U.S. recon aircraft fled from Russians into Swedish air space in July

Peace in our time.


Boeing RC-135 (Image: Wikipedia)
Boeing RC-135 (Image: Wikipedia)

New post up at Liberty Unyielding.  Enjoy!

One thought on “U.S. recon aircraft fled from Russians into Swedish air space in July”

  1. Indeed. Though I guess there is a silver lining. The Swedes did not shoot it down, and there is a message in that for the Russians.

    A US admiral, I can not remember who, some time ago said a naval confrontation with Iran would be a knife fight in a phone booth. A Baltic confrontation with Russia would be worse. It would be, I submit, a disaster.

    May I request, therefore, that we step back, to have a look at the whole picture. This is what I see:

    The subject is NATO, its reason for existence and ability to serve its purpose.

    The findings: not good.

    NATO has been weakened by expansion, particularly to include the Baltic States. This process has not proceeded with careful thought, but rather with the deliberation of a bandwagon at a county fair.

    NATO was formed for purposes of defense against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed. In the wake of this event a fair question to raise would have been this: Is NATO needed any longer ?

    Though many may have wondered about this in the not too distant past, no one that I know of has ever raised this question. And for sure, it would not have received much consideration, for NATO has practically doubled in size since then. Let us consider the ramifications.

    The Baltic States now can claim NATO protection. But the Baltic States are indefensible by NATO against Russian reoccupation. That is a fact of geography. It will never change.

    Have you ever been to Kalinigrad ? You and I should go there sometime. I would be interested in the history and architecture. You might find these and other things of interest as well.

    As an Army War College professor and NATO expert has recently observed, the Baltic States are not a suitable place for a large NATO presence, because they are small and offer little space for training.

    For this reason, the expert said, Poland would make a better choice for an expanded NATO presence.

    Wow ! Brilliant deduction. And I will carry it one step further.

    In the event of actual or seriously threatened general hostilities between NATO and its presumed foe anywhere along its eastern strategic frontier, NATO would abandon the Baltic States. It would not commit any assets it could not afford to lose to their defense.

    Would it send any ground forces to their aid in such event ?

    Estonia shares a border with Poland of about sixty miles, between Kalinigrad, Russian, and Belarus. In a time of actual troubles, NATO forces coming to the aid of the Baltics would have to file through this narrow, muddy, land corridor, which would prove to be a killing ground for them.

    In a time of heightened tensions, and quite possibly any time, Russia would not tolerate a large reinforcement of the Baltics, nor permanent presence there. I.e., that would result in war.

    Conclusion: therefore, only in the event of general hostilities along the strategic frontier between NATO and Russia (and Belarus), would NATO think of coming to the aid of the Baltics, and in that event, it would be impossible.

    Conclusion: the expansion of NATO in to the Baltics, if any thought at all was given to it, was premised upon the assumption that NATO had outlived its purpose, and would never, never, be called upon to come to their defense.

    A good rule of thumb for such things would be this: never form a defensive alliance with a nation that can not defend itself.

    NATO now finds itself over extended and is a very fragile alliance. This is dangerous; more dangerous than if it had struck its tents and gone home.

    This recent incident shows signs of this. It is suggestive of many historic parallels, none good.

    R/s, TPH

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: