Alide Forstmanis, Vice-President — Government Affairs of the Latvian National Federation of Canada (and candidate for the Conservative nomination in the Federal Riding of Kitchener-Waterloo) informed me of another missive from the Russian tundra, this time directed directly at the Baltics.
The stir, which is causing the Russians anxiety, is over the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) component which is being proposed for Poland (ten missiles) and Czech Republic (radar listening). This is Russia’s opposition, similar to the kind it offered when Central and Eastern Europe was joining NATO, except louder.
The US explains that they are simply listening in and ready to fight North Korea and Iran, not Russia. Russia doesn’t believe the US.
Former Russian Air Force Commander Pyotr Deinekin said “Moscow must take into account of the deployment of US missiles in the Baltics.”
According to Deinekin, “US anti defense systems in Eastern Europe would allow the US to increase their ability to discover and destroy Russian missiles in their early lift off stage.”
Deinekin added,“Moscow can anticipate US tactical missiles to be deployed not only in former Warsaw Pact countries but in the Baltics as well. This is why the Russian General Headquarters must calmly take the appropriate steps not only to defend itself from missile attacks, but be able to destroy missiles that set up in Eastern Europe.”
NATO long ago indicated that there would be no nuclear weapons stationed in the Baltic states. They would be too hard to protect for one thing.
Another Russian Air Force General, Igor Khvarov indicated that any weapons stationed in Eastern Europe by the US could be easily destroyed by Russian bombers and missiles.
With all this threatening going on, why is the west still giving Russia ten billion dollars to clean up its nuclear submarines, left as military garbage in the Murmansk area (Canada’s share is two billion), when Russia is busily rearming itself? Ask your MP, especially if your federal representative is a Liberal , as they were the ones who gave the money to Russia.
For more information on Alide Forstmanis’ campaign please dial in at http://homepage.mac.com/talfox... .
Russian threats spill over to the Baltics (4)
Archived Articles | 09 Mar 2007 | Adu RaudkiviEWR
Viimased kommentaarid
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
I too agree that Estonia is better off as a NATO member than not. And while the EU is an economic union, it does provide a some defence against Russian attacks, diplomatic or otherwise in the form of sactions, tariffs etc..
However, Maxim is correct to sound caution about being overly confident about NATO's willingness to come to Estonia's defence. If I were a German, American or even Canadian legislator, I'm not sure that I would tolerate the costs -economic or political- of any such operation and aside from the moral duty, I'm not sure that any benifit would be found.
However, Maxim is correct to sound caution about being overly confident about NATO's willingness to come to Estonia's defence. If I were a German, American or even Canadian legislator, I'm not sure that I would tolerate the costs -economic or political- of any such operation and aside from the moral duty, I'm not sure that any benifit would be found.
...Maxim misinterprets a state of affairs and instead of asking himself why he seems to out of step with the rest of the world, he boldly announces that, "Everyone is out of step but me!"
Responding to you point-for-point is impossible because a reasoned response to a chaotic outburst is comparable to trying to mix oil with water.
So, instead of a response, I'll alert you to something that you've overlooked. The EU establishes a free-trade zone. It has nothing to do with the military defence of any of its member-states. By contrast, NATO is a mutual defence alliance. Certainly, it has some deficiencies. Nonetheless, Estonia's membership in NATO looks like a better option than either splendid isolation, or, a potential alliance with another country or countries. (Don't tell me that Estonia would be better off alone, or in some alliance with Russia, Finland, Poland or some such contrived combination.
This is not an invitation to dialogue, Maxim. It's just a reminder that you're irrational, uninformed and a crushing bore.
So, instead of a response, I'll alert you to something that you've overlooked. The EU establishes a free-trade zone. It has nothing to do with the military defence of any of its member-states. By contrast, NATO is a mutual defence alliance. Certainly, it has some deficiencies. Nonetheless, Estonia's membership in NATO looks like a better option than either splendid isolation, or, a potential alliance with another country or countries. (Don't tell me that Estonia would be better off alone, or in some alliance with Russia, Finland, Poland or some such contrived combination.
This is not an invitation to dialogue, Maxim. It's just a reminder that you're irrational, uninformed and a crushing bore.
Archived Articles
TRENDING
