Reassuring the Russians
Yesterday I mentioned that the US and Romania had reached an agreement on use of military bases near the Black Sea.
The Russians will certainly view this step eastwards with some nervousness. With the US already present in Central Asia, obviously in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Eastern Europe, Russia will feel like it is being hemmed in.
So, unsurprisingly, following yesterday's announcement there are reassurances being uttered.
In a somewhat related issue, but of a kind that we will see more of, a plan has been made public that would keep Russian troops in Moldova, just across the border from Romania. Having US and Russian troops in such close proximity would make for interesting times. Russia will get its fur up the closer the US gets to Russian soil, and will continue to develop what it considers to be defensive measures.
This is truly a historic change. The first steps away from a status quo that has existed since 1945.
President Basescu's remarks contain another detail that could be a harbinger for things to come. He said the Romanian-US deal was a "bilateral" agreement.
NATO has outlived its usefulness. It served its purpose in presenting a strong front to the Soviets, but with Europe now struggling with its own internal problems, and France and Germany in particular actively trying to form another pole of power as a check on American power, the United States might be better served to form bilateral relationships, especially with the Eastern European countries that are more pro-American.
There is no need to waste more American treasure on the defense of Europe. It's time to kick the deadbeat, surly teenager out of the house and force him to support himself. Relocating troops from Germany to Romania is part of that process, and another example of how 9/11 was a catalyst to take a long overdue look at our international relations.
The Russians will certainly view this step eastwards with some nervousness. With the US already present in Central Asia, obviously in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Eastern Europe, Russia will feel like it is being hemmed in.
So, unsurprisingly, following yesterday's announcement there are reassurances being uttered.
Romanian President, Traian Basescu, said late on Wednesday, at the end of a meeting of the Supreme Council of National Defence that no permanent military basis of NATO will be set up on Romania's soil.
"We tell the Romanian media that no permanent NATO bases are established (in Romania). We do not speak here about military facilities structures in the bilateral Romania-U.S. relationship. I should like to be very clear. Yesterday, with U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, no agreement was signed for the presence on NATO bases on the soil of our country, an agreement was signed instead on the presence of military facilities (in Romania) as part of the Romanian-U.S. bilateral links," stressed Basescu.
His reaction comes after Russian Defence Minister, Sergey Ivanov, said that Russia will withdraw from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, if NATO bases are established very close to the border of the Russian Federation, he added that Romania signed in Bucharest an Agreement on U.S. access to military facilities on its soil.
In a somewhat related issue, but of a kind that we will see more of, a plan has been made public that would keep Russian troops in Moldova, just across the border from Romania. Having US and Russian troops in such close proximity would make for interesting times. Russia will get its fur up the closer the US gets to Russian soil, and will continue to develop what it considers to be defensive measures.
This is truly a historic change. The first steps away from a status quo that has existed since 1945.
President Basescu's remarks contain another detail that could be a harbinger for things to come. He said the Romanian-US deal was a "bilateral" agreement.
NATO has outlived its usefulness. It served its purpose in presenting a strong front to the Soviets, but with Europe now struggling with its own internal problems, and France and Germany in particular actively trying to form another pole of power as a check on American power, the United States might be better served to form bilateral relationships, especially with the Eastern European countries that are more pro-American.
There is no need to waste more American treasure on the defense of Europe. It's time to kick the deadbeat, surly teenager out of the house and force him to support himself. Relocating troops from Germany to Romania is part of that process, and another example of how 9/11 was a catalyst to take a long overdue look at our international relations.
6 Comments:
At Thu Dec 08, 11:51:00 AM, Karlo said…
I sometimes get the feeling that America's unofficial policy is to simply keep troops everywhere as long as it can. I don't understand it either. Is America supposed to be protecting Germany?
At Thu Dec 08, 12:46:00 PM, jngriff said…
If it's acceptable to crosspost, here's an informed comment at the Gateway Pundit website:
---------
WhatDoIKnow said...
Anti-Americanism is generally not an issue in Romania, with some exceptions (often influenced by the Western-European media). After the Soviets established their bridgehead around 1945, the predominant motto was "the Americans will come!". Everybody was wondering when "will the Americans come" and save Romania from the Evil Empire. Countless Romanians died in prisons or fighting the Communists in the hope that the "Americans will come", eventually. Sixty years later, those simple words are still engraved in the minds of many Romanians.
The Romanian Foreign Minister Ungureanu in fact said: "the Americans are coming", just echoing what many people think. It's not the the life of the average Romanian will change because of that, it's simply a sense of closure and joy for many.
The problem is that the Romanian economy, even though improving, is still in rather bad shape. This can and most likely will create an increasing dependency on an EU which isn't all that happy to see Romania (and Poland) get too friendly with the US. We'll see how this plays out in the future.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/condi-signs-historic-pact-first-us.html
At Thu Dec 08, 02:54:00 PM, Jeff said…
I think we were there to protect Germany, and western Europe for both the cause of freedom and for less altruistic reasons. I mean, what would it do to our economy, to the world economy, if western Europe was overrun with Communists, and they performed for western Europe the same economic miracles that left eastern Europe a concrete wasteland.
It is in our interest to maintain free and open societies, and free and open markets.
Interesting comment, John, from GP. It will be fun to watch how France and Germany react to these kinds of developments, if the US grows more and more cozy with eastern Europe.
At Thu Dec 08, 09:38:00 PM, Karlo said…
Jeff! You're being sarcastic, right? About the over-run with Communism stuff.
At Thu Dec 08, 10:57:00 PM, Jeff said…
I meant a significant reason for staying in Germany was to prevent the Soviets from moving into western Europe, especially in the aftermath of WWII.
Even in 1945 there was a fear of Soviet aims. Churchill especially was fearful of Soviet designs in eastern Europe, and I think he was proved correct.
The "what if" I was referring to was what if the Soviets had taken control of western Europe as well, in, say, the late 40s or sometime in the 50s. What would those economies have become? I dare say, given the state of East Germany, and other eastern bloc nations, under the Soviets, western Europe would not have been an economic powerhouse.
At Fri Dec 09, 11:24:00 AM, Karlo said…
Oh, I see. I thought you meant that was why we were there now.
Post a Comment
<< Home