"Would the U.S. Go to War for Lithuania?" Topic

"You have to feel sorry for Lithuania and its three million inhabitants. Lithuania may be the largest of the three Baltic countries, but it is still only as big as West Virginia. It may be a member of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Schengen Agreement, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but it still has a 422-mile border with Belarus, a Russian lackey state.

Lithuania and the other Baltic states were part of the Russian empire for centuries and suffered under Russian Communist domination for 50 years. Being a part of historic Russia is not an experience the Lithuanians want to repeat.

The Lithuanians, 150,000 of whom are Russian-speakers, have provided moral support to the Ukrainians in their struggle with Russia, but only limited tangible support: "elements of armaments," according to Linas Linkevicius, the Foreign Minister of Lithuania, and mittens for freezing Ukrainian hands, knitted to mark the occasion of Lithuania's presidency of the European Union…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Nonsense. First: the question is not about the US, but about NATO. Second: NATO has no choice: an attack on one member is an attack on all members.

Why should they have to? No one is going to attack Lithuania… Some need "enemies" for a job.

An attack on any NATO state is considered to be an attack on all NATO states. So the the answer is simple. No, the US would not go to war because of an attack on Lithuania, but yes, it would go to to war in this case as it would be an attack on the US.

I doubt given our current posture we would put troops on the ground to defend anyone short of Germany or France.

Yes; because the US would lose all credibility in NATO and its other alliances around the world if it didn't live up to its treaty obligations – especially when NATO went to war for the US in Afghanistan after 9/11

JcFrog… I think you're being a bit naive, given Russia has already executed cyber-attacks against the Baltic states, and has massively increased its probing of defence sin the area.

And you don't need to take NATOs word for that, as the Finns are reporting the same.

Given the Balts have fought for America in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to expect to return the favour would be shameful.

Yes, Nato would have to.
What always makes me itch is that Nato/ Us always has flights near the Russian borders, has Elint missions of all types everywhere… If some one else could do the same it is a dangerous aggression.

For the Russians the extension of Nato east and proposed quasi inclusion of Ukraine can only be seen as aggressive.

If you take out 1968 cz, the Russians have invaded no one since 1946+.
The French have err… "Helped" a lot in Africa.

Nato attacked Serbia.

The Usa invaded Irak. Grenada, Panama….

Ok, it normally does not hurt to be ready.

Btw the baltic states are routinely condemned for their unfair treatments of Russian speakers. I know they have hundred years of history, but those chaps are not responsible for Stalin or Alexander 1st.

Understanding the others get you way further than bullying. And it is most useful if in the end you had to fight.

JcF, so Georgia doesn't count either, right?

Or Abkhazia and South Ossetia (though I guess that could just be counted as Georgia)?

I suppose Hungary doesn't count either?

Or Afghanistan?

Rob

Oops yes… Forgot stan # 1; and Hungary. Thought when I was typing, got interupted then forgot them.
Well Georgia….yes and no, the Georgian attacked the controversial bit and got kicked for it.
iI understand it might have been a trap but …
Well the bits on the south…are contested.

The. UN. Supposed arch doctrinal borders are unmodifiable can and should be challenged the way they are/ were done.
A can of worms but for many locals not worse than what they live.

And that doctrine is brandished only when suitable. Mostly for external use by some countries who shout do what we say not what we do.

Then being as wrong as others do not make it right either.

Not many can give lessons or claim a clean sheet.

I would like to think we would, but under current circumstances I am not entirely confident.
-Kle.

Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO history: by the United States after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

"What always makes me itch is that Nato/ Us always has flights near the Russian borders, has Elint missions of all types everywhere… If some one else could do the same it is a dangerous aggression."

And you have examples…?

Strange then that Russia completely fails to make propaganda capital of this gift, n'est pas?

Just the usual ways since the 60s…
They are basically quite paranoid about every one wanting them down.
No need to add much to it.
Maybe they don't do so much " propaganda" as you have been told?
Did you live there?

What do you think Ec135 and Ep3 do of their free time, study martian life?
( and other, I am a wee bit rusty on this mainly cold war time).

Quite happy to see 'Lithuania' re absorbed.

Then you must have examples of them 'doing what the Russians do' (i.e. ing about in controlled airspace without squawks or calling/responding to controllers, deliberately making dangerous manoeuvres at close proximity to other aircraft and generally violating every single rule of the air)… You made the statement. Back it up.

I know reasonably well what EC-135s do and how they do it.

You clearly don't.

Quite happy to see 'Lithuania' re absorbed.
--------------
Zargon, free world and all that but I can't help but think that for someone living in South Africa, you seem quite happy to see the inhabitants of various East European nations (from your not dissimilar comments on Ukraine) go back under Russian control – why? Yes these countries have ethnic Russian/Russian speaking minorities, some of whom might want to be Russian citizens but by no means all even want that (per the various Russian speaking Ukrainians I have met) let alone the consequences for the majority of the population, be they Lithuanian or Ukrainian, who certainly don't want that.
PS no need for brackets around Lithuania – its a real country – existed from the Middle Ages off and on

Lithuania was part of Russia through conquest from the 1st partition of Poland until WWI. Then it was independent again up to 1939. Between 1941 and 1944 it was -technically- independent again, and then from 1991 to the present. So no, no matter how you put it but that the statement that "Lithuania and the other Baltic states were part of the Russian empire for centuries" is disingenuous at best.

"If you take out 1968 cz, the Russians have invaded no one since 1946+".

Let's leave Czech. in, for completeness.

So, we have:

1. Hungary,
2. Czechoslovakia,
3. Afghanistan,
4. Georgia,
5. Crimea (a part of Ukraine),
6. and Eastern Ukraine (another part of Ukraine).

Who's next?

I would like to think we would, but under current circumstances I am not entirely confident.

Don't forget about the various population relocation programs while Lithuania was subjugated and also while "technically" independent. Doesn't usually happen to independent countries.

And you have examples…?
NATO, CIA and other western overflights and probes are just better planned and more subtle. Ivan does not have anything like the TR2.

I know reasonably well what EC-135s do and how they do it.
Good for you!
Though why you think its operations have anything to do with Elint is beyond some of us…
Back to Wikipedia for you!
Now if you had said RC-135…

Doh (facepalm)! :)

RC-135 was the fella I meant – should have just said Rivet Joint (though Nimrod R1 is more my era).

"NATO, CIA and other western overflights and probes are just better planned and more subtle. Ivan does not have anything like the TR2."

a. They don't do 'overflights' unless by satellite. That ended with Gary Powers.

b. By 'better planned', 'probes' and 'subtle', I presume that you mean 'completely openly and within international law, aviation regulations and acepted norms of civilised behaviour'…?

Rivet Joint. Those yanks can sure picky pith nicknames for their plabes cant they!

Ahhh the glorious Nimrod!

Dreadful, isn't it? I want to know why we haven't changed the name of the ones we bought?!

The project to buy them was called 'Airseeker' which is almost as bad.

The R1s of 51 Sqn were a strange lot. They (or the Sqn) didn't officially exist when I was in the RAF. I even spent two months on the same station without knowing they were there. :)

By 'better planned', 'probes' and 'subtle', I presume that you mean 'completely openly and within international law, aviation regulations and acepted norms of civilised behaviour'…? I am not sure I do. Entirely…
They should and they ought.
But they never did that with SR71 – largely because they could get away with it.Perhaps because they are all designed around airliner airframes and they are a bit 'bleedin' obvious on the radar.
I think I mean that the kit 'should' be so good that actual overflight is unnecessary. Its ages since I knew anyone in the business. But you would think that these days our fellas would be super ace at this business.
I hope that by flying circles in the Baltic enough can be seen.
Cognitive dissonance is a fantastic tool for the military. You cant hide aeroplanes that big but if everyone from the Air marshal dowwards pretends hard enough. 'PUFF!!!' they are not there! I am sure that game had Ivan fooled for sometime.

Actually Lithuania was already invaded in 1991 after declaration of independence in 1990.
link

That is why all Eastern Europe countries so desperately wanted to be in NATO.

Yous should note that in Ukraine is not the war Ukrainians vs Russians.
Many, if not most, Ukrainian soldiers are Russian ethnicity Ukrainian citizenship soldiers and volunteers (who fight for their personal freedom and access to Western Europe).
Many, if not most, separatists are Russian citizenship soldiers of Russian Army with not-Russian ethnicity.
Yes, Russians also are fighting against Putin, just because they have enough of quasifeudal system, f.ex.:
link
______________

Why USA should fight for Lithuania?

1. Dollar
If USA doesn't want to fight for Lithuania, USA economic credibility will fall. Along with value of dollar.
Germany will join BRICS (as it openly discuss it already), France will follow. Dollar will lose position in international markets.

2. Nukes
If USA doesn't want to fight for Lithuania, USA military credibility will fall. Many nations will start ABC programme to bolster their defence. First Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Ukraine (Ukraine still have all necessary infrastructure and scientists and Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is already dead). Secondly (in reaction) Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordania, Gulf States, Germany. Then Spain, Italy and Poland, and few others.

How long does it take to acquire one of those ABC warheads by ISIS or AQ and ship them to NYC or LA?

3. History

Once upon a time there was a country. This country liberated itself from Russian rule after bloody war. Its president desperately asked for international support, esp of USA. Nation was strongly pro-USA then (Rambo 3 was most favourite film). They asked for help from West, got nothing. So they turn to Islamists…

Two wars, many atrocities and 200 000 deaths later, nation was islamized, partially subjugated while embittered fighters dispersed around the world. They now hate both Russia as well as USA.

link
link
link
link
link

Before the WW2, French people asked: why die for Danzig?
link
Well, since they didn't want to die for Danzig, they had to die for Paris instead.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."

Not at my computer, but I have been reading a fascinating piece about how many countries are no longer even able to maintain their military capability without passing through China for key components. Should the US go to war over Lithuania, China might just shut down all production and block exports to the US, potentially cripping the military capability if the war drags on for any length of time.

Globalisation has the potential to cripple countries that have outsourced key production related to the military to foreign shores. Ditto for the assets that were closed, shut down or sold off over the years.

Combined with risings costs, there is a fear that many NATO countries are no longer able to field viable forces having heavily invested in "policing" militaries designed to deal mostly with minor crises once the Cold War was over. Important purchases of new equipment have been downsized considerably or postponed altogether.

Not that Russia is any better shape. It too is suffering from systemic problems that greatly weaken it. Though I suspect that Putin has banked on his bluff not being called and that the worst case scenario would involve a "token" response for fear of escalating into a full blown war.

Let's leave Czech. in, for completeness.

So, we have:

1. Hungary,
2. Czechoslovakia,
3. Afghanistan,
4. Georgia,
5. Crimea (a part of Ukraine),
6. and Eastern Ukraine (another part of Ukraine).

They fought China a few times too, but I have no idea who started those.

They also play plenty of "military observer / advisor" games, just like we do.
-Kle.

Many, if not most, separatists are Russian citizenship soldiers of Russian Army with not-Russian ethnicity.
--------------
Umpapa -I'm a bit unsure what you mean by not-Russian ethnicity? I hope its not some sort of claim that they are all Siberian/Mongol types?
Whilst I don't doubt there are some link I doubt its many if not most. NB the comments in that string remind me that as much as I dislike Putin style Russian Imperialism, some of those in pro-Ukrainian anti Russian camp (whether ex-pat Ukrainians whose grandads were in the SS or Schuma or people who just don't like Russians due to the association with Communism) come out with garbage too 'russia is the land of the northern apes' and are equally despicable

GNRREP8:

I am a Pole (with lone distant ancestors from Germany and Russia), some members of my family was killed by Soviets, most by Germans (3/4 of my mothers family), one (brother of my grandpa) by Ukrainians UPA (train driver chopped with axe). None of my family worked for USSR, III Reich or Ukrainian nationalists. I am not fan of neither USSR, nor III Reich nor UPA/SS Galizien. Their attitude to my family was simillar.
Frankly I am a bit worried of Ukrainian nationalists (due to gloryficating UPA) and dislike Lithuanian nationalists (for opressing Polish minority) but its Putin which endanger international order and openly threat my homeland (me personally) with nukes.

First things first: I can argue with Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Germans and Russians about history, but its Putin regime (not Russian nation) which may kill me and my children (and Russian nation in the process as well).

I do not understand how You have received my neutral comment as racist?

Debalcevo pocket was closed (most important task!)by unit consisting in 90% of Buddists Buryats.
Best soldiers Russia has.
link

Caucasus batallions sent by Kadyrow are used at most important tasks.

Of course, there is also a lot of Russians in separatist force:
link
link
link

Crimean Tatars are fighting for Ukraine, though:
link
:)

My (Ukrainian) wife is from western Ukraine, the heart of nationalist territory. The woods near her city were famous for partisans. They seem to be under little illusion that Bandera was much more than a xenophobic bandit – if you weren't with him, you were against him – but a convenient 'hero' who fought against both Soviet and German oppression, using whichever side gave him the result he wanted.

They are concerned about the nationalist groups, but don't really see them as much more than a pain in the ass taking advantage of limited control, rather than any real long term threat to stability. That seems to be reserved for the fighters in eastern Ukraine, which they generally believe (from talking to friends and family in the east) are not locals, but mainly Russian or mercenary externals.

I do not understand how You have received my neutral comment as racist?
------------------
The comments I was making were mainly directed at the ones on the link (where ironically the posters were trying to actually be racist about Russians) but i do think that saying that the many if not most of the Russian troops are not ethnic Russians is simply just not near being accurate