Donald Trump says his administration might not back NATO allies if Russia invades

[uhnope]

Source: The Week

In a 45-minute interview with The New York Times in his Cleveland hotel room on Wednesday, Donald Trump spoke at length about foreign policy. He shared some interesting ideas, all tied to his theme of "America first." He said he would "pull out of NAFTA in a split second" if Mexico and Canada didn't agree to renegotiate on terms much more favorable to the U.S., for example, and suggested America has no place telling countries like Turkey to respect human rights: "When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger."

But perhaps the most unorthodox part of the interview was Trump's views on NATO, the 28-member military alliance of pledged mutual defense in Europe. The Times asked Trump what he would do if Russia attacked the Baltic States, the newest members of NATO, and Trump said he would come to their aid only after looking at whether they "have fulfilled their obligations to us," financially and otherwise. "If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes," he added.

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said in response that "Ronald Reagan would be ashamed" of Trump's abdication on NATO and his "bizarre and obsequious fascination with Russia's strongman, Vladimir Putin." ("And he's right," former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum tweeted of Sullivan's analysis.)

Read more: http://theweek.com/speedreads/637537/donald-trump-says-administration-might-not-back-nato-allies-russia-invades

---

Don't forget that Trump's campaign chairman was a long-term lobbyist for Putin's henchman in Ukraine before he was ousted by Maidan.

I can only hope that the military voting community will now be reeling in disgust from Mr Trump

[OKNancy]

1. same article/interview is discussed here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141525250

[uhnope]

4. thx. I think this article is different in its specific focus

so I will let admin decide

[MFM008]

2. What does he care about a pact

As many wives as he's been through.

[anoNY42]

3. Doesn't this quote kind of indicate

that Trump will not seek to solve our country's problems with civil liberties?:

""When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger." "

Or is he saying that our stance on civil liberties will be much worse under his administration and that it will be useless to lecture Turkey?

[cynzke]

13. AND HILLARY IS THE "TRAITOR"??????

If Hillary or Obama said these things, there would be more GOPERS and rightwing nutjobs SCREAMING for a firing squad. And how ironic....Trump calls the US on its shoddy civil rights record and MEANWHILE, the RNC is further eroding civil rights. Where are all the super "patriots", why are they silent as Trump talks smack against the US?

[agincourt]

5. Peacenik babbling by Trump,

to try to rope in Bernie supporters. It doesn't really mean anything, it's like W talking about needing more "humble" foreign policy. The republican party is still an imperialistic party, it wouldn't go away with a Trump presidency.

[PearliePoo2]

6. "whether they have fulfilled their obligations to us, financially and otherwise."

Oh this is rich!
THIS coming from a con man who screws people out of what he legitimately owes them on contracts he made with them.
The hypocrisy is off the charts

[chelsea0011]

29. Really. Imagine if the bankruptcy court in this country just said screw you....

live on the street?

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Where's the expected howl of outrage from John McCain?

You'd think there would be a reflex response on this issue.

[Astraea]

8. I'm all for abandoning NATO

Let the Europeans take it over and fund it. It's all about their security after all, isn't it? Why do we have to be the world's police?

Plus, I'm not buying this "the Russians are coming the Russians are coming" nonsense. It didn't do us any good before and it sure as hell isn't going to do us any good now.

[scscholar]

32. With Poland antagonizing them, it might happen

Then, I happen to agree with tRump that we shouldn't defend the aggressor. Poland is trying to start something.

[whistler162]

35. I hear that Poland plans on attacking

a radio station across the border just like Poland did in 1939 to start their war with Germany!

[scscholar]

36. Interesting

The more than 30,000 NATO troops Poland used as a propaganda piece just a month ago was bad enough. They're deluded to think Russia is going to be afraid of being threatened with 30k troops. They're just poking sticks at a bear, and they'll want to drag us into a war.

[uhnope]

37. nice tag team, people

right according to script
rferl.org/content/how-to-guide-russian-trolling-trolls/26919999.html

[LanternWaste]

42. The St. Petersburg internet crew works 24/7.

The St. Petersburg internet crew works 24/7.




http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/

"Based in St. Petersburg, the agency was staffed predominately by young people, many of whom were unable to find jobs elsewhere, Savchuk said. They were given targets such as President Obama, Europe or Ukraine, and ordered to celebrate two characters: Putin and his defense minister Sergey Shoygu."

[Adrahil]

38. That's a load of horsehit.

Russia has attacked two of its neighbors, and has massed troops near the Baltic states, and it's Poland saber rattling? Give me a fucking break.

[LanternWaste]

40. What specifically leads you to believe Poland desires an offensive military action against Russia?

What specifically leads you to believe Poland desires an offensive military action against Russia, and from what objective source is that premise derived from?

[nikto]

53. Me, too

Russia is Neocon Target #1.



I don't cotton to Neocons.

[Astraea]

9. Plus, if they didn't want any conflicts with Russia

They never should have opened NATO membership to all the former soviet bloc countries on Russia's border.

I've heard there was a backroom deal that Gorbachev made -- he was willing to unify Germany provided that there would be no NATO expansion to the East. But the powers that be said it was just a verbal agreement that meant nothing, so here we are.

[uhnope]

10. that's a debunked urban legend

and like your other post on this thread, a Kremlin talking point

Russia This Week: Gorbachev Confirms There Was No NATO ‘Non-Expansion’ Pledge

[dhill926]

23. yep.....crazy....

[nikto]

54. The Interpreter is a Neocon rag---I'm, surprised, and disappointed, you even cite it

https://www.thenation.com/article/neo-mccarthyism-and-us-media/

http://www.occurrencesforeigndomestic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Madsen-on-NeoCons-in-Intel-Community.pdf

https://off-guardian.org/2015/12/20/new-east-network-who-is-the-guardian-speaking-for-part-1/


The question every Neocon Democrat must ask themselves:
Have I become Cheney?

[uhnope]

57. you actually linked to Wayne "Obama is Gay" Madsen

And you're questioning my sources? OMG the Internets are unreal sometimes, just unreal...

The Interpreter is a daily translation and analysis journal funded and presented by Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. In addition to covering political, social and economic events inside the Russian Federation, it chronicles Russia’s war in East Ukraine and its intervention in Syria in real time.

Your links, however... The Nation is a joke when it comes to coverage of Russia, and you actually have linked to Wayne "Obama is Gay" Madsen (who was dissected by The Nation for that!).

The Kremlin has thousands of paid propagandists flooding the Internet with messages like yours that serve to deflect from facts about Russia, like the fact that Gorbachev denied there was any Nato non-expansion promise...The tag team on this thread sure looks like it. I'm not saying you're one of them but your message and methods are the same. I mean, come on, you link to Wayne "Obama is Gay" Madsen. Case closed.

[nikto]

58. I am no "Kremlin paid propagandist"

But the folks making your arguments remind me of the paranoid McCarthyite ravings of the 1950s.
Dangerous, unhinged stuff, but ubiquitous.
I was there, and the resemblance is disturbing.

As a kid, I remember the less-educated adults in my town saying crazy things (like, "hit them 1st, before they hit us", and "Theyre
just going to roll right in here and take over!&quot .

You are part of a long tradition in America, and may not even realize it.

JMO, but I predict, a war with Russia could definitely bring back the Draft.

You got kids?
Willing to spend their lives on a war with Russia?
The Neocon Establishment is.

Be careful which bandwagons you jump on, just because other Democrats do so.

Just curious,
do you support TPP as well?

[uhnope]

59. you warn of "Dangerous, unhinged stuff" and you link to Wayne Madsen

grab a mirror

[nikto]

60. I agree I was hasty when I grabbed the Madsen piece

I admitted to an error.

(Still think you are incorrect on slamming The Nation, BTW).


But now, will you answer my simple questions on TPP ands war with Russia?

They are not trick questions, and I asked them sincerely and civilly.

How about it?

[uhnope]

61. and I apologize for being rude.

I don't want war with Russia. I would like freedom and democracy for the Russian people and Putin in a Hague tribunal.

I'm pretty agnostic about TPP. I don't know what to believe. NAFTA was a big disaster, I do know that.

[nikto]

63. If you research TPP, I guarantee you will oppose it

Loss of US Sovereignty in regulating the activities of international corporations (as incredible
as it sounds) is what will result. The loss of jobs will happen too, but that isn't even the big deal with TPP.

TPP makes NAFTA seem gentle and benevolent in comparison.

Democracy Now has had some good interviews on it.
But there are many good sources of info on TPP.

Please look into it.

It's a biggie--Huge effects will result.

The MSM has very little on it (surprise!), and keeps the public in the dark on the issue.

IMO, that's how the corporate media basically supports its passage,
because virtually everyone who learns about it, opposes it.

[Adrahil]

39. Well, of course, those former Soviet Satellites should be left to deal with former master.

Right?

C'mon. Russia is a second rate power. It has smaller economy that ITALY. Its only strength is military. It longs for its formal imperial power, and picking on it's former salve states is how it wants to do it.

[Astraea]

46. Still, not our problem

n/t

[spud_demon]

11. The good news is the President lacks the authority to pull out of NATO

NATO membership happened by ratifying the North Atlantic Treaty. Under the U.S. Constitution, a ratified treaty has the same force as a ratified constitutional amendment. The President can't just cross it out, like he can with an executive order.

NAFTA is in between. It was ratified by law, not as a treaty.

[pampango]

12. Just one of many international agreements Trump wants to tear up. But

don't call it 'isolationism'. He doesn't like that word.

[yellowcanine]

14. I guess Trump doesn't know what the T in NATO stands for.

NATO is a mutual defense TREATY. Presidents are bound to uphold treaties.

[happyslug]

16. Have you read the Treaty?

Here is Article Five of the NATO Treaty:

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

The key phase is :
will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

In simple terms if the US wants to use force, it can do so if another member of NATO is attacked, but does NOT have to. If the US decides that the best way to address the attack is to write a nasty letter, it has fulfilled its obligations under the NATO treaty.

[yellowcanine]

17. And how does this statement square with that "key phrase"?

Trump said he would come to their aid only after looking at whether they "have fulfilled their obligations to us," financially and otherwise.

There is no "looking at whether they have fulfilled their obligations." If they are a NATO member in good standing, that has been taken care of already. Trump has no understanding of what a treaty implies.

[happyslug]

19. My point was the NATO treaty contains NO OBLIGATION for the US to do anything.

All the treaty requires is the US to "respond" and that response can be the use of force by the US Military but a MILITARY RESPONSE IS NOT REQUIRED under the NATO treaty. Thus if President Thump decides that any invasion of Latvia or Estonia only deserves a nasty phone call to Putin, he would have fulfilled any US obligations under the NATO treaty by making that phone call. Trump would have "Responded" and that is all the treaty calls for. I cited Article 5 of the NATO treaty, read it, it only requires a "Response" and clearly states that can be the use of force, but also says the use of force is only one type of response that MAY be done. Nothing in the NATO treaty actually requires the US to use force.

I know that is NOT you understanding of the treaty and if you asked most Americans it would NOT be their understanding of the Treaty, but that is what the actual treaty says.

[geek tragedy]

25. No.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all

This requires more than writing a letter.

[happyslug]

30. No it does not......

You are missing the key phase, "Such actions as deems necessary".

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

The paragraph makes NO requirement to do anything a treaty member does NOT "deems necessary". The sentence goes on and says the "Use of Armed force" is ONE OPTION a member state MAY do it they deem in necessary, but that is NOT the same as requiring the use of any armed force. If the President of the US decided all that is "necessary" is a nasty phone call to Putin, then the US has fulfilled its obligations under the NATO treaty.

Technically you can say the same thing about an attack on the US, if the President decides NOT to respond to such an attack, the President is under no LEGAL obligations to do so. Politics may force the hands of the President but he is under no Legal Obligations to do anything if the US is attacked. The same with the NATO treaty, if the US does not deem military force necessary, the US has no obligation to provide military force.

This weakness of the NATO treaty was the main reason for US troops in West Germany during the Cold War. US troops were in Germany NOT to stop a Soviet Attack, but to show that the US would use its nuclear deterrent against such an attack. The US President would be forced to use Nuclear Weapons to protect those American troops or face losing reelection (or even impeachment if the American people demanded it).

Sorry, the NATO treaty never required US use of force, that use was guaranteed by US forces in Germany. Today, US Forces are still in Germany but the issue will the US send them to Estonia or Latvia in sufficient numbers to stop a Russia Invasion (and is sending those troops so dangerous that it will provoke the attack it is supposedly designed to stop)? The RAND think tank did a paper on this a few months ago and concluded that NATO would need a full Armor Corp (Seven Brigades, three Brigades to a Division, two to three Division to an Army Corp) to hold onto Estonia and Latvia in case of a Russian invasion of either country, but the report fails to mention that same force could take St Petersburg in 72 hours also.

The RAND report:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1253.html

[CanonRay]

15. Nothing like giving Vladimir a green light at the Lithuanian border.

What an idiot. Remember when we looked the other way when Saddam wanted to go into Kuwait. It's not enough to avert your eyes.

[happyslug]

24. Russia has have and spoken of any problems with Lithuania.

Russia have had problems with Latvia and Estonia, both of which have huge Russian Speaking minorities, mostly in their urban centers. Lithuania has very small number of such Russia Speakers and unlike Latvia and Estonia have granted those Russian Speakers full rights as Citizens of Lithuania.

Now, Lithuania has readopted the Draft and made preparation for any Russian Invasion it really has NOT increase defense spending (i.e. Lithuania have adopted low cost defense measures to show it will defend itself but nothing that really changes the military status quo).

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-lithuania-manual-foreign-invasion/26802181.html

A lot, if not most of the Anti-Russian agenda in Lithuania is driven by internal politics as it is in Poland (Politicians accused each other of being in the pay of Moscow in both nations for they see being "Anti-Russian" as a vote getter even as Russia is their #1 trading partner):

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/lt-forrel-ru.htm

There are tensions but nothing anyone is willing to go to war over:

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/how-russia-sees-baltic-sovereignty-48143

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/02/25-interview-lithuania-russia-threats-linkevicius

The real difference between Estonia and Latvia and the Russian attitude to Lithuanian is simple, Lithuania. while it separates Kaliningrad from the rest of Russia, Kaliningrd is NOT St Petersburg nor is it on the Road to Moscow. Estonia and Latvia have been uses as bases for invasions of Russia, by the Viking around 900 AD, the Teutonic Knights during the Middle Ages, Poland in the 1600s (along with Lithuania) the Swedes in the 1700s and to a degree Napoleon and Hitler (By the time of Napoleon and Hitler, the Baltic States had been incorporated inside of Russia, by Catherine the Great prior to Napoleon and by Stalin just before Hitler attacked Russia). Thus Russia does NOT feat the Baltic States in and by themselves, but Russia does fear that anyone else can use them as a base to invade Russia Proper.

St Petersburgh is within 72 hours march of Estonia. American M1 tanks can reach St Petersburgh from Estonia on one tank of oil with more then enough oil remaining to maneuver and fight. Moscow would require a more extensive supply and support for NATO forces to reach, but it is doable and the main road in Russia is from St Petersburgh to Moscow.

Thus Estonia and Latvia presents a threat to Russia, not by themselves but as members of NATO. Lithuania present no such threat EXCEPT if they move into Latvia and Estonia first.

One last comment, Russia, except for the Kaliningrad enclave, does NOT border Lithuania. Belarus borders Lithuania to the East of Lithuania, Latvia to its north, Poland to its south. Thus Russia can NOT invade Lithuania except through a third country, the Baltic Sea or Kaliningrad. That is a huge limit as to Russian forced crossing the Lithuania border even if everyone gives the Russians a "Green Light".

[tavernier]

33. Being of Latvian heritage and knowing that

two previous generations of my family were sent to Siberia by Russia, you do not convince me that poor Russia is threatened by Latvia and Estonia. Russia is interested in owning these countries for their location, but not as a means of self defense. That's a good joke.

[happyslug]

41. Read the RAND Report, it says what NATO has to do to "defend" Latvia from Russia

Russia can take over Estonia and Latvia within 72 hours. At that point NATO either has to accept it or go nuclear and the RAND study point out, accepting it will be the best option. Whether you like it or not, Russia can take over Latvia at any time it wants.

My point was Russia has refused to invade Latvia so for as long as Latvia is NOT tied in with a major power, Latvia is NOT a threat to Russia. NATO should NEVER have been extended to Estonia and Latvia (Russia accepts the UN treaty obligation that you can NOT conquer and annex a country (The Soviet Union made the same claim and then said the Baltics all voluntarily rejoin the Soviet Union in 1940. This is an argument between the Baltics and Russia, Russia say the vote to join the Soviet Union was a fair vote, the present Government of the Baltics said the vote was rigged).

It is NATO being in Latvia and Estonia that is what the Russians fear NOT Estonia or Latvia. Lenin accepted the Baltic nations as independent for with no contact with Germany, Sweden or Britain (or any other major power) the Baltic nations are NOT a threat to Russia. Stalin had the same position till Hitler made his moves (and it is Hitler who gave the Green Light to Stalin to take over the Baltic states, a move objected to by the West but one that the West refused to STOP for the West from looking to Stalin as an Ally against Hitler).

Stalin did not attack the Baltics till it was clear Hitler had defeated France. Russian troops moved into the Baltics same day as German Troops entered Paris. Thus Stalin knew he would have no German interference with his invasion but Stalin had read Mein Kampf and thus knew Russia was next on Hitler's agenda. Given the History of the Baltics and invaders of Russia, no Russia ruler could permit the Baltics to be be available as a base for such invaders. Thus Stalin did what Peter the Great had done, took over the Baltics in anticipation of a foreign invasion (in the case of Peter, from Sweden, in the case of Stalin from Germany).

My point is simple, Russia has no real desire to take over Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. Russia does NOT need to do so, Russia's is already the main trading partner for all three nations and that will continue for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, as part of NATO, Latvia and Estonia can be bases to attack Russia, and NO RUSSIAN RULER WILL PERMIT SUCH FORCES TO EXIST FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME IN THE BALTICS.

The RAND report is quite explicit, for NATO to effectively STOP any Russian Invasion of the Baltics, NATO has to have an Army Corp (About 100,000 men) in the Baltics. That same Corp will also be able to take St Petersburg in 72 hours. Thus the forces needed to prevent a Russia invasion of the Baltics are also the same force that can be used to march on St Petersburg and Moscow. That is unacceptable to Russia. What is acceptable is an independent Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania provided they are truly independent NOT extensions of Germany, Sweden, the US or even NATO.

It is the NATO membership that is the threat to Russia NOT Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania and what I have seen is no one on this board whats to address that problem. Keep NATO forces out of the Baltics, then there is no problem. Shifting NATO forces into and out of the Baltics is a problem for Russia that has to be addressed.

The problem right now is the US through NATO wants teach Russia a lesson, which is NOT to interfere with US intentions overseas. The US also wants to break up the growing relationship between Germany, Russia and China. Russia is the key to that relationship for Russia problems Natural Gas and oil to both countries AND provides a connection between China and Germany that takes half the time the a ship takes between the Germany and China (Thus Germany has provided NO troops to train with the Baltics and have come out against the movement of troops to the Baltics). You may not like it, but Latvia is pawn in that growing economic fight.

Latvia and Estonia have to learn to accept they are neighbors of Russia and Russia is the top dog in that pact. They have to work with Russia and that includes understanding Russians Concerns. Right now to many people want to use Russia as a weapon to get elected and attack anyone who points out those Russian Concerns and the need to address them. Unless those concerns are addressed someone is going to get burn and it will NOT be Russia.

[tavernier]

43. Don't worry

The Baltic nations already have a very clear understanding of Russian concerns. Your long explanations mean nothing to these nations that were trampled up by Russia who's intention it was to erase their history and language. Like the Black Plague, they spread and infested generations of Lets with their cruelty and dominance. It was with great shock that travelers returned to the Baltics following their newly regained independence. Beautiful cities were turned into pigstys, and the damage took years to clean up.

If NATO gives these countries some hope of a future free of these devils, I'm happy for them, but as you say, Russia can at minute reap destruction on the Baltics again. These are the loving neighbors that the Baltic nations have had to live beside for centuries.

[happyslug]

47. What are you talking about? Latvia was part of the Russian Empire from 1725 till 1918.

During that time period, they were permitted to retain their own language, customs, schools etc. In the 1880s Russia adopted a more Russification policy, but such policies were common in the late 1800s. It was still illegal to speak Gaelic in Ireland, Provencal was under attack in France, the Poles were under pressure to Speak German in Silesia etc. Nationalism was all the rage and lead to WWI and the breakup of the Austria-Hungary Empire and the Russian Empire.

While the Russians wanted everyone in Russia to be Russian, they knew that was impossible so the Russian efforts in the period up to WWI were the weakest in Europe. For this reason when Lenin took over Russia, he permitted various national state to be form within the Russia Empire (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan). For tactical purposes, Lenin also permitted Latvia, Lithuanian, Estonia and Finland to become independent states (this permitted Lenin to concentrate his forces on the "White" opposition to the Communists, yes it was NOT out of the goodness of Lenin's heart that he left them become independent byt military tactical consideration, the Whites were a much bigger threat to his rule). Technically Lenin and given the Baltic States to Germany in January 1918 when Lenin agreed to German terms for peace. In November 1918, Germany agreed to an armistice with the Western Allies, and in that agreement gave up all claims won since 1914, thus the Baltics were in limbo, no longer part of Russia nor part of Germany. The Baltics all declared independence which Lenin Recognized for Lenin was sill fighting the Whites in Russia Itself.

In the subsequent 20 years Latvia, Lithuanian, Estonia and Finland were independent, then Stalin took all but Finland over (and Finland and Stalin ended up making a deal in 1944 taking Finland out of WWII, thus maintaining Finland's independence but at the cost of being unable to join any alliance the Soviet Union would object to).

Having said the above, yes the Soviet Union treated the Baltic Nations terribly, but no worse then Russian Cities. Russia not only had to rebuild St Petersburgh (Formerly Leningrad), Kharkov, Volgograd (Formerly Stalingrad), and Kiev, Moscow itself had to be rebuilt for while never occupied by the Germans, the Germans did come within artillery range of Moscow. In Addition Moscow had to build up its forces do to reports of US plans to invade Russia (Patton was NOT the only General Advocating such an attack in 1945 AND rebuilt the cities of the Warsaw Pact. All of this with an economy 1/10th the size of the US economy at that time period.

You may not like it, but the Russians did a decent job of rebuilding their cities include Riga, the Capital of Latvia. Obviously you did not like how the Soviets did it, but most of the housing build by the Soviets are sill in use.

Now, the Russians wanted Latvia mostly for Riga and their Fleet and thus built it up. At the time of Latvia independence it was a Majority Russian city. 40% of the residents are still Russian. Most live in Soviet era built "Microdistricts" and I suspect that is why you are calling it a "pigstys". The "Microdistricts" were designed to have most services to a given population within walking distance of all residents of the "Microdistrict". Interesting concept the problem was making the concept work within the budget constraints of the Soviet Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdistrict

The biggest problem with the "Microdistrict" was to keep costs down, apartment buildings became the norm. To quite WIkipedia on the "Microdistricts"

In the mid-1950s, the problems of the urban planning were revisited by the authorities. The new urban planning concept was based on the concepts of residential districts (with 10,000–30,000 inhabitants each), consisting of several microdistricts (with 8,000–12,000 inhabitants each), which in their turn comprised several residential complexes (with 1,000–1,500 inhabitants each). In larger cities, residential districts were grouped into urban zones, the population of which could reach one million. Each microdistrict provided the population with facilities need on the daily basis, whereas services in lesser demand were available on the residential district level. This concept was backed up with reorganization of the Soviet construction industry—panel block apartment buildings became widespread as they allowed for fast, although often low-quality, construction, reduced costs, and economies of scale. The whole construction process was simplified and standardized, leading to erection of the rows and rows of faceless grey rectangular apartment buildings which are now prevalent in every city and town of the former Soviet Union countries.

Thus the problem with Latvian Cities pre 1991 was the same as any other Soviet Cities, few of any single homes but lots of apartment buildings built around local schools and other public buildings. You can tear down the individual buildings but the design of the area will remain for to eliminate a microdistrict means you have to move 8-12,000 people and then tear everything down at once. Given the problems in the Baltics in the 1990s and since 2000 that did not happen for they did not have the money or resources to do it. Replace the buildings, yes, replace the concept behind the microdistrict no.

As to pre Soviet buildings, the Soviet did make an effort to preserve them, such as in Riga. Riga is noted for its Art Nouveau architecture, built under Russian Imperial Rule, pre WWI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau_architecture_in_Riga

Stalin was a tyrant and did not care who he killed or what he had to do to stay in power. Almost all of the abuses you hear about from the Soviet Union can be traced to his rule. The number of people killed and exiled dropped like a rock after Stalin's death, for while the Soviets kept up its prison system, they sent less and less people to it after 1955. The lessening of terror also undermined the anti-Soviet Guerrilla in the Western Ukraine and the Baltic States so both tended to die out in the late 1950s.

All I am pointing out was Latvia was treated no differently then the rest of the Soviet Union under Stalin and post Stalin. Most of the housing in Latvia was built under the Russian Empire (200 years) or the Soviet Union (45 years, 1945 to 1990), not in Independent Latvia 1918-1940 and post 1991. The time period has been to short AND the shortage of money for improvements that was in short supply pre 1991 became worse post 1991. If you want to think it was all bad pre 1991, that is your choice, but you should look at the good sides of things at times, it is often an eye opener.

[tavernier]

49. I think you should look at the history

going back before 1725. Latvia has its own very rich and detailed history dating centuries back before the pillage and plunder of Russia, Germany and other invaders.

I've lived in Latvia, I know very well the politics and the history, and the tensions between the Latvians and Russians to this day.

[happyslug]

51. When you are the best rest stop in the area, expect to be used.

England boomed after 800, once it drove out the Vikings, for once Alfred the Great united England, he thought nothing of leaving the Vikings stop over in England on their way to other locations. England has always been the best rest stop between Scandinavia and the Mediterranean and most Vikings wanted to go to Constantinople to either trade (Constantinople was the largest City in the World from about 450 to 1204 thus it was the place to go to trade) OR join the Byzantine Army (Constantinople hired the Vikings as foot archers once Constantinople could not longer hire horse mounted Asiatic Archers they had been using since at least 500 AD).

Anyway, England remained the best rest stop between Scandinavia and the Mediterranean till the Byzantine Army was destroyed in the battle of Manzikert in 1071 (that defeat left Constantinople broke so they stopped hiring as many Scandinavians as they did before, killing off any hope of a Saxon retaking of England), The Scandinavians by 1071 always sworn their oath to the Emperor of Constantinople in English for England is where most of the troops had stopped over on their way to Constantinople.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

I bring up the England, for from 800 till about 1000, England was the best rest stop between various major powers. England itself was very weak, it was the Dark Age cold period and farming in England was marginal was marginal during that time period but England made the most of its position by making sure it neighbors needs were taken care of.

Latvia since about 1200 has been in a similar situation to England 800-1000, it is the best rest stop between any Baltic Sea power and Russia. As a rest stop Latvia has to understand it will be used by foreign powers but it better take care of its neighbors concerns first. England had to make sure Germany was protected, so England tried to direct Viking Raids elsewhere. Germany was the big power of the time period and England thus tried to direct the Vikings to Ireland, France or anywhere but the German Coast. Latvia has to adopt a similar policy, do not do anything that antagonize Russia and that includes leaving in NATO Troops.

The Problem with Latvia, Russia Baiting is sure vote getter, thus leaving in the NATO and US Troops is a sure vote getter. It will cause more harm then anything else but since you have a solid core of citizens who will vote on that issue alone, politicians will do it every time. I think it is dumb for it is provocative but until the 20-30 percent of the people living in Latvia who happen to be Russian not Latvian get the vote you will NOT see any improvement.

[Xolodno]

44. Meh...lot a of good points, but some will dismiss no matter what.

The propaganda notion of Putin wanting to rebuild the Soviet Union is rubbish.

Belarus actually asked to rejoin with Russia and was rebuffed. It was the Soviet Empire that brought itself down so why recreate a model of failure? Putin clearly stated that Ukraine and Georgia were red lines, why are we surprised then when he intervened? He was explicit.

The "hate Russia" memo being pushed by the originator of this thread and elsewhere has probably more to do with justifying increased military spending than anything else.

Side note, did you note the irony of your post? We have troops stationed there not to repel an invasion, but to give justification to be involved to protect Americans. Likewise, Putin's excuse has been to protect Russians.

[happyslug]

48. Countries always have troops ready to protect its Citizens, even if they do not want protection.

Hitler invaded Poland on the ground Polish Soldiers had cross the border an attack German civilians. Everyone knew it was a lie, but it was a good excuse so Hitler used it. That excuse has even been used when the people being "Protected" actually takes up arms against their "protectors". Remember it is an EXCUSE not a REASON. You go to war to gain something (or not to lose something) NOT to protect Citizens. Protection of Citizens is always an excuse rarely a reason.

[lanlady]

45. Belarus is a compliant Russian ally

Run by an old-school Bolshevik. If Putin wants to use Belarusian territory as launching pad to invade Lithuania, it will get no argument from Minsk.

[happyslug]

50. But Belarus is the Pinsk Marshes, which no one really wants to march through.

The Pinsk Marshes are the largest Swamps in Europe. Any invading army has to stay on the few roads or opt for cavalry that can go through the swamp. Armor has a tough time in those swamps, during WWII Germany kept its last horse mounted cavalry division in those swamps till the Russians drove them out and cut them off (The Germans then retreated to Latvia and Estonia AND Germany. In effect the Russians cut the German forces in two).

Do to Pinsk Marshes, while it is NOT impossible for Russian Forces to invade from Belarus, it is not easy. The best time to go through those marshes is during Winter, when it freezes over and you can go anywhere your want (Do to those swamps the general rule is to invade Russia during Winter, the rivers and swamps all freeze up and you have plenty of room to maneuver AND you do not have to worry about river crossings, for all of them are frozen, when Russia has been SUCCESSFULLY invaded it has been in Winter Campaigns, that is how the Mongols did it in 1237).

Furthermore, Putin has no plans on Lithuania. Putin's concerns is Estonia and Latvia. Estonia for it is less then a day's march from St Petersburg and Latvia for the City of Riga and its Harbor. Together, both can be used by a foreign power to support enough troops to attack Russia. Estonia, the land base, Riga the sea port to support such an invading Army.

Lithuania is relatively unimportant. Lithuania's ports are not the best and it is to far from the traditional invasion routes into Russia (the Pinsk Marshes come back into play).

[Bucky]

18. It's an exaggeration to say Trump is Putin's man, but he's an unreliable ally to NATO

If I was Poland or Turkey or a Balkan or Baltic state, I'd be pretty damned nervous. It's not that Russia might invade, but they have plenty of economic leverage they could use against their neighbors if they didn't have to worry about American support for Europe.

[christx30]

21. I don't think it's much of an exaggeration.

Last edited Thu Jul 21, 2016, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

He's been on record for a long time staring his admiration for Putin. He's stated he liked the Chinese's actions at Tiennamen Square. He likes strongmen.
And here's he's saying "hey, Vlad, if you want to take Estonia back, the US military under my watch won't stand in your way."
If trump gets elected, the Balkins are going to start getting very worried around January 21st.

[Botany]

20. Is Trump trying to lose?

I really think Trump never thought he get this far and is now trying to lose.

[LenaBaby61]

26. Is Trump trying to lose?

Hope so

[Cosmocat]

62. We seriously need to put this to rest

this notion of him "trying to lose."

Trump has made a living, a lot of money and lived a very glamorous life because he knows one thing - this country is fucking stupid.

He has run the same con, bilking stupid people his entire life, and his run for POTUS is simply his pentultimate con job (to get the job and finish his con at the highest level, with all the economic and military power of the US at his finger tips).

So, when he says $hit like this, he isn't' "trying to lose."

He knows this country is at a point where the more senseless and insane thing he says will be more well received.

[Journeyman]

22. Didn't Melania assert her parents taught her her word is her bond? She stole the idea, but . . .

it's a good way to live life.

Maybe the Republicans should write-in Melania for President. At least then, they'd get someone with ethics (questionable ethics, but ethics nonetheless).

[apcalc]

27. His supporters don't care what he says. He can say anything....

[Sunlei]

28. I think trumps decades of history of business deals with Russia's wealthy need investigating

How many young Russian girls (beauty contestants & models) traveled to New York City for those famous trump parties?

[olddad56]

31. is that a definite maybe, or just Trump being the asshole that he is.

[Ilsa]

34. And when on this subject, I think we should refer to her as "Sec. Clinton".

Not to be pompous, but exploit her experience.

[DonCoquixote]

52. Putin, in years hence

You will go down in history as the man that supported the right wing in the UK and trump, destroying both of your rivals. Trump has been worth every ruble you pay for him.

[Monk06]

55. An outright lie NAFTA has, is and always will be stacked against Canada and Mexico

The US uses the act to crush environmental regulations in Canada and helps private investors in the US to attack Canadian domestic environmental, safety and other forms of social legislation

The US made sure that NAFTA worked in it's favour from the very beginning

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

[Blue_Tires]

56. Naturally Greenwald bashed any Dem who dared criticize that comment

Yeah, keep telling me he's on our side...