area about whether "shit has started". Russia has already conducted cyber attacks against all three countries, and apparently kidnapped an Estonian military officer; it has also violated the air space of these countries. So, from that perspective, shit has started.
We will never get to the point of Russian tanks just invading the border - or if we do, this will be too late for a reaction then. If Russia wants to do something more in the Baltics, they will most likely orchestrate protests of the Russian minority etc. - giving Western European cowards another excuse not to come to aid as "the shit has not started yet".
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2015, 11:29:14 AM
If a fox stole your chickens, would you slaughter your pig because he saw the fox? No. You would hunt the fox-- you would find where it lives and destroy it! And how do we do this? Become a fox.
:lol:
Russia's probably a bit peeved about the regional defence co-operation between the countries in the Nordic Council as well.
Even Finland and Sweden take part.
Putin probably realises war over Latvia or Estonia isn't a great idea.