| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| A Warsaw Pact for America |
| 2008-08-19 |
| By Robert Tracinski & Jack Wakeland In the past few days, the United States has finally entered the conflict in Georgia in a clumsy and cautious way--but America has entered the conflict, and America is instantly a central part of everything that is going on. The interesting thing about the way that the US is stumbling into the conflict zone is that we're not being led by George Bush, the State Department, or the command structure at the Pentagon as much as we're being led by the articulate and passionate statements about liberty--a battle cry--by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. He is someone we cannot say "no" to without saying "no" to our own identity. Ultimately President Bush, architect of the Forward Strategy of Freedom, cannot say "no" to him either. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #13 I believe NATO will bifurcate with the newly freed and similarly minded NATO nations forming bilateral agreements with each other and with those needing protection. Old Europe will remain in their comfort zone and will be ignored. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-08-19 12:13 |
| #12 The idea is not bad. Create a buffer of nations between Russia and NATO. Get the ex-satellites to stand together rather than fall separately. Hopefully such a buffer, which would have no ability to actually invade Russia, will help to lesson the bear's paranoia. Who knows, it might even become a market for Russian military goods giving the Russians some benefit. Yeah the nukes and stuff is nonsense. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-19 11:44 |
| #11 Nukes, no. Alliance with American soldiers based there to act as a "tripwire", yes. They don't need nukes as long as we have a treaty in place that promises if anyone launches a nuclear attack on them, they have launched a nuclear attack on the US and the United States will respond accordingly. However, with the Eastern Alliance armed with the best anti-air and anti-armor weaponry the US has, with an American F-22 wing in support of Allied planes, Russian would think twice to three hundred times before attacking. They have a good core of soldiers to act as the tip of the spear, but chew up those few divisions and all they have left is a piece of wood to try to punch through with. Russia simply can not afford to have a long and/or bloody war with the west. They don't have the vast reserves of tanks, planes and men anymore. In fact, the US now outnumbers Russia in population by 2-1 and Russia is losing about a million people a year in total population. The days of hordes of Russians coming across the horizon to attack the west are over. We are seeing the last, dying gasps of a dying empire, frantic to try to reclaim the glory days. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-08-19 10:07 |
| #10 They're not scared to be crazy enough to help Iran get The Bomb, there behavior on Iran has been just a tad more complex than that, which is why I phrased mine the way I did. Certainly Im not against helping Poland build a peaceful nuclear power plant (are they off brown coal yet? We should ALL want them to generate electricity in ways that reduce CO2 emissions) nor am I against providing them the latest air defenses. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-19 09:53 |
| #9 Yeah, when you start talking about adding nuclear weapons states, then you just lost about 95% of your readers. The NATO-Eastern Bloc sounds reasonable, giving fledgling democracies the burden of nuclear deterrence does not. That's why the Russians are going to prevail. They're not scared to be crazy enough to help Iran get The Bomb, but we're gonna be Captain Responsible about Poland. we definitely should not give the Poles nukes. Certainly not at least as long as Iran doesnt have nukes. When Iran DOES have nukes, we should rethink things. We should let Russia now that we will rethink things. Remind them that Iran NOT having nukes is very much in their interest. By that time it's too late and you're already being blackmailed by proxy. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-08-19 09:50 |
| #8 For proof of how little Western Europe has the stomach for, see Nicolas Sakozy's capitulation to Russia, which casts him in the Neville Chamberlain role in this new Munich crisis. This is a little bit unfair. Sarkozy was the negotiator because France held the EU presidency at the time of the invasion. Sarko went as representative of the EU. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-19 09:47 |
| #7 we definitely should not give the Poles nukes. Certainly not at least as long as Iran doesnt have nukes. When Iran DOES have nukes, we should rethink things. We should let Russia now that we will rethink things. Remind them that Iran NOT having nukes is very much in their interest. Some defense organization of New Europe seems a reasonable idea, though I dont now that Id exclude Hungary, Czecho, and Slovakia. Anyone whos willing. But note, a mutual defense clause doesnt transitively bind NATO. NATOs pledge to Poland and the Baltics is to come to their aid if THEY are attacked. If Poland signs a treaty with Ukraine, and Ukraine is attacked, and Poland goes to their aid, and Russia fights Poland, we arent obliged to Poland. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-19 09:45 |
| #6 Yeah, when you start talking about adding nuclear weapons states, then you just lost about 95% of your readers. The NATO-Eastern Bloc sounds reasonable, giving fledgling democracies the burden of nuclear deterrence does not. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-08-19 09:37 |
| #5 Uh, pardon me, but this is just plain nuts - proliferations of nuclear weapons to our "friends" in Eastern Europe? Why when Puty is basically doing the same in Iran? What do you think Russia would do? You mean what are they already doing? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-08-19 09:07 |
| #4 john frum: Is that from "The Onion"? |
| Posted by: Kojo Ebbeater4018 2008-08-19 05:46 |
| #3 I think that the authors of this article think that nukes are just a more potent artillery round. The nuke proliferation argument is not well thought out at all (sez I, with a slightly amazed look on my face). |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-08-19 02:00 |
| #2 REDDIT [paraph]> the emplacement of an effective AMD/BMD System by one side [USA = USGMD in East Euro]so close to the borders of its primary opponent [Russia] may induce the latter to launch a PREEMPTIVE FULL-SCALE NUCLEAR STRIKE BY OR BEFORE YEAR 2012??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-08-19 01:57 |
| #1 Uh, pardon me, but this is just plain nuts - proliferations of nuclear weapons to our "friends" in Eastern Europe? Suppose we started assisting Georgia with the development of nuclear weapons then turned around and did the same thing with Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltic States. What do you think Russia would do? How would they respond? They'd go absolutely stark, raving crazy is how. If they felt threatened that South Ossetian separatists with their vague connection to Russia might be overrun and assimilated by Georgia, how do you think they'd respond to nuclearization of everyone surrounding them? This is just plain nuts. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-08-19 00:37 |