Canada and its NATO partners have serious problems to confront in Afghanistan, but as the summit of the alliance's 26 leaders opens today, another ominous obstacle is emerging: Russia's Vladimir Putin in the role of bad-boy spoiler.The outspoken Russian president arrives Friday for a crucial meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, the first time that six-year-old body has convened at such a high level.Russia has been a vocal critic of a some key NATO initiatives under discussion at the three-day summit, two of which Canada supports: healing wounds in the newly independent Balkan state of Kosovo, and taking the first steps towards bringing Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance - two former Soviet satellites that Putin is determined to keep in Russia's sphere of influence.
Canada and its NATO partners have serious problems to confront in Afghanistan, but as the summit of the alliance's 26 leaders opens today, another ominous obstacle is emerging: Russia's Vladimir Putin in the role of bad-boy spoiler.
The outspoken Russian president arrives Friday for a crucial meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, the first time that six-year-old body has convened at such a high level.
Russia has been a vocal critic of a some key NATO initiatives under discussion at the three-day summit, two of which Canada supports: healing wounds in the newly independent Balkan state of Kosovo, and taking the first steps towards bringing Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance - two former Soviet satellites that Putin is determined to keep in Russia's sphere of influence.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe vowed Thursday -- in the wake of the deaths of three Quebec-based soldiers this week -- to bring down the Conservative government if it does not commit to a full troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2009. He said if Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not soon notify NATO and participating countries of Canada's withdrawal plans, the Bloc will vote against the expected autumn throne speech with the hopes of bringing the government down.
He said if Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not soon notify NATO and participating countries of Canada's withdrawal plans, the Bloc will vote against the expected autumn throne speech with the hopes of bringing the government down.
Duceppe needs the liberals to make the government actually fall, but in fact, the liberals are also in bed iwth Harper on this and are employing quite Bushesque language ("support our troops !) to marginalize the NDP and the Bloc, both of which want out.
This is working in Anglo Canada (surprise, surprise) but far less well in Quebec. If thwarted too hamfistedly, the Bloc stand to gain greatly in the next federal elections and, with help from ADQ in Quebec, perhaps also provincial elections. And, if Ottawa continue to throw Quebec lives in Washington's war, perhaps another referendum.
The last one just barely failed.
As with the English, this is one where the good General got it right.
NB I actually think the idea of expanding NATO to Georgia and Ukraine is nuts - the former has way too many problems, the latter I'd be fine with if there were strong consensus support among the Ukrainian population, but there isn't. However, Russian objections really shouldn't be determinative.
Not sure how what happened in Algeria in 1945 is relevant to this, though.
As for assurances against "former imperial masters," one would hope that in order to gain these, one does not voluntarily enter into similar relationships with another power with clearly imperial designs, as much of the present leadership of the new entrants to the EU have done. And, as for consensus, just its very existence as a formal body for military cooperation indicates consensus, and its purpose is to build and perpetuate the consensus and, it should be noted, that consensus is heavily influenced, even dominated, by US interests.
But apart from that the reason I outlined above is in itself a pretty good one for all of Europe - the stability and pro-European outlook of the ex pact states is important to the Western European countries. The impact of a Western European led destruction of NATO would, IMO, be relatively limited and, given the desire, easily compensated in the case of most of the former East Bloc nations. But Poland and the Baltics, with their much longer and bloodier experience of Russian rule, would be a different story. The odds are nothing that bad would happen, but there's a non trivial chance that things could go seriously wrong. So given that any actual action by NATO can be vetoed by Western European countries, it seems to me that even for those who don't particularly like the alliance the overall impact is positive.
Let's play this hypothetical to its end. What would be the bad consequences, that is bad consequences for parts of Europe other than Poland and the Baltics? Do you think Poland would (could) wreck the EU with a blockade policy putting Thatcher and the Twins to shade? Or economic sanctions on Germany (pipelines)? Or worse? *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Not like this hasn't happened before.
but i don't think it's the eu i have in mind.
There's the occasional stuff among western Europeans about Poland as some sort of US trojan horse deliberately trying to undermine and destroy the EU. The reality is quite different, it is in actual fact a very Europhile country.
Both the Polish elites and the public can be crudely divided into three unequal camps. The first which constitutes a narrow majority is deeply europhile - emotionally, rationally and ideologically. They're currently in power. Within the parties the form the overwhelming majority of the SLD and the PO, a majority of the PSL as well as a significant minority of PiS. Most of this group is also strongly Atlanticist, almost none are anti-Atlanticist.
Then there are those who to one degree or another are suspicious or even hostile to the EU as a project but also believe that Polish EU membership is very much in Poland's national interest. There is a few of them in the PiS and SLD, some more in the PSL and a lot in PiS - including the twins. All of this group is strongly Atlanticist.
Finally there is the smallest, group - a hard core of roughly a fifth of the population which is deeply anti-EU. They form a large part of the PiS and those parts of the far right which haven't been coopted into the PiS. Most are strong Radio Maryja types. In terms of Atlanticism there is a significant Atlanticst minority, but the bulk are roughly evenly divided between those who have the same sort of attitude towards NATO as the above group, and those who are deeply anti-American, and thus anti-NATO.
The practical effect can be see with the Lisbon treaty that the Polish parliament just overwhelmingly passed. The government forced it through both as a way of showing that things are different than under the twins and because the felt it would provide impetus to the continued EU integration project in which they deeply believe. That doesn't mean they won't fight for more money, more favorable regulations, or their specific ideological vision, but that's normal within a federalist vision and framework. For their part the twins grudgingly supported the treaty - they signed it and then voted for it in spite of intense opposition within their own party (they're now 'Judases selling out Poland for thirty pieces of silver'). Indeed, part of the buffoonish bluster that so annoys the rest of Europe can be chalked up to an attempt to appease that wing of their party and electorate.
So what would happen if the Western states were to destroy NATO? You'd see a sharp shift along the spectrum in the euroskeptic direction with the consequences that entails. This is pretty much certain. The really bad consequences that might, but probably wouldn't happen? Imagine an economic downturn and a right wing authoritarian minded party coming to power which doesn't give a damn about not going too far for fear of Brussels - think a sort of Polish Chavez or a bit worse, with the same attitude towards the EU, and in particular Germany, that Venezuela or Iran have towards the US, only a lot closer.
Yep, no need to explain to me. (This parallels my point to EUropeans in France and further West about neoliberals not being Eurosceptic.)
think a sort of Polish Chavez or a bit worse, with the same attitude towards the EU, and in particular Germany, that Venezuela or Iran have towards the US, only a lot closer.
If I try to think of that, I see a posturing President that lobbies neighbours it can -- them being the Baltics and maybe Ukraine. However, on one hand, such a Poland would not have an oil wealth to dish out (nor military strength, which would be more to the point in the given context), limiting its influence on other countries. On the other hand, neither Iran nor Venezuela are connected in a strong political institution with the USA, so they are little help for me to imagine how such a Poland would act.
Here are my initial thoughts.
First of all, would NATO fall apart, I think the Polish elite (and population) would splinter into three camps:
But if the worst-case scenario of an autocratic and hostile right-wing Poland emerges,
By Chavez I meant largely democratic but with a fair amount of authoritarianism thrown in, very nationalist, very anti-neoliberal, very hostile to the business interests of the 'enemy', skip the socialist though not the revolutionary rhetoric, tons of bluster. Thus, on the Baltic pipeline you'd probably get threats to blow the thing up in any crisis. You'd also be likely to see far worse tensions with Belarus regarding the Polish minority in the West of the country.
that will be first of all really bad for Poland
Absolutely. Yet another good reason for any Pole to support NATO's continued existence.
If bilateral Atlanticism is so en vogue already, why do you think all of its supporters would turn across-the-board Eurosaboteurs?
By Chavez I meant ... very anti-neoliberal, very hostile to the business interests of the 'enemy'
(For others) read: German Capital Out.
blow the thing up in any crisis. You'd also be likely to see far worse tensions with Belarus
Hm, that'd bring a triple pipeline blackmail situation: Russia could blackmail everyone, Belarus could blackmail Poland, and Poland could blackmail Germany. Huh... *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Do you think the US or France or Britain bear the responsibility for making sure Poland's internal political struggle doesn't get out of hand, that domestic stability is guaranteed? Why is America responsible for making sure Poland doesn't end up being run by even nuttier nut jobs?
Isn't the existence of the EU duplicating NATO's European responsibilities? Why is America responsible for making sure Poland can sleep at night without fear of some perceived Russian threat? And if you believe we are, why Poland? Just Poland? Where do our responsibilities end? What determines who deserves our military help?
To be clear, I think we all probably have some responsibility to come to the aid of countries being invaded AND who explicitly ask for our help. But I don't see why we draw a line in the sand at the border of Russia. Because Russia has a history of invading Poland? Perhaps Poland will also need a missile defence system to protect them from Germany?
Leaving Ukraine aside (it seems clear there is not popular support for admission to NATO there) why don't Poland's concerns and grievances apply equally to, say, Georgia? Because Georgia has too many problems? Maybe that's just because they don't have the reassurance against their former imperial masters thus helping to stabilize them politically, reassurance that NATO has provided for other "ex-colonies" of Russia. No?
I agree that Russia's opposition to the enlargement of NATO is not reason in itself for us to oppose it. But Russia's reasons for opposing it are valid. They are no longer a threat to us in the way they were during the Cold War. With the change in political climate and perceived threats, NATO can either dissolve or evolve in a way that responds to reality. Which means acknowledging Russia's no longer the enemy and not behaving in a way that suggests otherwise. Even the most pro-NATO person on earth has to admit that NATO's purpose is to respond to and prevent threats against its members, not go out of its way to create threats where there are none. Which is what is going to happen. We're going to poke (missile shields) and poke (enlargement) and poke Russia and then if Russia turns around and bites us, we'll respond, "See? We told you they were still a threat." Fortunately, the people running that country seem to be more reality-based than those running America or Poland, so at most we will get a little nip and not any bloodletting. But we'll still spin it as "Rabid Russia attacks innocent X."
Chavez is rightwing?
Am I the only person of the cold-hearted opinion that some of the "ex-colonies" of Russia seem to want it both ways: to demand their (completely deserved, I think) complete autonomy and independence, and to demand they need one nutcase to save them or they'll just perish either from another nutcase( possible Russian threat or their own internal turmoil)? Of course, every sovereign nation relies on others for any number of things. But countries just freed from servitude to one insane, scary empire pleading for aid (which doesn't come for free) from another insane, scary empire seems a little schizophrenic to me. Out of one frying pan and into another... Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
I wonder how you play out my mind-game on this, too.
Let's imagine that NATO is dissolved, and Poland and the Baltics 'go rouge' for their internal reasons. It doesn't matter for our purposes whether what these governments do is rational, justifiable or ethical, let's view this from the viewpoint of major powers looking on.
One can assume that in a Baltics with Russophobia gone wild, the big Russian minorities would get a much worse treatment than today. (Maybe even civil war.)
So, how do you think Russia would respond?
And once Russia responds, what about the USA: (1) how should it respond, (2) how would it respond? *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
(I don't know off-hand if NATO member countries have ever faced a civil war during its existence (I assume Slovenia got its membership rather after the fact), so I don't know what NATO's policy is regarding internal conflict among its membership. I know you are arguing that without the safety net of NATO russophobia could explode. But it is an interesting question...)
So if Russians began being massacred by Poles, what would Russia's response be? I have no idea but am under the impression that the UN can intervene in these situations and I am fairly certain Russia would bring the matter to the UNSC. They'd probably play the energy card too. I'm sorry, but with regard to external matters, they do seem to prefer a diplomatic rte. first. And I think they have some leverage. Also, ... I still can't see the EU not taking action on such a matter. I do think it depends on what you mean by "much worse". Random hate crimes? Or government endorsed ethnic violence? Anyway...
Would Russia invade Poland if the Polish government endorsed ethnic violence toward Russians as a result of heightened russophobia brought on by the dissolution of Nato? Meaning: would Russia bomb Poland as a direct result of NATO not existing? I know there are people paid to sit in rooms and make up these scenarios, but really, on the probability scale, where are we? It seems an unlikely scenario, that Russia would invade or that there would be some kind of Polish ethnic (not that that's a really appropriate term) civil war.
Russia would (maybe should) threaten to invade if nothing is done to stop this hypothetical government endorsed ethnic violence toward Russians. "Government endorsed" because ostensibly the government has not prevented or put and end to it. Would they actually launch missiles? Not if the current regime gives us any indication of anything. I think Russia cannot afford it. Economically (will Europe still buy its gas if it bombs and EU nation?!) or politically. They've gained too much and their hold on it is too tenuous, IMO. Any military intervention in this hypothetical scenario should be done through the UN. Neither the US nor Russia should act alone. And I can't imagine the US intervening unilaterally on behalf of those commiting the ethnic violence. Well, unless they managed to convince America the Russians were Al Quaeda. Sadly for Poland, this is where the US and Russia are allies: GWOT. So I don't even think that would work. So it could even create a situation in which the US and Russia are allied against this psycho, Russian-slaughtering Poland.
YMMV. I may have no idea what I am talking about. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
No, we are talking about countries potentially getting mad at and maybe even leraving the EU. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Who knows what Russia or the US would do. We can also throw in, what if the UN didn't exist for the hell of it.
But I'd like to stick to talking about actual reality. Or are you in fact suggesting the rationale for maintaining NATO is based on a rather impressive list of far-flung scenarios. NATO dissolves ->Poland leaves EU ->Poland begins slaughtering Russians -> Polish civil war -> Europe does nothing -> UN does nothing -> Russia reacts unilaterally -> America reacts after Russia's gone and bombed Poland (no, you did not explicitly ask that, but it was implied).
Frankly, I think we'll all die from global warming before any of that happens... Or be invaded by alien unicorns. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
For me, only two radical hypotheticals are involved (NATO dissolution and worst-case-scenario outcome for the political landscape of the Russophobic block).
No need to get testy. I'm not suggesting anything, I explore possibilities to form an opinion, possibilities that I should consider if I want NATO dissolved (which I do want). If you don't like hypothetising, don't answer. (And don't call for NATO's dissolution either.) *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Well, Turkey (PKK vs. the Turkish state).
I know you are arguing that without the safety net of NATO russophobia could explode.
No. I'm exploring the hypothetical that without the perceived safety net and after going anti-EU and far-right-wing Russophobia would explode.
So if Russians began being massacred by Poles
That's hardly likely. I was talking about the Baltics, and it doesn't have to be a massacre for Russia to consider doing something -- there could be further legal restrictions on citizenship rights, pushing people to move to Russia, and yes random hate crimes.
They'd probably play the energy card too.
Hmmm, that figures. But then I can imagine further escalation if the USA or the EU or private firms do emergency supply.
And I can't imagine the US intervening unilaterally on behalf of those commiting the ethnic violence. Well, unless they managed to convince America the Russians were Al Quaeda.
Ah, but it's much easier, don't be forgetful. Just think of Kosovo, think of the Krajinas in Croatia. In 1995, the US DID support the ethnic cleansers. They have to convince the public that The Russians Started It, and then it's just.
Also, what about 'intervening' already before the conflict, by establishing bases? *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
You'll have to explain more. If I wasn't aware of it, I still don't know what NATO's policy is.
Right. Got it.
I was talking about the Baltics, and it doesn't have to be a massacre for Russia to consider doing something -- there could be further legal restrictions on citizenship rights, pushing people to move to Russia, and yes random hate crimes.
I'm sorry, that was unclear. Still the Baltics are also in the EU & Nato. You brought up civil war. I think it takes more than a hate crime to start that. You keep saying Russia would do something about some because of something. Vague enough for me to not be able to read your mind and yet be wrong ... heh.
Wait, are we or aren't we talking about ethnic violence? If you are talking about " legal restrictions on citizenship rights, pushing people to move to Russia, and yes random hate crimes" then how are they going to argue The Russians Started It? I'm not saying we don't support ethnic cleansers. I assumed we were talking about Poland (I see now we were not, sorry) because of Marek's comment. That has different emotional connotations for us. Nothing is impossible. But while I bet most Americans -like me- know nothing about the Krajinas, you say "ethnic cleansing in Poland" and everyone's on the same page. It's unconscionable. Talking about a country of people who go to Auschwitz for pilgrimages...
Also, what about 'intervening' already before the conflict, by establishing bases?
That wasn't what you asked.
Hey, what about NOT being Russophobic! Look at all of the bazillion hypothetical problems THAT would solve! Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Hey, what about NOT being Russophobic! Look at all of the bazillion hypothetical problems THAT would solve!
You mean if the pink alien unicorns would not be Russophobic? Yes, that is an interesting scenario.
Or maybe you meant our political leaders, but then it just gets so whacky unrealistic we could just as well assuming them to start acting in the common good.
I know that is not really what any country is saying.
But it seems to be the argument left standing in this game of "what would happen if NATO dissolved." Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
PS, you seem to be focussed on this war thing, but that's not what I was talking about.
In the Baltics any moral picture would be cloudy since it would likely not be a sudden pogrom but rather a spiral of mutual escalation.
However, the realistic worst case scenario doesn't involve war, but rather destabilization. The constant political and diplomatic headache of dealing with one crisis after another. The effect that has on economies. The damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemna of whether or not you throw the countries out of the EU.
Why do we keep talking about NATO as if the UN does not exist (however incompetent it is, it does exist!) -it is beyone me. What's with this "It's my poor little country and big bad Russia all alone in the world" complex?
You think without NATO everywhere else would cease to exist? You think that even without NATO, any incursion by Russia would not have geo-political consequences for nations that now belong to Nato. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
I do understand that. But I think there is a failure here to move beyond the outdated belief that America is necessarily part of the solution and Russia is necessarily part of the problem and to begin to explore how Poland can take the reigns of its own welfare and ditto for the EU. A stability which must rely on American imperialism -and that is what NATO is, like it or not, and fear of Russia is not a true stability, just like the missile defence is not a true defence. And it's frankly unfair to America and Russia because it impedes our ability to become closer allies.
A house isn't made stable by a guard dog, a shotgun and a fence. It's the foundation and the structure that keep it stable. Without that no external protection is going to mean shit. And that should be where you start. If Poland has problems, NATO isn't the solution, it's a stop-gap. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
On who cares - other than moral reasons, because instability in one part of the world does hurt others. The Europeans would have to be crazy not to care, and even the Americans would be affected. Hell, just in domestic political terms your worst case scenario would have interesting implications for the politics of your home state (think Miami on Lake Michigan).
Hmmm, do you have any concrete examples in mind? I could rather think of the opposite. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
