Stupid Foreign Policy Tricks
I’ve been planning this article for some time, but I’ve been waiting for something suitably illustrative to show up in order to give it the punch that’s really needed to make my point.
Those of you in the know about networks and are computer savvy probably know about what has been happening in Estonia over the past month. For the rest, let me bring you up to speed by linking to this.
The really short version is that it is very likely that the Kremlin has orchestrated a cyber-conflict over the recently independent nation’s disrespect for the Russian dead of World War 2. It may be hard for a Westerner to understand, since the realities of the Second World War in the then-Soviet Union are so horrific as to be incomprehensible. Let me give you one simple statistic that should bring it into perspective: The Soviet Union lost more civilians in Leningrad during its siege than the United States did soldiers during the entirety of the War.
Lally would know better than I what the present feelings in Moscow are about The Great Patriotic War for her generation, but the older generations in Russia lionized their war dead.
There is also a lot of remaining hard feelings in the Baltic Republics over the ill-treatment of the intelligensia during their occupation by the Soviet Union for the fifty years following the war. Therefore, the moving of a statue symbolizing the Russian dead was not the trivial thing that one would imagine.
Normally, this would not present a problem for us. Russia has imposed sanctions, there’ve been some riots in Tallinn, a cyber-attack that might be due to someone getting over-excited in the Security Agency, some border tension. No big deal, right?
WRONG, WRONG AND MORE WRONG
The neo-conservatives within the Bush administration have seen fit that in order to insure the victory of “democracy” in the world, it was necessary for the Baltic states to join NATO.
Let me show you something from the NATO charter:
ARTICLE 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area…
Ladies and gentlemen, what this means is that the United States government, (while you weren’t looking) has gotten us into a situation where, if the Russians decide that the Estonians have pissed on their statue and invade, the United States is obligated, by treaty, to go to war with them.
And that, I believe, speaks for itself. You can be horrified now.
Tom
Comment by Brandon on 29 May 2007 at 12:57 pm:
What? Not up for a good ol tussle with Russia? Bah!
Comment by Brandon on 29 May 2007 at 1:01 pm:
Yeah Tom, that just means Russia wouldn’t be stupid enough to invade Estonia over a statue. Funny thing deterrence can be…
Comment by J. Prescott on 29 May 2007 at 1:17 pm:
Tom -
The lack of credit you give us about NATO, Estonia, and foreign policy was astounding.
While we weren’t paying attention Estonia got in? Excuse me? It was on the front page of a bunch of newspapers when it happened, ran on CNN and drudge for several days, and was the basis for a metric ton of editorials. You know, back in the late 90s when these countries were applying to the EU and NATO and signed the US-Baltic Charter. This ain’t a Bush thing, its a Clinton thing, so we can we please stop blaming Bush for EVERY FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE EVER. The Holocaust wasn’t his fault either.
Nor is Article 51 that big of a surprise, NATO is a military organization, and it would be kind of pointless if something like Article 51 wasn’t in there.
Russia ain’t going to go pick a fight with Estonia because of NATO, and China won’t let them. Russia and China have been participating in joint military exercises for a while, and China has provided significant monetary support as Russia’s government tends to be corrupt and broke. Things are going too well for China for them to allow a World War to break out now. Because Russia goes in, so goes China, and they can’t be sure they are going to win. It also goes against Mao’s 23 points, which has been pretty much the backbone of chinese policy for the past 60 years. Since China pretty much has Russia in its grasp, and Russia attacking Estonia is not in China’s interest, it won’t happen.
So I choose not to be horrified.
Comment by tet on 29 May 2007 at 1:29 pm:
Prescott, if it was a Clinton thing, then why did Estonia not join NATO until 2004? I guess Bush just wanted to take the credit for it, eh?
Here’s the Clinton Era Partnership agreement as far as security goes:
The Partners will consult together, as well as with other countries, in the event that a Partner perceives that its territorial integrity, independence, or security is threatened or at risk. The Partners will use bilateral and multilateral mechanisms for such consultations.
The United States welcomes and appreciates the contributions that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have already made to European security through the peaceful restoration of independence and their active participation in the Partnership for Peace. The United States also welcomes their contributions to IFOR, SFOR, and other international peacekeeping missions.
Building on the existing cooperation among their respective ministries of defense and armed forces, the United States of America supports the efforts of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to provide for their legitimate defense needs, including development of appropriate and interoperable military forces.
The Partners welcome the establishment of the Baltic Security Assistance Group (BALTSEA) as an effective body for international coordination of security assistance to Estonia’s, Latvia’s, and Lithuania’s defense forces.
The Partners will cooperate further in the development and expansion of defense initiatives such as the Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion (BaltBat), the Baltic Squadron (Baltron), and the Baltic airspace management regime (BaltNet), which provide a tangible demonstration of practical cooperation enhancing the common security of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and the transatlantic community.
The Partners intend to continue mutually beneficial military cooperation and will maintain regular consultations, using the established Bilateral Working Group on Defense and Military Relations.
Note the conspicuous absence of committment of US troops and words to the effect of “an attack on one constitutes an attack on all.” Membership in NATO instituted all of that.
You are not understanding the situation, guys. If there’s enough GPW sentimentality going around, Russia is MORE THAN capable of attacking Estonia because of the stupid statue. They were renting time on botservers in order to try to bring down the Estonian government and economy.
If they do attack(and I’d give it about a one in five chance right now) the US will be forced to renounce the treaty, pretty much insuring the end of NATO as an organization. The Russians see the Baltics, as well as the Ukraine and Byelorussia as Russian-run buffer states historically.
None of you remember the Cold War, do you? Dumber stuff happened every day.
Tom
Comment by tet on 29 May 2007 at 1:37 pm:
Here’s a wiki article on the Soccer War of 1969:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War
Note how, when the necessary underlying causes of a war are present, the triggering event which causes war to break out can be seemingly unimportant.
There’s a certain group of assassins in Sarejevo that comes to mind, too. The people that were shot in that case (as well as the assassins) weren’t even from the countries that ended up ravaged by four years of following war.
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 29 May 2007 at 1:50 pm:
Tom -
You are incredibly overreacting.
Yeah, they didn’t join until 2004. Because of the Membership Action Plan instituted in 1999 which compels aspiring members states to meet certain standards. They applied 1999, didn’t qualify, altered their plans, and then got in 2004.
There is a distinct difference between a covert action taken against and overt military action. You began by saying for those of you who understand how this stuff works. We are a class of individuals that grew up with computers and the internet. If we can’t understand the specifics, how would a bunch of eastern europeans? Me, I think they get it. I also think that they know what they are involved with. They are in the EU, and consistent attacks on their financial infrastructure amounts as an attack on the EU, possibly one of Russia’s best friends, economically. They continue to push this envelope their shallow, brittle economy will be broken by the US and the EU, and the bread lines will come back. Russia won’t push it.
As for not understanding the Cold War, I lived 18 years with a man who got his master’s in Eastern European history and spent the majority of his life studying Russia from the Tsar to modern day. The topic of the Cold War tended to come up. Dumber shit did not happen during the Cold War. In fact, most of the time Russia and the US went out of their way to avoid direct overt confrontation with each other. How else can you explain the Berlin Airlift?
Quit assuming we are ignorant.
Comment by tet on 29 May 2007 at 2:07 pm:
I just deleted about three different sets of commentary on this. I figure that I’ll just let it play out in the headlines and that we can look back in a bit and judge who was right.
One thing, though–Prescott, I disagree with you one-hundred percent on your analysis of the Russians right now. I don’t expect them to either be pressurable by China, nor intimidated by the Paper Tigers that the EU and US are at the present time.
With Putin at the helm, they’re going to rev up their characteristic fear of being nyekulturny and disrespected into a power grab that’ll knock your socks off.
There are others who have been studying European history for four decades besides the one who instructed you.
And for the record, virtually everyone out in the US is ignorant of history and political science, since their knowledge comes from the popular press. It’s usually a safe bet to assume this and carefully explain the truth to them. Since you’re an exception, we can discuss the finer points, no personal insult was intended.
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 29 May 2007 at 2:10 pm:
Tom -
With regards to your Soccer War and nice allusion to World War I, neither work.
The Soccer War is too small to be comparative. In a large conflict like the one that you are envisioning, there would be circuit breakers which would diffuse situation, namely allies. A regional conflict, between only two countries, wouldn’t have that and is therefore not applicable.
With World War I you are probably referring to the treaties which “dragged” the other countries into it. Thats popular conception doesn’t jive with history. First, the pact between Germany and Austria-Hungary was defensive. Germany expanded it to include offensive actions, going beyond what the original treaty said. England had no treaties with either side, yet they jumped in anyway. Italy had a treaty with the Central Powers, yet sided with the Triple Entente. The treaties in this case are more explicit and binding. The parties in WWI weren’t dragged anywhere, they jumped in on their own accord. The lines here are more clearly drawn, and China won’t back a Russian play. Its a suicide pact if the Russians attack.
Comment by tet on 29 May 2007 at 2:13 pm:
One interesting final note–I don’t think that I’m particularly paranoid about this, now that hostilities have actually started.
Please note that Pat Buchanan came to virtually the same set of conclusions before the Cyberattacks even started….
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20560
Note to above commentary–it’s not a suicide pact because the United States would abrogate the treaty and the Russians KNOW it. It would be a humiliation and revenge for the US in reply to our screwing with them for the past 20 years.
[In addition, England entered WW1 due to an 1848 treaty ensuring the borders of Belgium.]
Tom
Comment by tet on 29 May 2007 at 2:29 pm:
Sorry, wrong date on the treaty between the British and the Belgians. It was signed in 1839:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/london1839.htm
Tom
Comment by kofi the wait? we're not at war with china? oh. on 29 May 2007 at 3:41 pm:
Tom’s fears are completely justified as evidenced by our ongoing war with China as a consequence of defense agreement with Taiwan.
Comment by kofi the wait? we're not at war with china? oh. on 29 May 2007 at 3:41 pm:
Tom’s fears are completely justified as evidenced by our ongoing war with China as a consequence of defense agreement with Taiwan.
Comment by kofi the wait? we're not at war with china? oh. on 29 May 2007 at 3:41 pm:
Tom’s fears are completely justified as evidenced by our ongoing war with China as a consequence of defense agreement with Taiwan.
Comment by tet on 29 May 2007 at 5:02 pm:
The jury’s still out on that one, Kofi. Wait until the US’s standing in the world has dropped for another decade or so.
When we’ve managed to fritter away what’s left of our armed forces in 4GW for a bit, we’ll see how terrified our new Chinese masters are.
Taiwan is going to be integrated as surely as Hong Kong was.
Tom
Comment by Brandon on 30 May 2007 at 5:51 am:
Tom -
Your condescension is baffling. You’re talking down to us like we’re a bunch of children rather than overly educated and much more well-informed than the vast majority of our counterparts yet you expect us to hail you as a messiah for the knowledge you impart. I could just imagine what the scriptures would have looked like and Christianity for that matter if when asked a question Jesus had laughed and said “no stupid!”…
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 6:49 am:
Actually, if you read the gospels, Brandon, he did that quite often.
That’s why there were parables instead of essays–so dumbasses couldn’t get it the first time.
There are other people reading this besides you and Prescott, although neither of you know nearly as much as you think. I am mostly writing for those other readers, since this blog is moving more and more away from a DI Circle-Jerk.
Tom
Comment by kofi the age does not trump on 30 May 2007 at 10:04 am:
Chemistry (or physics or whatever it is) makes Tom particularly well qualified on this - and every other - subject. What was it my high school teacher used to say? “Science is everything!”? An natural expert in everything - he invented calculus (tomulus?) - Tom is also old. Like all old people, he has developed a sage-like wisdom that can only be obtained by years of hardcore substance abuse while observing from the sidelines.
Seriously though, Brandon makes a valid point. You make good points, Tom, and I’m sure there are times when each reader completely agrees with you and is even struck by the insight you bring to a topic. I am equally certain that there are time when each reader thinks you are completely off base and talking out of your ass. Their youth does not necessarily make them wrong. It’s true that somethings are best learned through experience and therefore older individuals probably know better. Examples of such things: resolving interpersonal conflicts, managing personal success and failure, raising children. Example of things that require more than 40 years of paying attention: resolving interstate conflicts, manging national success and failure, foreign and domestic policy.
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 10:13 am:
Somehow in all of that, you’ve managed to raise a smile, Kofi.
I wish we could have a few hours to sit down together. I think you’d come away with a reasonable appreciation of the things that I am actually good at.
Zorba’s sometime?
Tom
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 10:33 am:
Hey, wait a damn minute!
You guys are spending a great deal of time bandying veiled insults about my qualifications to speak on this without justifying in the least your views on it. That often means that an opponent ain’t got a leg to stand on.
Prove your worth. If the Baltics being NATO members is not a truly stupid idea, justify it.
Examples of interference in other nations’ spheres of influences that were not ultimate disasters would be good.
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 30 May 2007 at 11:08 am:
Monroe Doctrine, China today bullying the Japanese in the pacific, West Berlin.
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 11:33 am:
Have to go with you on the Monroe Doctrine, Prescott, for the most part. It did begin falling apart once McKinley and Roosevelt began using it to promote Manifest Destiny, and it was a total disaster for Eisenhower and Kennedy. [Grenada came out ok, though.]
We don’t know whether or not the present-day Chinese bullying of Japan will work out, since that situation has not come to a final resolution yet.
Considering the present shape of Germany after reunification (and the fact that families were separated by machine-gun nests for a generation), I’m not sure I would consider West Berlin a rousing success.
I’ve got two questions for you, Prescott: Is there anything that Estonia possesses that would be worth the United States going to war? Oil? Steel? Hard currency? Trading partner? Cell phone manufacture? Naval bases?
If not, then how can we justify placing ourselves in a situation where we would be forced into WW3 over that country?
I know that it would take an act of irrationality for such a war to start, since it is in no one’s current best interest. However, wars in the past have certainly broken out due to the actions of madmen. How can we justify our continued peace being held hostage to the continued mental health of a Russian leader?
There’s an awful lot of Vodka over there, and as a former substance abuser, I can understand that it’d be pretty bad for a future Prime Minister to wake up after a bender and ask, “I did what?”
Tom
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 30 May 2007 at 11:37 am:
Tom,
First I resent any suggestion that this website is no longer a DI circle jerk. Since when have you been opposed to circle jerks anyways?
Also, as Brandon has mentioned, introduction into NATO probably makes U.S. military involvement with Russia less likely, not more likely. NATO ain’t no wimpy UN organization, it’s a bona fide badass. Its deterrent effect on Russia is sufficient to encourage diplomatic solutions, which makes your entire point moot and exaggerated.
Putin’s mama didn’t raise no fool: Russia v. NATO = No more Putin and a devastated Russia.
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 11:52 am:
So, Billy Joe, what are the strategic benefits to the United States of going to war with Russia over Estonia? What do we get from the Estonians that justifies our defense of their nation?
What troops do we have available with which to defend Estonia versus the Russian army? Can we get our aircraft carriers into the Baltic? How about the armies of the rest of the NATO alliance? They all ready to go? Would Germany and Spain even cooperate? Would we be forced to threaten them with a nuclear exchange over Talinn?
Can you picture Nancy Pelosi allowing the House to vote in favor of a war with Russia?
NATO was a force to be reckoned with in the 1980s under Reagan. Now, it’s a Paper Tiger. If Putin decides to call our bluff over this, we’d have no choice but to back off, humiliating ourselves in front of the entire world. This is a very bad position to put ourselves into.
He’s a realist, which is why he currently has an approval rating three times that of Bush in spite of his crackdowns on personal freedoms. He is also testing new ICBMs that are designed to defeat the US anti-missle defenses. Our payback for a decade and a half of fucking with Russia is on its way.
Tom
Comment by kofi the i could fit the plunder of estonia in a self-storage unit on 30 May 2007 at 12:28 pm:
First, thanks for the invite but my anonymity wouldn’t allow it. Maybe some other time.
Second, I didn’t say admitting Baltic states wasn’t stupid. I haven’t given it enough thought to form a detailed opinion. All I did say was that I don’t subscribe to your vision of Russia damning 90% of humanity for the plunder of Estonia.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 30 May 2007 at 1:01 pm:
Tom!!!! THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A U.S. WAR WITH RUSSIA, RELAX!!!
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 1:15 pm:
Ok, Billy Joe, I do not believe for a minute that there is going to be a war between the US and Russia over Estonia. Honest. 80% liklihood Russia either backs off or continues covert actions. 20% probability Russia moves against Estonia overtly and US backs down.
The gist of my argument is that the United States, by pushing the expansion of NATO into the Baltics (or beyond–there are some who want the Minsk government or the Ukraine to join the Alliance) is acting in ways that are as far from our self-interest as you can get.
One of my dad’s old sayings was “Never Tease Anyone Who Has a Gun.” The United States is not in any shape to fight a war with Russia right now except by using nuclear weapons. Russia has a large list of grievances from the last 15 years against us, as well as a leader who wants to restore some of his nation’s former glory.
During the 1980s, the United States had no wars going on anywhere in the world. Our Army and Navy were well-trained, well-equipped and at their highest strength ever. Our European allies were ready and willing to join us to repel an invasion through the Fulda Gap.
None of this is true any longer. I believe that it is the height of idiocy to put ourselves in a position where we cannot live up to our treaty obligations.
Keep one eye on the aftermath of the May Cyberbattle. It could turn out to be the Guernica for the next big war.
Enough said on the subject. Kofi, I hope someday that our respective anon status can be discarded. Mine’s gone the 10th of December.
Tom
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 30 May 2007 at 1:40 pm:
It’s not in the interest of the U.S. to prevent Russia from re-expanding its borders and destabilizing its neighbors?
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 2:34 pm:
It is arguable that it is not.
On the other hand, it is irrefutable that to the Russians, the Americans extending their influence and destabilizing their neighbors (e.g. influencing the Ukrainian elections, for instance, with NGOs) is not in Russia’s best interest. [Nor is building an anti-missle shield in that area, whether the US says it’s going to be to stop Iran or not.}
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has attacked Iraq twice, Afganistan once and bombed Russia’s Serbian allies. The US has built airbases in several Asian former-SSRs and has encouraged all of Russia’s former buffer states to join either the EU or NATO. The US is also threatening an additional state (Iran) within Russia’s traditional sphere of influence.
During the same period, the Russians have not invaded a single independent nation. They’ve fought losing 4GWs in areas rebelling against the central authority, but they’re not marching through Georgia, for example.
Considering that the US right now is probably the most militarily aggressive nation on earth, I’d say that Russia’s paranoia is more than a bit justified, nyet?
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 30 May 2007 at 4:00 pm:
Presenting the US’s actions like that is intellectually dishonest.
The first attack on Iraq was under the auspices of the UN and done with the consent of the Security Counsel, including Mother Russia. You also left out Somalia, which was also a UN/NATO operation. The US was dragged into Kosovo kicking and screaming by their European NATO allies under the pretense of thats where WWI started. Afghanistan and the second Iraqi war were our idea. Casualties of civilians in Iraq is 100,000 people in Iraq, 1300 in Afghanistan, bringing the total to 101,300 people.
Between the 2 Chechen wars, there was 500,000 Chechen civilians who were killed.
And the US is the most aggressive military on earth?
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 4:49 pm:
Prescott, Chechnya falls under the same category as the US Civil War–renegade state that wanted to secede.
As far as the US being the most aggressive military power on earth, tell me–who has more soldiers stationed in more nations on earth than the US?
How many people has the United States killed in the last decade?
And as far as the numbers on Chechnya goes, I have no idea where the hell you came up with the half million figure. The maximum estimate that I’ve ever seen was 200k for both wars and that was mighty dubious.
Here’s the real number of dead in Chechnya with sources:
Russia (1994 et seq.)
War in Chechnya, 1994-96
16 May 2001 AP: Russian soldiers: 3,826 kia + 1,906 mia in 21 mos.
Amnesty International: 20-30,000 (”Russian Federation: Brief summary of concerns about human rights violations in the Chechen Republic” (April 1996) [http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1996/EUR/44602096.htm] )
cited by Amnesty International: Russian Presidential Commission for Human Rights: 27,000
Global Security: “1,500 Russian troops and 25,000 civilians had died by April 1995″
SIPRI 1997: 10,000-40,000 (1994-96)
War Annual 8 (1997): 40,000
CDI: 50,000 (1994-96)
Dictionary of 20C World History: 80,000
Ploughshares 2000: 80-100,000
6 Dec. 1999 Time: 4,000 Russian soldiers + 100,000 Chechens, 1994-96
Renewed fighting, 1999
6 Dec. 1999 Time: 4,000
Ploughshares 2000: >5,000
16 May 2001 AP: 3,096 Russian soldiers in 20 mos.
Both Wars:
11 Nov. 2002 Time: 38,000 combatants + 200,000 civilians
11 Nov. 2002 Newsweek: 100,000 civilians
Collected from The Twentieth Century Atlas of Warfare.
Tom
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 5:26 pm:
Same source: Iraqi civilians/military in First Gulf War gives a median value of 75k from a total of 20 reliable sources.
Bombing campaign of ‘98 only did in about 1300 soldiers, but there are various estimates of up to 100k premature deaths between the wars due to the various embargoes and the theft of money by the Saddam regime during this period. I don’t think the US should be strictly held responsible for that.
The best estimate I can get of the current war has only been counted up to mid-2005 due to the general breakdown of order as the country disintegrates, but it’s somewhere around 48-58k total dead between the beginning of hostilities and that time.
Serbian bombing by US–around 1600 deaths, military and civilian.
Afganistan comes in at somewhere between 4k and 10k for the two years of heavy fighting at the beginning of the war and a dozen or so per week since.
I can get a lot more specific if you like.
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 30 May 2007 at 5:40 pm:
Tom -
First of all I love how you condescend about “the real numbers.”
You used private. I used government. The Pro-Moscow Chechen government has said 300,000 are dead with another 200,000 missing. The Chechen separatists have concurred with that range. Granted, they don’t have the force of Amnesty International, with all of their letter writing, or Time, but when two sides of the same war can agree on casualty numbers, that says something. Check wikipedia, they have the links there.
As for US forces stationed overseas, real quick, how many of those bases relate to World War II and whose soldiers are there by invitation? Further, in 2004 Bush proposed the transfer of 70,000 troops and their families back to the US and to begin closing down American bases in Europe and Asia as they were a “product of the post-World War II era” and the “Cold War.”
There are 331 US military installations in the world, 77 of which are abroad. Of that 77, 27 are in Germany, 10 are in Japan, 9 are in South Korea, 4 in England, and 9 are in Italy, for a total of 59 WWII and Korean war related bases.
There is a grand total of one permanent base in the Middle East. In Bahrain.
You act like the US has been getting its jollies going into wars. Quick question, under the sainted Clinton we tended to fight wars too. I would be all for walking away. But here is the thing; the world, outside of China, has shown no prediliction to attempt to be self-sufficient. Anytime there is any military conflict, the UN, or NATO, or Amnesty International, or the Girl Scouts come to the United States and force us to enter. See Kosovo. See Somalia. The honest truth is, the western world in particular, wants us to be heavily militarized, but they want us to be puppets and only use it when THEY (the EU) want us too.
Their position shows a baffling lack of respect and common sense. So if we are the most militarized country in the world, well duh. The world needs us to be. Just like they need us to be fat slobs who spend alot, because their economies are so crappy that they cannot pick up the slack if we were to be more spending conscientious.
The United States, militarily, is the product of the world in which it resides, as all militaries in history have been.
Going back to Russia, yeah they have more man power. But we have more twice their planes, over double their naval capabilities, which is important with Estonia being a pennisula and all, and a satellite system that has been vastly improved while theirs has rotted. We have over double the missile defense systems that will protect our planes and our bases.
The Russians have more armor, but they are all T-90 tanks, which represent the finest of 1992 technology. While there are less US Bradleys, they were revamped in 2000 and include such things as thermo targeting, laser based range finders, and other fun stuff that the T-90 just doesn’t have based on real world testing. They have quantity, we got quantity. And yeah, their man power exceeds our own, but that diminishes when you consider they have to invade another country, which gets a US force coming into help a lot of friends that know the countryside better.
Russia goes in to Estonia, they lose. They know that. And if Putin tries to go in, his Politburo will kick his ass.
Comment by tet on 30 May 2007 at 6:25 pm:
This is deteriorating into a pissing contest. You consistently fail to grasp the concepts. Let the readers decide on the issue.
Oh, one last jab, although it’s typical of your sloppiness–like the English Treaty with Belgium:
Russia hasn’t had a Politboro for fifteen years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Russia
You can double-check with your expert, if you like.
I’m done.
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 30 May 2007 at 6:53 pm:
I know that Russia hasn’t had a politburo in 15 years…it was an allusion to Putin’s KGB/Commie past and totalitarian tendencies.
But I guess that is because of your inability to consider any other point of view than your own. It must be really hard to read anything as you attempt to pat yourself on the back constantly.
Comment by kofi the line? what line? on 30 May 2007 at 7:29 pm:
Geez and I thought my tongue-in-cheek ribbing danced precariously close to the line.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 30 May 2007 at 8:05 pm:
Kofi,
Are you ready to email me your true identity yet??? pretty please??? billyjoemills@gmail.com
I’ll keep it a secret if you tell me to.
Comment by Evan on 31 May 2007 at 4:10 am:
Let’s settle this with an academic decathlon!… Meeeeee verrrrrsssusss you. Winner gets to take over Madison Hotels.