The United States of America is upping its military presence in Eastern Europe and this will definitely get Russia's attention and Russia will have to quickly "call" or "raise" the ante (to use poker terms).
Read an think:
1) Which of the PEES does this fall into and why?
2) Why would the US be doing such a thing?
3) What does this do to an already unstable area?
4) Who is going to benefit and who is going to lose from all of this?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nato-eastern-europe-brian-stewart-1.3441038
Mark this one:
ReplyDeleteMy immediate reaction when I first read ``U.S. President Barack Obama, who began pulling most U.S. troops out of Europe in 2012, is now shoving them back in, along with enough new battle tanks and artillery for another full infantry brigade to directly face Russia in Eastern Europe.`` was that the only reason this was happening was for fear. Today's society perpetuates fears of situations and people that are not threats. Presidents and people in power know that if they can instill fear in a population they can control and manipulate it, and i think this is what Barack Obama is doing. President Obama is sending these troops into eastern Europe to give U.S citizens a sense of security from a non-existent issue. People in the U.S will think that President Obama is protecting them by inserting these troops meanwhile all he is doing is wasting tax money and lives. As i read further in the article i realized that it is conveniently coming up on an election and I think that President Obama is creating this fake fear and sense of safety in hopes of stirring up some votes from U.S citizens. After this move of troops there will be 82,000 troops on Russian borders which in my opinion is about 82,000 to many. The one thing I wonder about this is how Vladimir Putin will respond to this increase in troops. While i do not know Vladimir Putin personally (obviously) I really get the feeling from things I have heard about him and things he has done that he will not take this the way that i hope President Obama is intending it (non-violently). I think he will see this as an act of aggression and will start to prepare troops in the event of President Obama making a poor decision and making an aggressive move with these troops. I am interested to see where this situation goes, I just hope it does not go bad.
Good post. Needs an article to back up your opinion. The article makes you think of the cold war and arms race.
DeleteMark this:
ReplyDeleteI am slightly confused about what the idea of sending a new brigade into Russia will accomplish. Many world leaders are already praising Obama for his actions.
"We appreciate President Obama’s decision to boost funding for an increased U.S. military presence on the territory of NATO’s front-line allies,” the Czech Defense Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday Feb.2nd.
It is upsetting that these governments do not realize that sending in more troops will only cause further confrontation on a larger scale. What did Obama hope to accomplish? Could he not foresee that the Russian occupation would only increase? Leading to potential armed conflict between the U.S. and Russian armies, it does not take a genius to see this. Making the connection to risk, armies are used to fight wars, although there is no current war between the U.S. and Russia, these actions could start one. While playing Risk, if you notice your opponent building his armies in a region next to yours, you know his intention is to attack. However, this lack of attacking-while building up forces on both sides- can easily lead us into a sequel to the Cold War. Although, there are those who do not believe this is a possibility, such as Eoin Micheál McNamara, a NATO specialist at the University of Tartu in Estonia who stated that “This is not signaling a return to Cold War-era deterrence, which relied on a very heavy U.S. military buildup in Europe." What is happening now, can easily be compared to the Cold War which had citizens living in fear for over 46 years. But as Keith said above, armies these days, are now used for fear, and to draw attention. So if Obama used this new brigade to attract attention in eastern-Europe, what is it he is trying to hide somewhere else?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/world/europe/eastern-europe-us-military.html?_r=0
Add:
DeleteNot only is this a political issue, but also an issue for the economy. The U.S. government has already overspent their budget on military expenses of $786 million, and is proposing to continue to raise the costs up to $3.4 billion. This will cause a problem in the U.S. economy, as well as the Russian economy, as they move to react to this event.
I totally agree. The advances from both parties is making the fear of a second Cold War become very real. Not only the fact that the U.S. is stepping in, but that Russia is slowly invading more space and starting to look like Germany did just before World War Two. This is becoming an increasing issue and it will be an issue for all of the PEES if it isn't already. Economically, wars costs money even though it can make a country richer, and cost the public money. Taxes were introduced in Canada during World War One to fund the armies fighting, and the taxes were to be terminated when the War was finished but the government made too much so they kept taxes in place. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't want increased taxes to support a war if the Russia situation becomes a war. Politicly, nations in war especially big nations like the U.S. and Russia is a politic issue. The earth on which they are fighting becomes damaged which is bad for the environment; some parts of Europe are still recovering from World War One and that was 100 years ago. In addition, both of these nations hold more nuclear weapons than it would take to wipe all life off of earth, which is definitely an environmental problem. Socially, we all know that war is bad and this potential "Cold War sequence" can cause lots of social unease. I don't think playing a game of Risk is the best move with these Nations; the thought of a second Cold War is very frightening and playing Risk could make things worse.
DeleteGreat post. Very cold war like isn't it. What effects will this have on the already strained relationship between the two countries?
DeleteMark this one:
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am glad that Obama is finally backing up his words with action I don't think this is how America should be treating Russia right now. I have disagreed with almost every single action Obama has done with his foreign policy, and think he should treat Russia like Bush Jr. did, as a friend and ally not an enemy. Antagonizing Russia by killing Gadhafi in Libya and supporting rebels wanting to overthrow Assad in Syria has soured the relation that Bush worked hard to obtain. I also don’t understand why Obama thinks Russia and her allies are our enemies, Gadhafi was a secular leader that was not nearly as bad some of the dictators that America is allied with now, and Assad is also a secular leader and had make Syria a fairly safe place for Jews and Christians before the civil war.
Right now though I think for whatever reason Obama dislikes Russia it should be put aside so everyone can focus on a common enemy in ISIS. America should not be condemning Russia’s assault on ISIS land but praising it and possibly even helping them. As for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, after listening to both sides I believe that Russia is in the right. The Ukrainian government was overthrown by alleged neo-Nazis and there is no substantial evidence that there was anything fishy about the Crimean referendum. So I don’t agree with Obamas actions here though I do respect his back bone.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/12/middleeast/syria-inside-nubl-after-siege/
https://www.rt.com/news/crimea-vote-join-russia-210/
Great post. Reminds you of the cold war doesn't it?
DeleteMark this one please...
ReplyDeleteAs a High School student my knowledge on foreign affairs and relationships is lacking. That being said this article throughly explained to reasons why Obama took action. I fully agree with the actions that the USA will take.
Although it could be seen as antagonizing Russia, it is the minimal action that must be taken to ensure safety for Eastern European countries. If these smaller Eastern European states fear that Putin will pressure them (or worse), it is the right thing for the USA to protect them. As a world superpower, the USA is able to attend to these matters diplomatically but effectively.
In a recent interview, Ben Hodges stated "Russia does not want to fight NATO. When all 28 nations are together, the economic and military and diplomatic strength of the alliance is way more than Russia would ever want to tackle." I believe that USA presence will deter Russia from forcing the smaller Eastern European countries. The persistent pressure from the USA will counters Russia's consistent pressure towards other countries. (link -> http://www.npr.org/2016/02/05/465672051/u-s-presence-in-eastern-europe-is-vital-commanding-general-says)
Rick Lyman of the New York Times reminds us that "Mr. Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and his continued support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine (...) have unsettled many of the former Communist states in the region and have led to increasing demands for a concrete Western response." The USA is merely suppling the to the demands of these states. ( link -> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/world/europe/eastern-europe-us-military.html?referer=https://www.google.ca/)
I look forward to seeing the USA successfully attend to the problems of Eastern Europe and eliminate the force Putin has over said countries.
Hi Emma! I would definietely like to agree with your opinion on the situation. I certainly agree that Obama and the USA are justified in the position, as Russia is an immediate threat to the surrounding Eastern European countries. But, I am not sure how Putin and Russia will take this; I think that it will be taken offensively and may cause some unwanted violence between countries.
DeleteI like to think of things in the reverse situation to better understand. Although the USA is not an immediate threat to Canada or South America, imagine if they were. If Russia barged in and sent troops to protect us Canadians, we would be thankful, but USA would likely be very upset. As you could see, this would likely cause a battlefield.
But, we have to keep in mind that this is not a real or current situation and that Russia does seem to be a more prominent threat to other countries due to their mysteriousness.
All in all, I still believe that in order to keep peace amongst Russia and Eastern European Countries, a mediator (in this case USA) is needed. I think that we will have to wait to see more action to better analyze the situation but as it stands now, I agree with your opinion.
BRITTANY ASTOP-FORD
Good post. What other impacts could this move have on the relationship between the two countries?
DeleteThe relationship between Russia and the USA is already fragile. However, the actions that Russia has taken and threaten cannot go without consequences. Putin has expressed disdain for the USA, so I feel that the his relationship with Obama was not the greatest in the first place.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete