|
If the Russians were really bad …
… what would NATO do about it?
Scenario (map):
In late fall 2010 Russian NGOs instigate a reverse color revolution in the Ukraine and a Russia friendly ‘democratically elected’ government takes over. There are attacks on Russian ethnics in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Some nasty pictures of these get played again and again in Russian and European media and lead to calls in Russia’s State Duma for protection of these minorities.
Russia calls for a UN security council resolution to stop the atrocities against ethnic Russians. While China supports Russia, the ‘western’ powers veto any resolution.
On invitation from the Ukraine, Russia moves air defense systems and
heavy artillery into the Ukraine. The Ukrainian and Russian governments put their
armies under ‘common’ (Russian) command.
Under domestic pressure Russia’s president sends a division of troops into each of the Baltic countries and the Russian navy to blockade their coasts. Estonia, and Latvia have 6,000 active troops each, Lithuania has some 18,000. After three days of unfair fights these local forces no longer exist.
There have been only relative few civilian casualties though. Russia declares it will respect the sovereign integrity of the three countries, but it will have to station peacekeeping forces there to prevent further atrocities. Fresh elections are announced for all three countries as their ‘criminal governments’ are under arrest.
‘Technical difficulties’ with pumping stations diminish Russian oil and gas supply to Europe by over 30%. The BTC pipeline gets sabotaged by PKK rebels in Turkey.
Meanwhile Serbia is again making loud noise about the Kosovo. Spain is in strife with its Basks who somehow have obtained RPG’s and other heavier weapons. In Turkey the PKK suddenly gained access to anti-air assets and is on offenive in several areas. Mujaheddin in Afghanistan got hold of anti-air missiles form China.
Within a week $200 billion worth of U.S. treasuries and agency papers get dumped by some obscure Cayman Island funds into the financial markets. The dollar tanks, interest rates and oil prices jump.
End of the scenario.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO countries. But what would NATO actually do if the above were to happen?
Will the U.S. plausibly threaten a nuclear strike on Russia and risk
to lose New York, Washington and Denver over Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn?
I for one doubt this.
Will NATO assemble a force that is capable and motivated to fight on
the ground for those countries, a process that would likely destroy
them?
The NATO Response Force
consists of one brigade of land troops – some 4,000 soldiers from
various countries. The bigger powers, U.S., UK, France, Germany
currently have their most capable and deployable troops in Afghanistan,
Iraq and on the Balkans.
It is thereby unlikely that NATO is able to immediately assemble a
reaction force of some 10+ division that would be needed to liberate
(and obliterate) the three Baltic countries by force. It would be able
to do so, but it could take a six month to a year to get everything
ready for a big attack and it would require to give up on Afghanistan
or Iraq.
Meanwhile there is talk about a second Russian front against Romania
to regain land access to its coreligionists in Serbia. Germany and
Poland are freezing and have frequent blackouts.
I can imagine a lot of huffing and puffing in Washington and
Brussels if the above would happen. There would be sanctions,
resolutions and loud protests. But I can not imagine NATO to go to all
out war over it.
Things would settle after a while, gas and oil return trade would continue, Russia would again buy treasuries.
If Russia is really as bad as some old and new cold warriors want to
make us believe, the above scenario is indeed possible. But why then
don’t the call for preparation for such? Why then are they sending even
more NATO troops to places that have no real strategic value like
Afghanistan?
NATO is a paper tiger. The military folks know this. Most ‘western’
politicians know it too. But they will not do anything about it because
they believe that Russia is no danger to them. Russia may be a danger
to the Baltic countries, but the ‘west’ obviously does not care about
that. It is not their problem.
People in the Baltic states should think about this when they make
noise against Russia and Russian ethnics. They should think about it
really hard.
Sometimes after I read through a MoA thread I want to hold my head in despair. This is one of those times. I know we like to personalize the opposition by holding up shrub or cheney as the great evil but in reality the sort of antagonism which leads to wars, particularly long running siege type wars like the last Cold War, must come from the population itself. Sure the elites go out of their way to brainwash the more compliant elements of the population but in the end it is two vital segments of the population whose attitudes fuel these conflicts.
Two.
In addition to the lackeys of the ruling elite who are cranked by the common media voice, and whose viewpoint is often so ridiculous a moment’s reflection would toss it out in disgust, there is another faction whose oppositional energy cranks the thing along.
Criticism of the ruling elite is essential but it is (IMO) stupid to do it on the basis of the other side being completely virtuous. In the end the population is compelled to choose between two competing sets of bullshit so picks the one that favours their self interest.The population goes for the line which deceives about intellectual and ethical superiority of them over the so-called enemy.
The issue that is really pissing me off because it has been mooted in here with seeming complete acceptance by everyone prolly because they all live in the North and haven’t thought it through is rather different.
That the best way ahead for the world is for USuk and Russia to band together and fuck China up. Clueless Joe mentioned this in at least one other thread and for the life of me I can’t understand why anyone would think a conflict with China a good idea.
I don’t believe that China is some sort of altruist by any means but thus far they have pretty much stuck to Chou En Lai’s 1955 undertaking at the first Afro-Asian conference in Bandung. That was:
Later in the conference, Zhou Enlai signed on to the article in the concluding declaration stating that overseas Chinese owed primary loyalty to their home nation, rather than to China – a highly sensitive issue for both his Indonesian hosts and for several other participating countries.
A 10-point “declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation,” incorporating the principles of the United Nations Charter and Jawaharlal Nehru’s principles, was adopted unanimously:
1. Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations
2. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations
3. Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and small
4. Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country
5. Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or collectively, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
6. (a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defense to serve any particular interests of the big powers
(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries
7. Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country
8. Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with the charter of the united nations
9. Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
10. Respect for justice and international obligations.[2]
“Yeah Yeah”, peeps say “blah blah – a lot of countries said all sorts of stuff back in the day”.
China and Japan have been having a bit of an arm wrestle throughout the Pacific for the last couple of decades. For many years the Japanese followed up on the colonies they lost after 1945 with extensive economic imperialism in the South West Pacific especially Indonesia. They had pretty much free rein in the 70’s and 80’s. Why wouldn’t they? Their economic interests meshed into amerika’s interests and China was still isolated.
However by the 1990’s this had changed and China became more involved in areas previously considered a Japanese or USuk stamping ground. As the competition (which has been pretty straightforward, maybe a bit of bribery but I’m unaware of any USuk style tactics such as political assassination etc) expanded, the zone of competition expanded with it, reaching further eastwards out of the nations inhabited by Malay type people (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines) through Melanesia where Australia has been wreaking havoc for so long (The Solomons, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu) and into Polynesia the area many Northerners consider a paradise (Tahiti, Samoa, Tonga etc).
Tonga is one of the last remaining monarchies where the King or Queen rules absolutely. Successive Australian and NZ governments have chosen to ignore that whilst they criticized Iraq (back in Saddam’s time) Burma or Zimbabwe. If pressed they would usually mutter something about ‘change takes time and the people seem happy – they love their king/queen’) Nothing about the range of business partnerships which NZ and Australian corporations had with members of the Royal Family. A monarchy which abused political power to maintain monopolies held by their private family interests.
Through the nineties and noughties a lot of Chinese businesses were set up in Tonga especially it’s capital Nuku’alofa. These weren’t just the usual expat family businesses in some cases the owners were back in China.
By 2006 the Tongan people had had enough of their corrupt and uncaring royalty who back in 2005 had locked out the public service after the public servants took industrial action. From a Scoop release:
Tonga’s 3000 public servants went on strike more than three weeks ago after senior Government officials were awarded pay rises of up to 80% while the lowest paid public servants, who earn as little as $47 a week, received rises as low as 1%.
More than 1400 teachers have joined the strike along with doctors, nurses and other health workers, protesting the widening gap between the rich and the poor in Tonga. Government Ministers in Tonga earn over $100,000 a year while a police officer is paid $50 a week.
So in November 2006 the population had enough. The CBD of Nuku’alofa was razed, burnt to the ground in the riots of November 06.
Even though the Chinese lost far more than any of the other foreign interests in this desperate action by the Tongan people, it was NZ and Australian forces who went in there to break heads and calm everything down.
At the time China voiced concern at what appeared to be the deliberate targeting of Chinese owned businesses, they made no dire threats of retribution of the type that whitefellas make when their interests are in danger. The Chinese temporarily evacuated their nationals.
Following the riots, Beijing approved an estimated TG$100 million soft loan to the Tongan government for rebuilding central Nukua’lofa.
It was the Chinese businesses which rebuilt first. NZ and Australia had been pretending to pressure the Tongan aristocracy to reform for 50 years. In the end it was China who had attached ‘strings’ to their economic assistance, that had the king divesting his business monopolies; and, at the last minute, before his coronation last month, the king promised major constitutional reform.
I don’t pretend that China’s actions are motivated by altruism or are free of self interest. The intervention in Tonga will help assuage fears of Pacific people the Chinese merchant culture by ensuring that there is a more ven distribution of wealth in Tonga. When people are doing OK they stop wanting to burn things down. Tonga should really have been left to sort out it’s own business but China’s interference has thus far been benign compared to the way that Australia or NZ ‘helped’ or amerika intervened in the similarly sized Grenada.
Some time do a bit of a google on how Australia has fucked up the Solomons or PNG when they searched out the most selfish and crooked members of those nations’ elites to do business with. Presumably because it is easier in the short term. China has always had a long term vision about what it does, in itself, that is more likely to avoid conflict.
Those who seek a confrontation with China because of Tibet would do well to ponder how the peeps in Tibet gonna be when the war is being fought on the streets of Lhasa.
I don’t know whether the pre-occupation for confrontation with China is racially driven or just a sort of ‘shoot the messenger’ reaction to amerika’s decision to close down it’s manufacturing base.
That wasn’t a result of china setting about to deliberately turn big chunks of amerika into an industrial wasteland. Amerikan corporations went to China after nixon’s visit and harangued the Chinese into building the factories. Sure China is happy with the result but it was caused by delusional amerikans stupidly imagining they could economically conquer China rather than the other way around.
Why China? How about remembering what Monty Python said
Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 21 2008 1:23 utc | 30
|
