The Baltic states (catch all)

[jmm99]

Hey K, glad this one did not escape your radar screen - it missed mine.

Craddock's request, if rejected or tabled, will be very devastating to NATO - as a traditional collective defense alliance. The polls do not look good (your OP); and the following from the article looks like an impasse.

France and Germany have signalled opposition to the move but Gen Craddock has the strong backing of American and Britain. But even US officials acknowledge there is a risk that the move will cause a rift within Nato. "This becomes politicised very quickly," a Pentagon official said.

As I've noted several times in other threads, Article 5 does have weasel-words. In the Fulda Gap era, everyone ignored the weasel-words for obvious reasons. Craddock says, in effect, "put up". The question is whether Europe and the US (its polls are not that favorable, either) will, at the least, allow a contingency plan.

The new NATO members could well be asking what would NATO do in the absence of a sound collective military plan for their defense. The answer has to be "not much".

Keep your radar tuned to this one - as I am sure you will. It is important.

[kaur]

Stratfor's Friedman has couple thoughts about NATO problem.

The German Question

So while Germany remains committed to its economic relationship with the West, it does not intend to enter into a military commitment against the Russians at this time. If the Americans want to send troops to protect the Baltics and Poland, they are welcome to do so. Germany has no objection — nor do they object to a French or British presence there. Indeed, once such forces were committed, Germany might reconsider its position. But since military deployments in significant numbers are unlikely anytime soon, the Germans view grand U.S. statements about expanded NATO membership as mere bravado by a Washington that is prepared to risk little.

NATO has no real military power to project to the east, and none can be created without a major German effort, which is not forthcoming. The German shift leaves the Baltic countries exposed and extremely worried, as they should be. It also leaves the Poles in their traditional position of counting on countries far away to guarantee their national security. In 1939, Warsaw counted on the British and French; today, Warsaw depends on the United States. As in 1939, these guarantees are tenuous, but they are all the Poles have.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081006_german_question

[Stan]

Asian Times, 09 October 2008

BRUSSELS - A recent request by the highest military commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for the authority to draw up full defense plans for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, could lead to a serious rift in the alliance as it wars over how to deal with Russia.

When Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joined the alliance in 2004, Afghanistan and terrorism were NATO's top concerns, whereas Russia was seen as an aspiring strategic partner. The alliance therefore did not draw up "contingency plans" or full defense strategies for the three Baltic states, a shortcoming which now looks like an anachronism after the events in Georgia exposed NATO's soft underbelly.

NATO officials privately concede that the three Baltic nations are the most exposed among all 26 allies. Although none of the eastern European allies have full contingency plans drawn up for their defense, some amount of planning has been done for all - except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

London's Daily Telegraph, which first broke the story, said Craddock recommends Estonia, with its large Russian-speaking minority and increasingly fraught relationship with Moscow, be the first Baltic beneficiary of a NATO military risk-assessment study.

Baltic countries meanwhile fear that the trend towards accommodating Russia could materially affect their security, and that political considerations could begin to erode NATO's commitment to mutual defense.

Much more at the link...

[Ron Humphrey]

Does this mean that since it's not important enough to at least pretend that NATO might actually live up to commitments in case of an attack on these countries, that we can go ahead and throw away any plans that have been developed in helping Germany should the Russians decide to pressure(blackmail) them the same way they have others(Restricting resources upon which they depend)?

I think maybe we need to have a worldwide rerelease of the Three Musketeers
(pick your favorite version)

All for One and One for all!
or maybe not

[Stan]

An interesting twist Ron. Estonia certainly is not pretending and I'm thinking they have all bets hinged on NATO. The F-16s cover the Baltic airspace is great, but are they actually here to do anything?

Chancellor Merkel has most of us puzzled these days, and the Nordstream pipeline is now back on track. She came down hard following Georgia, but it didn't take long to fizzle out with subsequent meetings in Moscow.

Hmmm, is there a plan to bail out Germany if Russia shuts the gas off

Does this mean that since it's not important enough to at least pretend that NATO might actually live up to commitments in case of an attack on these countries, that we can go ahead and throw away any plans that have been developed in helping Germany should the Russians decide to pressure(blackmail) them the same way they have others(Restricting resources upon which they depend)?

I think maybe we need to have a worldwide rerelease of the Three Musketeers
(pick your favorite version)

All for One and One for all!
or maybe not

[kaur]

Russians, Germans Disagree over War

A conference entitled “Changing Russia: Perspectives for the Development of Russian-German Relations” took place last weekend in Moscow. Well-known politicians, businessmen and journalists attended. Kommersant correspondent Morits Gatmann observed how the conversation on Russian-German relations turned into a heated argument over the war in the Caucasus.

http://www.kommersant.com/p1040152/r...ct_journalism/

[Stan]

Russians, Germans Disagree over War

http://www.kommersant.com/p1040152/r...ct_journalism/

Karl-Georg Wellmann, member of the Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee who was representing the German point of view...Wellmann spoke rather harshly about the Georgian President. “I don’t believe that Saakashvili has a political future,” Wellmann said. He also said that, from Germany’s point of view, “Providing Georgia a NATO membership action plan in December is impossible.

Wellmann may want to consult with NATO Defense Ministers about his thoughts. They are conveniently all together

NATO-Georgia Commission meets at Defence Ministers level in Budapest