A Baltic Response to the Bear

Washington Post ^ | 9/14/2008 | Jim Hoagland

[Hawthorn]

This is the time for Bush and other NATO leaders to give high priority and visibility to discussions with Finland, which is considering joining NATO. If Finland joins, Sweden might follow, Swedish officials say.

Alliance members also should move now to bolster the defenses of the three Baltic NATO members -- Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania -- as Kurt Volker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, has recently suggested. The holding of no-notice joint maneuvers with the Baltic states would be one way to catch Russia's attention.

[Hawthorn]

Yes! Let's get Finland into NATO! The Russians still remember their humiliating defeat at the hands on the Finns in the Winter War -- and it's still a point of national pride in Suomi!

[ZULU]

Russia’s Georgian caper may have been the worst public policy move of the century so far, if the west has the guts to exploit it.

[Hawthorn]

> Russia’s Georgian caper may have been the worst public policy move of the century so far <

Agreed. And I think nothing would shake the Russians’ self-confidence more than their seeing Finland and Sweden join NATO.

[ketelone]

Er... you think noones thought of this before?

Finland steadfastly refuses to be part of any anti-russian alliance. Half their military equipment is Russian!

[Bulldawg Fan]

Ditto, the Finns have felt the bite of the Bear and if Sweden junks its legendary neutrality to join NATO, the balance of power in Europe favors the West for the next century. Bring these two into NATO and at a minimum, establish a US Naval base at Poti, Georgia and I guarantee you get the Russians undivided attention.

[nathanbedford]

In one respect at least dealing with the Russian bear is similar to coping with Islamic terrorism: if no new atrocities are committed, we have won. Put the other way, for either Russian imperialism or Islamic fundamentalism to advance, each must aggress somewhere.

This presents a great obstacle to them as they pursue, either separately or in concert, their goal of shearing Europe away from America. Whenever they aggress to move the ball forward, they unmask themselves to the world. So each aggression should bring Europe and America closer together.

This really ought not to be a question. Europe should be expected to have the wit to see that a resolute common front to these two actual or potential aggressors is the most sensible policy. But Europe is fraught with leftists who, consciously or unconsciously, are so viscerally anti-American that they would court the actual loss of their country's sovereignty rather than see American influence advanced.

Our adversaries, of course, are fully alert to this weakness in the Atlantic alliance and seek ways to empower the leftists. Indeed, this calculus might well have been a large part of the incentive for Russia to aggress in Georgia. One might reasonably expect that as each aggression unmasks the Russians or the terrorists for the bullies they are, Europe would instinctively draw closer to America as its protector. But this is not always the case. Witness the Spanish reaction to the Madrid bombings.

So the Russians and the terrorists must weigh every aggression considering two variables: Will the leftists in Europe be empowered or swept aside? Will the Americans overreact or behave deftly? We have seen a recent example of this positioning game in the aftermath of the invasion of Georgia. Vice President Cheney was sent into the theater and delivered a speech. The leftists in Europe attempted to portray the speech to be irresponsible and "belligerent."

The author senses this dance that America must indulge in order to keep the leftists in Europe at bay and he recommends not making any more noises about Georgia or Ukraine joining NATO. He notes that the American and French cooperation as held the alliance together during the strain of this invasion. He does not point out that if Russia withdraws from Georgia proper into the two breakaway provinces, Europe will conclude that their way, diplomacy, is the effective approach and the American Way, "belligerency," is dangerous and provocative. So if diplomacy "works" the very passivity and cooperation of America works against America's perception of the best defense being a united and vigorous front. If the matter is not resolved satisfactorily with Russia compromising in some degree, the left in Europe will work day and night, as it already has, to blame American meddling and provocation.

What is superpower to do? Author Hoagland's answer is to turn our face from the Caucasus and stir things up in the Baltic. He thinks that this might even bring in Finland and Sweden. I am highly skeptical that any such thing will happen. I believe the predicate for his suggestion, that the Baltics would be open to a more pugnacious stance against Russia, is unsupported by the facts. Some of them do after all have substantial Russian minorities. In any event there will undoubtedly be a reaction all over Europe.

Yet America must somehow break out of the box it is in and punish the Russkies sufficiently to deter them in the future. I think that is what Hoagland is trying to do with his Baltic policy. But more open we are in the effectuation such a policy, the more the leftists all over Europe will gain the advantage and, by extension, the Russians. Therefore, I think we should do more of what I have no doubt Dick Cheney has been doing: acting covertly. Trying to save enough of Georgia so the pipeline to the west can be salvaged or restored thus preventing Russia from obtaining a 100% chokehold on European energy; rearming Georgia to the teeth especially with concern to defending the mountains as do the Swiss; converting the Black Sea into an American lake; insinuating flagrant American presence, either military or diplomatic or both, to constitute a tripwire and deter further Russian aggression.

Much the same should be done in the Baltic as Hoagland suggests but absolutely covertly until the stakes are raised too high for Russia to repeat the naked and primitive aggression it did in Georgia.

Like the Islamic terrorists, Russia must probe somewhere if it is to regain some of its lost power. The author points out that the Caribbean is becoming another theater. I have predicted that along with a Russian Iranian axis. Somehow, we have to win the public relations game so that each probe causes a giant backlash. In this regard, the application to the presidential race in America is so obvious as not to require comment. Bam Bam has already demonstrated his ineptness in the Georgia crisis.

[Cheburashka]

Yes! Let's get Finland into NATO!

---

This Finns have not shown an interest in joining NATO. If they do in the future we can address it at that time. As for NATO pursuing their membership, the answer is: if they don't want in, why should we ask them?

[FreeReign]

Er... you think noones thought of this before? Finland steadfastly refuses to be part of any anti-russian alliance. Half their military equipment is Russian!

A poll I saw said that 55% of Finns don't want to be part of NATO which is down dramatically from past years.

In May 1994, Finland joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program and in May 1997 Finnland joined the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. The Finnish army has joined NATO-lead peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Finland has also joined the European Union's Rapid Deployment Force. Four of Finland's five unit partners are members of NATO, and the unit is trained by the NATO Response Force (N.R.F.).

So stay tuned, things are changing, even more so after what happened in Georgia.

In the mean time you may want to do something about your "er" speech hesitation.

[Hawthorn]

> This Finns have not shown an interest in joining NATO. <

Well, Jim Hoagland says that in fact, the Finns suddenly have become interested -- thanks to Putin's huge over-reaction against Saakashvili's South Ossetia foray.

[If your sources are better than Hoagland's sources, then your word may be better than his. I can't judge, and I certainly don't care to argue the matter.]

[Grzegorz 246]

Eastern European ping list

---

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Eastern European ping list

[Cheburashka]

The Finns have been neutral for over 60 years. If they decide to change that you will hear about it first from sources in the Finnish cabinet or parliament, not some Washington columnist. And the Russians will be extremely upset. As in spittle-spewing mad.

And if they Finish government announced that they were applying tomorrow, it would take at least two years to complete the deal, probably longer, since nothing has been done yet. Every NATO state has to agree, and it has to be ratified by the Finnish parliament. So it won't happen quickly.

[ketelone]

You a speech therapist?