Questions have been raised concerning the wisdom of NATO’s commitment to its Baltic State members, including Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
The three Baltic states were conquered by the USSR in 1940 during Russia’s alliance with Hitler. They only regained their freedom after the Soviet Union collapsed. Those who fail to see the necessity of defending those countries ignore the lessons of history.
In the runup to World War 2, many questioned whether it was worth the effort to oppose Hitler’s invasion of the city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk). In 2014, the same year Obama withdrew U.S. tanks from Europe and Russia invaded Ukraine, an Economist article reported the concern raised by some in Poland: “SEVENTY-FIVE years after the start of the second world war, the West seems to capitulate again to aggression, say Polish intellectuals. Why die for Danzig? – this phrase has become symbolic of the attitude of Western Europe to the war that broke out 75 years ago. The French and British policy of appeasement emboldened the Nazi dictator to invade Austria, occupy the Sudetenland and finally crush Czechoslovakia without any serious consequences for Hitler and the Third Reich. Even when on September 1st, 1939, after the Soviet-German pact had been signed, the Western powers mustered up only enough courage to embark on the so-called phony war. Their belief in being able to save their own skin by turning a blind eye on the destruction of Danzig emboldened Hitler to make the next act of aggression. After that he captured Warsaw, then another European capital, Paris, and not long after that the Nazis started dropping bombs on London.”
The Trump Administration, in a sharp reversal of the Obama White House (which slashed military funding and, as previously, inexplicably withdrew all U.S. tanks from Europe) has increased defense spending and the U.S. commitment to NATO, even while concurrently sharply criticizing many alliance members for not contributing their fair share.
A Brookings Institute study analyzed U.S. defense spending compared to NATO allies.
To get rid of infertility it is advised to get the Hcg Hucog Injection which might increase the chances pdxcommercial.com viagra sale online of getting pregnant. Erectile Dysfunction (ED), or sexual impotence, is one of the most common sexual conditions in levitra prescription our link today’s time. Walking is one of the best exercises to improve your overall health, but make sure you do cheap viagra overnight not want to damage the aid further. Most of the cases, the problem occurs in men or women, al has a solution for levitra prices its cure.
“In 2017, the U.S. defense budget of $686 billion equaled 3.6 percent of GDP, by far the largest of any NATO member. The combined defense budgets of all other NATO members totaled $271 billion in 2017. Because most NATO members are small countries, only ten members spent more than $10 billion. In rank order, these are: U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Turkey, Spain, Poland and (just barely) Netherlands…In 2017, the defense budgets of the U.K., Greece, and Estonia—like the U.S.—exceeded 2 percent of GDP. France, Romania, Lithuania, and Latvia all were close—less than 0.3 percent under the two percent target. To meet the 2 percent target…four would increase their spending by $10 billion or more: Germany, Italy, Canada and Spain…if all NATO members had spent two percent of GDP on defense in 2017, the total increase in defense spending would have been $114 billion…”
In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2017,Lisa Sawyer Samp ,a Senior Fellow from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) described the relationship with the Baltics:
“Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—were quickly elevated as a U.S. defense priority. This was due not only to their multiple requests for assistance based on a perceived vulnerability vis-à-vis Russia, but also due to the emerging recognition within Washington that the NATO alliance…had likely underappreciated the need to take appropriate precautions for deterrence and defense in Europe’s own backyard… none could discount the possibility completely given ‘Moscow’s aggressive foreign policy and pattern of military intervention along its borders, combined with the strategic vulnerability of NATO’s eastern allies, particularly the Baltic States…[whose militaries] are small, geographically isolated, and lack mobility, firepower, and air and naval capability.’ …In many ways, the credibility of allies’ Article 5 commitment [which mandates that an attack on one NATO member must be treated as an attack on all] became tied to their response in the Baltic States. The United States became the first to respond by surging air, land, and sea forces into Eastern Europe. The immediate U.S. deployment sent a strong signal of resolve to Moscow, calmed nervous allies, and initiated what would become an alliance-wide reassurance effort that included additional force presence, enhanced training and exercises, prepositioned equipment, and infrastructure improvements. Since that time, the United States and its allies have begun to transition from reassurance-focused measures to those that seek to establish a longer-term credible deterrence.”
The Report Concludes Tomorrow
Photo: Stalin (Pixabay)