So what happens if Putin decides he wants Latvia?

[James Stuart]

Well, my text was not an apology. A goldfish could see that. In fact, my distaste for NATO and Russian aggressions are spread about evenly.

You know, if you guys in NATO and Russia really have to provoke each other to the breaking point, have the courtesy to consummate it on your own soil and please clean up the mess when you are done.
Childish bastards.

Yes, they are childish. Your post is the epitomy of mature and rational debate.

They may have 'stopped mistreating them', but their real error was allowing them to rebuild their military in defiance of terms. Which is really the issue I was trying to point out with Russia. Economic collapse leads to change of government unless the government controls sufficient military power to make something else happen. Indonesia and the Philippines didn't. Germany did. Russia does.

As to the benefits to the world of losing a dictatorship and gaining a democracy...note that your tie at the top for 'most boorish behavior' is one dictatorship and one democracy, so that isn't necessarily a win.

Did you just say that Indonesia lacked the military power to clamp down on dissent in 1997? The same Indonesia that executed an estimated 3 million civilians in 1969-70? With a significantly stronger, more unified military by 1997? And you did this whilst simultaneously arguing that Germany in 1933 possessed enough military power to prevent a change in government, when in fact its army was limited to 100,000 individuals, and even with the clever shirking of that treaty by the Weimar Republic only increased the number to around 130,000. The army was actually afraid it would lose in an uprising by either the Communists or the SA. So you've just actively argued against your own point on both sides.

Economic collapses tend to lead to governmental collapses, quite often instigated by the military. Putin is probably more afraid of his army than Latvia is.

Even a "boorish" democracy tends not to invade and annex its neighbours. That's a step up from a dictatorship. And I don't consider a state with a 30% voter turnout and two right-wing parties to be all that democratic, as long as we're discussing the US.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Clamping down doesn't prevent an economic collapse taking down the government. Foreign adventures and nationalism works though, if you have the horsepower and a convenient target.

 

[James Stuart]

Clamping down doesn't prevent an economic collapse taking down the government. Foreign adventures and nationalism works though, if you have the horsepower and a convenient target.

Not always. Hitler almost suffered his own Night of the Long Knives in 1938, but Brauchitsch lost his nerve when the British withheld support. It was a lack of resolve that saved Hitler, not his own military strength.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not always. Hitler almost suffered his own Night of the Long Knives in 1938, but Brauchitsch lost his nerve when the British withheld support. It was a lack of resolve that saved Hitler, not his own military strength.

Even without British support someone would have gotten him eventually had the collapse continued...but WWII was a pretty good distraction. Look at how often the Bush administration ducked behind the patriotism of 'no criticism during war time'. Faced with collapse or attack someone how many heads of state do you think will opt to ride out the collapse?

 

[James Stuart]

Even without British support someone would have gotten him eventually had the collapse continued...but WWII was a pretty good distraction. Look at how often the Bush administration ducked behind the patriotism of 'no criticism during war time'. Faced with collapse or attack someone how many heads of state do you think will opt to ride out the collapse?

It depends on the head-of-state. Sukarno stopped short of war with Malaysia. Gough Whitlam didn't drum up a revolution in Australia. The pre-Hitler leaders of Germany didn't invade anyone. Gorbachev didn't start any wars. Not every head-of-state is Hitler.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not every head of state is Hitler. But not every head of state is Gorbachev.

It is also possible that Gorbachev just recognized a reality that there wasn't any practical target available.

 

[James Stuart]

Not every head of state is Hitler. But not every head of state is Gorbachev.

It is also possible that Gorbachev just recognized a reality that there wasn't any practical target available.

Because Gorbachev would have really wrecked the USSR's image if he attacked Iran? Or brought Ceaucescu to heel? He had no problem letting Soviet satellites go, and he tried to militarily clamp down on the Baltic states. He simply couldn't keep control of the USSR without returning to military rule, and he decided not to do that.

And I don't recall claiming that all rulers were Gorbachev. I claimed that; "It depends on the head-of-state." You just provided two very different examples.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because Gorbachev would have really wrecked the USSR's image if he attacked Iran? Or brought Ceaucescu to heel? He had no problem letting Soviet satellites go, and he tried to militarily clamp down on the Baltic states. He simply couldn't keep control of the USSR without returning to military rule, and he decided not to do that.

And I don't recall claiming that all rulers were Gorbachev. I claimed that; "It depends on the head-of-state." You just provided two very different examples.

Fair enough. There is a spectrum there for sure.

I don't think image would have prevented an attack on Iran. Giddy with cold war success I doubt the US would have tolerated any Soviet move towards the middle east.

 

[James Stuart]

Fair enough. There is a spectrum there for sure.

I don't think image would have prevented an attack on Iran. Giddy with cold war success I doubt the US would have tolerated any Soviet move towards the middle east.

Depending on how Gorby framed the invasion, the US may actually have strongly supported such a move. The USSR was moving slowly towards a US alliance, whereas Iran had rather strongly rejected such an alliance. That's getting into some pretty big counter-factual territory, however, and I don't know enough about USSR-Iranian relations in the period to discuss it effectively.

 

[Domen]

And I don't consider a state with a 30% voter turnout and two right-wing parties to be all that democratic

A state with a 100% voter turnout (occasionally up to 105%) and only left-wing parties, or better just one party - a left-wing one - is more democratic.

Such a state is a people's democracy (a superior version of democracy - don't deny if you don't want to go to a political reeducation camp for 5 years).

 

[James Stuart]

A state with a 100% voter turnout (occasionally up to 105%) and only left-wing parties, or better just one party - a left-wing one - is more democratic.

Such a state is a people's democracy (a superior version of democracy - don't deny if you don't want to go to a political reeducation camp for 5 years).

Yes, that is exactly what I said. All states that don't have 30% voter turn-outs and two right wing parties are by definition North Korea.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

These spectrums seem to be popping up all over!

 

[James Stuart]

These spectrums seem to be popping up all over!

I think the autism spectrum is fairly present on CFC myself. Particularly with regards to certain obsessive posters.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think the autism spectrum is fairly present on CFC myself. Particularly with regards to certain obsessive posters.

 

[LoneRebel]

Actually, I was saying that countries with effective nuclear deterrence can't be invaded because the consequences are too great. Do you disagree?

I also said that Russia is indeed one of those countries. Do you disagree?

I've also said that Russia's boorish behavior is no worse than anyone elses, but I'm sure you disagree with that, which is fine.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. So now my question is, do you believe that it works both ways? Do you believe that Russia would not move against Latvia (or any other NATO member) because of the threat of nuclear retaliation from NATO's nuclear-armed states?

By the way, with regard to India's nuclear deterrent only being land-based, there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arihant-class_submarine

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. So now my question is, do you believe that it works both ways? Do you believe that Russia would not move against Latvia (or any other NATO member) because of the threat of nuclear retaliation from NATO's nuclear-armed states?

By the way, with regard to India's nuclear deterrent only being land-based, there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arihant-class_submarine

Cool thing for India!

As for Russia invading Latvia...tough question. Does the nuclear deterrent capability of other NATO nations extend to their allies? If it does would Russia believe that it does? I'm really not in a position to answer. For the US part, I would be dubious about anything more than hand wringing over Latvia, but the UK I have no real idea, and France seems to be very Russophobic in their rhetoric though more than happy to sell them arms so no clear idea there.

My immediate gut feeling is that anything short of Russian boots on French or UK soil, or obviously US soil, is not going to invoke deterrence, but there's no substance I can put behind that.

 

[James Stuart]

Cool thing for India!

As for Russia invading Latvia...tough question. Does the nuclear deterrent capability of other NATO nations extend to their allies? If it does would Russia believe that it does? I'm really not in a position to answer. For the US part, I would be dubious about anything more than hand wringing over Latvia, but the UK I have no real idea, and France seems to be very Russophobic in their rhetoric though more than happy to sell them arms so no clear idea there.

My immediate gut feeling is that anything short of Russian boots on French or UK soil, or obviously US soil, is not going to invoke deterrence, but there's no substance I can put behind that.

France occasionally looks like it wants to kick America out of Europe, and you think they wouldn't respond forcefully to Russian encroachment on what they consider to be their sphere? France and the UK together are far more powerful than Russia, and they aren't going to let it push them around. France or the UK alone is more powerful than Russia, but might hesitate to take it on alone. Add in the US and the rest of NATO, and Russia's odds of pulling off a successful invasion of anywhere on EU/ NATO soil is laughable. And Putin hasn't lasted this long in kill-happy Russia by being stupid.

France would sell arms to a rebel group operating in Metropolitan France if it made them some money. So that's absolutely no way to judge their foreign policy. I've always admired France's ability to simultaneously sell weapons to a state whilst simultaneously denouncing it as a pariah in the UN, and somehow avoiding any bad press for it.

And all three of the powers you mention remember Munich very well. They will not repeat the same mistake.

 

[El_Machinae]

After defeating Germany in World War I the victors imposed crushing economic conditions which destroyed the German economy.

The cold war ended when the USSR collapsed, and there is great rejoicing at economic conditions that damage the Russian economy.

Why? It really didn't turn out that well with the Germans, did it?

It's a bit different at this stage. The Russians are already engaging in expansionist policies and have been using their fuel monopoly as an economic bludgeon. Usually (always?) economic integration is the key to peace, but when there's an obvious power imbalance, and a willingness to use it, then there's the need to trim down the power being used against you.

The only way sanctions hurt is if there's integration already, but the monopoly is a different story.

 

[James Stuart]

It's a bit different at this stage. The Russians are already engaging in expansionist policies and have been using their fuel monopoly as an economic bludgeon. Usually (always?) economic integration is the key to peace, but when there's an obvious power imbalance, and a willingness to use it, then there's the need to trim down the power being used against you.

The only way sanctions hurt is if there's integration already, but the monopoly is a different story.

I wouldn't say economic integration is always the key to peace. I hate to repeatedly bring up Nazi Germany, but even before Hitler took power in 1933 the German government was trading with Austria, Poland, and the Balkan states. One of the stated goals of this trade being to make their markets dependent upon Germany, thus easing any difficulties when Germany annexed them later. Hitler was so enamoured of this policy that he tried to increase trade with the USSR on several occasions before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for the same reason.

It's also not uncommon for an economically stronger state to push around a weaker one. You seem to cover this when you write of power imbalances. The current Russian monopoly is a fine example, as is the previous South African-Russian attempts to monopolise the platinum trade.

 

[LoneRebel]

I seem to remember reading, several times, that foreign trade as a percentage of GDP was higher for most of the major European combatants on the eve of WW1 (Imperial Germany, so no Godwin's Law here) than it is for those same nations (or was it the global average?) today. Obviously, it still didn't stop the war from happening. Apropos, this being the 100th anniversary of said war and all. 1914-1918 nevar forget.