NATO Article V

Growing up in the Bush-era uber-hawkish US I've always more or less taken Article V of the NATO treaty for granted. When I first moved to Latvia in late 2013, I mostly dismissed people's fears a few months later that NATO would leave the Baltics high and dry if Russia ever decided to try pulling what it did in Crimea and has been doing in Eastern Ukraine. I more or less dismissed it as a perfectly rational fear based on decades of Soviet occupation but unrealistic due to Article V's very clear language. However, I was somewhat surprised to read an article a few days ago that featured a poll showing a majority of citizens in many NATO countries not supporting military action if there was a repeat of events in Ukraine in a NATO country, particularly Italy, France, and Germany. The article was here...

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/11/8764887/russia-nato-chart

...and the chart looks like this:

 

Now I feel like I was once again a naive American, and was interested in Considering that the majority of users here seem to be from one NATO country or another, I was curious to ask those of you who are: if push came to shove, would you honestly be in support of military action to defend the Baltics, and in which situations/to what extent?

What do the ethnic Russians who live in Latvia think of it all? Sure, if Russia launches a full-on invasion I'd support a NATO retaliation of some kind. But if the majority of Latvian Russians actually want their Mother Country to annexe their areas (which IMO seems like what's going on in eastern Ukraine), then I'd be much more hesitant

Those are just the results of a public opinion poll in each country, yes? Just food for thought, but I see the foreign policy positions/actions by the leaders of these nations as being at best only feebly influenced by public sentiment. Power does what power wants, It's all a bunch of politicking & warmongering, and let's not forget that it's in the best interest$ of the huge MI complex to keep everyone combat ready.

 

It's happened without fail throughout the course of history, when shit hits the fan at home (economically, socially), leaders will always take the opportunity to blame external entities for their failures.

 

That push comes to shove question is always a vexing one since on one hand I don't support military action at all (as I have no quarrel with the peoples of any of these countries), yet the civilized world can't just let nations go running amok like Nazi Germany did... that whole "they came for this group, and I did not speak, etc." thing. The game is all played at levels way above us anyway, so things are going to play out the way they will regardless of my support or lack thereof.

  On 6/15/2015 at 3:25 PM, Tricone RC said:

What do the ethnic Russians who live in Latvia think of it all? Sure, if Russia launches a full-on invasion I'd support a NATO retaliation of some kind. But if the majority of Latvian Russians actually want their Mother Country to annexe their areas (which IMO seems like what's going on in eastern Ukraine), then I'd be much more hesitant

 

It's a tricky subject. There's been no poll that's asked specifically whether ethnic Russians would support flat-out joining the Russian Federation, as I imagine no polling company would be interested in touching such an inflammatory subject. However there was a poll by SKDS done in 2014 that showed 54% of Latvian Russophones (37% of the population overall, not necessarily ethnically Russian) supported the annexation of Crimea. There was also an SKDS poll in 2014 that found 64% of ethnic minorities considered themselves "loyal to" or "affiliated with" Latvia as a state.

 

In my personal experience, there isn't significant ethnic tension nor serious talk of separation. I'm not friends with a significant amount of ethnic Russians (not out of any prejudice, just because I happen to work at mostly Latvian-speaking schools), but of those that I am friends with most have visited Russia at various points in their life and feel that although there is a connection in terms of language, they feel culturally different and would not want to live there (let alone have Latvia or parts of Latvia become annexed).

 

There are three major issues in terms of ethnicity and LV-RU politics in Latvia:

 

1. After Latvia was illegally invaded and annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 and 1944 (which the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union parliament formally apologized for in 1989 and then the Russian State Duma un-apologized for in 1999), Stalin's government arrested and deported over 57,000 ethnic Latvians to Sibera and other locations throughout the union as either slave labor or forced colonization attempts. Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians migrated to Latvia's cities during Soviet times due to the Latvia being a pretty good place to live and decent amounts of industrial jobs, with many never bothering to learn the Latvian language as Russian was the USSR's lingua franca. Riga (the capital city) is roughly 43% ethnic Russian (not counting other Russophones) and the second-largest city Daugavpils is over 53% ethnic Russian. With the exceptions of the cities of Daugavpils and Rezekne (46% Russian), most of the countryside population of Latgale (the eastern province that borders Russia and Belarus) speaks Latgalian, which is considered in Latgale to be a separate language but by the Latvian government to be an official dialect of Latvian. It was the only area of Latvia where a majority of voters were opposed to joining the EU (especially in the regions closest to Russia), but there has been no significant observable separatist sentiment or activity there. Even if there were, it would be concentrated in just a few cities and not throughout the rural areas which are almost entirely populated by ethnic Latvians (and Latgalians depending on if they personally consider themselves "Latvian").

 

2. Latvia developed an opt-in system when it came to citizenship following the re-establishment of independence in 1991. The government granted "citizen" status to everyone who was a citizen in 1940 as well as their descendants, and the status of "non-citizen" to people who immigrated between 1940-1991. All children of "non-citizens" born in Latvia can be granted the status of "citizen" upon request of one parent, and any non-citizen can become naturalized by passing a fairly basic Latvian language test, answering questions about the Latvian constitution and Latvian history, knowing the words to the national anthem, and not having committed any sort of treason previously. Over 135,000 people have gone through this process, but there remain 262,622 "non-citizens" who have chosen not to either on principle, because travel throughout the CIS states is easier for non-citizens, because of lack of Latvian language/history knowledge, or because they feel there's no particular need to. This issue has been seized upon not only by Russia and pro-Russia groups/political parties within Latvia, but also international groups like the UN and Amnesty International who equate this issue with statelessness, although "non-citizens" have all the same rights as citizens except for voting, holding public office, and the same pension rights. This issue is not as significant as it previously was as most "non-citizens" are from older generations who will eventually pass away, but there still are younger "non-citizens" of parents who chose not to opt their children in to citizenship and the issue does still come up from time to time.

 

3. Most ethnic Russians get their media directly from Russian outlets controlled by Putin and the oligarchs, and have opinions heavily informed by these sources. Latvia has been slow to develop home-grown Russian language media outlets, especially state-funded sources as a majority of Latvian voters have rejected Russian as an official language with the same status as Latvian in various referendums. The government even went as far as banning certain Russian television channels (as did Lithuania) for three months in 2014, with obviously disastrous results. More Latvian Russophone media sources have been developed in recent months, but many see this as too little too late and the threat of Russian propaganda will not disappear.

 

There are other issues such as the status of May 9th (celebrated as V-Day against the Nazis by ethnic Russians but denounced by ethnic Latvians as the re-establishment of occupation by Russia) and political parties following mainly ethnic and language-based lines, but those are the three main ones. I hope that wasn't too much useless information all at once...

 

  On 6/15/2015 at 4:06 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

Those are just the results of a public opinion poll in each country, yes? Just food for thought, but I see the foreign policy positions/actions by the leaders of these nations as being at best only feebly influenced by public sentiment.

I understand that, I'm just purely interested in public sentiment even though I'm fully aware that it has only a limited effect on actual foreign policy.

  On 6/15/2015 at 4:57 PM, Araungzeb said:

 

It's a tricky subject. There's been no poll that's asked specifically whether ethnic Russians would support flat-out joining the Russian Federation, as I imagine no polling company would be interested in touching such an inflammatory subject. However there was a poll by SKDS done in 2014 that showed 54% of Latvian Russophones (37% of the population overall, not necessarily ethnically Russian) supported the annexation of Crimea.

 

I think a lot of the Ukraine stuff is more complex than usually portrayed in the West. IMO it's more of a Northern Ireland style sectarian mess. I know a bunch of people from both ends of Ukraine, and a couple more who used to teach English in the east, so I think I have some limited insight

 

e.g. while Crimea was seized in a highly dubious fashion, the bulk of the locals probably did genuinely support it. Most Crimeans tended to see themselves as Russian, and Crimea was part of Russia until the 1950s, when Khrushchev arbitrarily switched it between the two SSR's. and I can understand the extreme alienation that Russian Ukrainians feel with their new government, esp re the occasional glorification of WWII Ukrainian partisans (some of whom were quite savage towards Russians) and the West Ukrainian desire to join the EU (eastern Ukraine has huge social ties with the adjacent bits of Russia, the border is pretty fluid, EU membership would drive a Schengen border between family and friends etc).

 

So while Putin's mafia government is, self-evidently, pretty dodgy (got plenty of stories from coworkers who have worked in Russia to back that up!), I do think that the Russian govt is genuinely acting in the interest of overseas Russians to some extent. In Ukraine TBH I think the best option is to cut the country in half, then the respective parts can associate how they like without pissing off too many of their own citizens

 

 

 

  Quote

Most ethnic Russians get their media directly from Russian outlets controlled by Putin and the oligarchs,

Yeah, Latvia seriously missed a trick by not trying to integrate its Russians. Domestic Russian-language media from the start would have been hugely helpful.

  On 6/15/2015 at 7:19 PM, Tricone RC said:

 

So while Putin's mafia government is, self-evidently, pretty dodgy (got plenty of stories from coworkers who have worked in Russia to back that up!), I do think that the Russian govt is genuinely acting in the interest of overseas Russians to some extent. In Ukraine TBH I think the best option is to cut the country in half, then the respective parts can associate how they like without pissing off too many of their own citizens

 

I understand this sentiment, but there are two problems.

 

1. Ethnicity =/= nation. Russia has no right to claim itself as protectorate of another nation's citizens just based on common ethnicity. Imagine if Turkey began "acting in the interest" of the over 110,000 Turks living in Russia?

 

2. The Russian government's treatment of their own country's minorities ranges from spotty (Chechens) to "like criminals" (homosexuals, political dissidents). Like the US tends to pick and choose with their condemnation of Middle-East despots (House of Saud=honored friends, al-Assad=war criminal), Russia seems to have suspiciously selective interest in their campaigns for minority rights.

  On 6/15/2015 at 8:05 PM, Araungzeb said:

 

 

I understand this sentiment, but there are two problems.

 

Oh I completely agree, in many ways Putin's Russia is fucking abhorrent, that should be obvious, I just think that the Ukraine mess has been portrayed in the West extremely oversimplistically as an invasion by a hostile power, whereas in reality it seems like many of the locals wanted and still want it to happen. That doesn't make it right, but IMO it does make it "less wrong"

 

And yep, the ethnicity vs nationality thing is a massive can of worms. I follow your viewpoint, but evidently around the world there are unfortunately huge numbers of people who are unable to distinguish between the two. Hence, wars etc.

Christianity's over

War is on the way

The Messiah is coming

Hip hip hooray

 

The mob will stir

cities will burn

Diseases spread

There is no bread

 

Bombs will fly

Orphans will cry

Get it into your head

You're dead

 

Utopian chaos

All against all

White race is done

Will be taking it up the bum

 

Lucifer giggles

Lucifer laughs

Lucifer admires himself

In the hall of mirrors

Edited June 16, 2015 by chunky

  On 6/15/2015 at 8:05 PM, Araungzeb said:

 

  On 6/15/2015 at 7:19 PM, Tricone RC said:

 

So while Putin's mafia government is, self-evidently, pretty dodgy (got plenty of stories from coworkers who have worked in Russia to back that up!), I do think that the Russian govt is genuinely acting in the interest of overseas Russians to some extent. In Ukraine TBH I think the best option is to cut the country in half, then the respective parts can associate how they like without pissing off too many of their own citizens

 

I understand this sentiment, but there are two problems.

 

1. Ethnicity =/= nation. Russia has no right to claim itself as protectorate of another nation's citizens just based on common ethnicity. Imagine if Turkey began "acting in the interest" of the over 110,000 Turks living in Russia?

 

2. The Russian government's treatment of their own country's minorities ranges from spotty (Chechens) to "like criminals" (homosexuals, political dissidents). Like the US tends to pick and choose with their condemnation of Middle-East despots (House of Saud=honored friends, al-Assad=war criminal), Russia seems to have suspiciously selective interest in their campaigns for minority rights.

 

 

if I was an eastern european I'd be much more concerned with another suspicious coup happening to supplant the government with a puppet pro US one than anything Russia is doing. NATO countries have essentially already been bought off by the US, so people living in those countries probably don't have much to worry about except for being used as a pawn (which could be painful) for a sequel to the Cold War. While what Putin is doing in Ukraine is inexcusable, it was NATOs ridiculously unnecessary expansions starting AFTEr the fall of the soviet union that created this situation to begin with (and thats not even taking into account that we propped up and funded the extremely corrupt Boris Yeltsin administration which directly lead to what's happening now in Putin's Russia). I have a lot of strong opinions on the general subject but I can't speak directly about what it's like to live over there.

Edited June 16, 2015 by John Ehrlichman

  On 6/16/2015 at 6:26 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 6/15/2015 at 8:05 PM, Araungzeb said:

 

  On 6/15/2015 at 7:19 PM, Tricone RC said:

 

So while Putin's mafia government is, self-evidently, pretty dodgy (got plenty of stories from coworkers who have worked in Russia to back that up!), I do think that the Russian govt is genuinely acting in the interest of overseas Russians to some extent. In Ukraine TBH I think the best option is to cut the country in half, then the respective parts can associate how they like without pissing off too many of their own citizens

 

I understand this sentiment, but there are two problems.

 

1. Ethnicity =/= nation. Russia has no right to claim itself as protectorate of another nation's citizens just based on common ethnicity. Imagine if Turkey began "acting in the interest" of the over 110,000 Turks living in Russia?

 

2. The Russian government's treatment of their own country's minorities ranges from spotty (Chechens) to "like criminals" (homosexuals, political dissidents). Like the US tends to pick and choose with their condemnation of Middle-East despots (House of Saud=honored friends, al-Assad=war criminal), Russia seems to have suspiciously selective interest in their campaigns for minority rights.

 

 

if I was an eastern european I'd be much more concerned with another suspicious coup happening to supplant the government with a puppet pro US one than anything Russia is doing. NATO countries have essentially already been bought off by the US, so people living in those countries probably don't have much to worry about except for being used as a pawn (which could be painful) for a sequel to the Cold War. While what Putin is doing in Ukraine is inexcusable, it was NATOs ridiculously unnecessary expansions starting AFTEr the fall of the soviet union that created this situation to begin with (and thats not even taking into account that we propped up and funded the extremely corrupt Boris Yeltsin administration which directly lead to what's happening now in Putin's Russia). I have a lot of strong opinions on the general subject but I can't speak directly about what it's like to live over there.

 

I understand this sentiment completely, and this was how I more or less felt about this subject originally. I am generally extremely skeptical/suspicious of the United States/NATO's intentions, and make no bones about many of their dubious to downright criminal historical and contemporary actions. I believe that the US and the West in general missed many opportunities throughout the 90s to invite Russia to more closely integrate with the West, and that the many hawks who proclaimed "Russia can never be trusted" might have been self-fulfilling prophets. In fact, the single issue that pushed me away from McCain to Obama at the end of the 2008 election was McCain's "when I look into Putin's eye, all I see are the letters KGB" tough talk that I believed had no place outside of the Cold War and would eventually lead to an unnecessarily bad situation between Russia and the West. I don't doubt that western governments could have had some hand in the Maiden protests, and I don't believe that the EU altruistically has the Ukrainian people's best interests at heart (especially when it comes to empty promises to supply gas alternatives). I even understand why Russia would have a legitimate fear of NATO expanding.

 

What you must keep in mind though is that there is a REASON why Warsaw countries are choosing to join NATO, and why they hardly see it as "unnecessary." After establishing independence from the Russian Empire (which invaded in 1710 and occupied parts or all of Latvia for 208 years) in November 1918, Russia has invaded Latvia no less than four times: December 1918 (occupied most of the country for two years during a war of independence), June 1940 (occupied the entire country until Germany invaded a year later), October 1944 (occupied the entire country for 46 years), and January 1991 (occupied parts of Riga for half a month). An easier way to put it: everyone in Latvia over the age of 25 has memories of the last time Latvia was invaded/occupied by Russia. I know many people who have mixed or negative feelings about joining the EU in 2004 or adopting the Euro last January, but I haven't met a single person who has complained about NATO membership (I know that of course they're out there, it just isn't a particularly widespread opinion). The only issue I regularly hear about regarding NATO is people worrying they wouldn't actually come to Latvia's aid (or not quickly enough) if there ever was a Ukraine-esque situation here. People see NATO more than anything else as a (theoretical) guarantee that Russia can never militarily violate Latvia's sovereignty again, and Ukraine as proof that these fears are in fact legitimate (not that NATO expansion caused the Ukraine situation in the first place).

 

It's perfectly rational for Russia to be worried about NATO expansion, but to dismiss it merely as a "western conspiracy" designed to weaken Russia turns a dishonestly blind eye to the long history that lead eastern European countries to want to join. It's as stupid as when the United States government claims that 9/11 happened because "terrorists hate Americans' freedom," not because of the laundry lists of manipulative and destructive foreign policy decisions that they made throughout the 20th Century that created an environment for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to flourish (obviously I'm not justifying 9/11). Russia has every right to protect its national interests, but violating its neighbor's sovereignty and stealing land 1800s-style is not a justifiable way to do so and won't make any nearby countries less eager to get NATO protection.

  On 6/16/2015 at 6:26 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

it was NATOs ridiculously unnecessary expansions starting AFTEr the fall of the soviet union that created this situation to begin with

 

NATO are no angels, but that's gobshite. The Baltics joined NATO for fear of more Russian invasions. If Russia were to step in genuinely on the side of some Russian minority in a Baltic state, then it would be slightly different, but like Ara says they have a long history of irredentism in the Baltics that has little to do with protecting minorities

  On 6/16/2015 at 11:05 AM, Araungzeb said:

 

  On 6/16/2015 at 6:26 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 6/15/2015 at 8:05 PM, Araungzeb said:

 

  On 6/15/2015 at 7:19 PM, Tricone RC said:

 

So while Putin's mafia government is, self-evidently, pretty dodgy (got plenty of stories from coworkers who have worked in Russia to back that up!), I do think that the Russian govt is genuinely acting in the interest of overseas Russians to some extent. In Ukraine TBH I think the best option is to cut the country in half, then the respective parts can associate how they like without pissing off too many of their own citizens

 

I understand this sentiment, but there are two problems.

 

1. Ethnicity =/= nation. Russia has no right to claim itself as protectorate of another nation's citizens just based on common ethnicity. Imagine if Turkey began "acting in the interest" of the over 110,000 Turks living in Russia?

 

2. The Russian government's treatment of their own country's minorities ranges from spotty (Chechens) to "like criminals" (homosexuals, political dissidents). Like the US tends to pick and choose with their condemnation of Middle-East despots (House of Saud=honored friends, al-Assad=war criminal), Russia seems to have suspiciously selective interest in their campaigns for minority rights.

 

 

if I was an eastern european I'd be much more concerned with another suspicious coup happening to supplant the government with a puppet pro US one than anything Russia is doing. NATO countries have essentially already been bought off by the US, so people living in those countries probably don't have much to worry about except for being used as a pawn (which could be painful) for a sequel to the Cold War. While what Putin is doing in Ukraine is inexcusable, it was NATOs ridiculously unnecessary expansions starting AFTEr the fall of the soviet union that created this situation to begin with (and thats not even taking into account that we propped up and funded the extremely corrupt Boris Yeltsin administration which directly lead to what's happening now in Putin's Russia). I have a lot of strong opinions on the general subject but I can't speak directly about what it's like to live over there.

 

I understand this sentiment completely, and this was how I more or less felt about this subject originally. I am generally extremely skeptical/suspicious of the United States/NATO's intentions, and make no bones about many of their dubious to downright criminal historical and contemporary actions. I believe that the US and the West in general missed many opportunities throughout the 90s to invite Russia to more closely integrate with the West, and that the many hawks who proclaimed "Russia can never be trusted" might have been self-fulfilling prophets. In fact, the single issue that pushed me away from McCain to Obama at the end of the 2008 election was McCain's "when I look into Putin's eye, all I see are the letters KGB" tough talk that I believed had no place outside of the Cold War and would eventually lead to an unnecessarily bad situation between Russia and the West. I don't doubt that western governments could have had some hand in the Maiden protests, and I don't believe that the EU altruistically has the Ukrainian people's best interests at heart (especially when it comes to empty promises to supply gas alternatives). I even understand why Russia would have a legitimate fear of NATO expanding.

 

What you must keep in mind though is that there is a REASON why Warsaw countries are choosing to join NATO, and why they hardly see it as "unnecessary." After establishing independence from the Russian Empire (which invaded in 1710 and occupied parts or all of Latvia for 208 years) in November 1918, Russia has invaded Latvia no less than four times: December 1918 (occupied most of the country for two years during a war of independence), June 1940 (occupied the entire country until Germany invaded a year later), October 1944 (occupied the entire country for 46 years), and January 1991 (occupied parts of Riga for half a month). An easier way to put it: everyone in Latvia over the age of 25 has memories of the last time Latvia was invaded/occupied by Russia. I know many people who have mixed or negative feelings about joining the EU in 2004 or adopting the Euro last January, but I haven't met a single person who has complained about NATO membership (I know that of course they're out there, it just isn't a particularly widespread opinion). The only issue I regularly hear about regarding NATO is people worrying they wouldn't actually come to Latvia's aid (or not quickly enough) if there ever was a Ukraine-esque situation here. People see NATO more than anything else as a (theoretical) guarantee that Russia can never militarily violate Latvia's sovereignty again, and Ukraine as proof that these fears are in fact legitimate (not that NATO expansion caused the Ukraine situation in the first place).

 

It's perfectly rational for Russia to be worried about NATO expansion, but to dismiss it merely as a "western conspiracy" designed to weaken Russia turns a dishonestly blind eye to the long history that lead eastern European countries to want to join. It's as stupid as when the United States government claims that 9/11 happened because "terrorists hate Americans' freedom," not because of the laundry lists of manipulative and destructive foreign policy decisions that they made throughout the 20th Century that created an environment for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to flourish (obviously I'm not justifying 9/11). Russia has every right to protect its national interests, but violating its neighbor's sovereignty and stealing land 1800s-style is not a justifiable way to do so and won't make any nearby countries less eager to get NATO protection.

 

your response was much more thoughtful than what i said. I've heard that people in Baltic states are opposed to both US state funded and Russian state funded media, almost like competing narratives, is that true? I guess this would really only apply to eastern european non Nato members though

  On 6/16/2015 at 6:02 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

your response was much more thoughtful than what i said. I've heard that people in Baltic states are opposed to both US state funded and Russian state funded media, almost like competing narratives, is that true? I guess this would really only apply to eastern european non Nato members though

 

People in general tend to be very cynical regarding all news sources and their true intentions/agendas in part due to the sheer amount of outright lies and nonsense that the Soviet press churned out for years and years, but most non-ethnic Russians here consider Kremlin-funded media a complete joke. The level of media skepticism here is much higher than it tends to be in the United States (thank goodness), but "skepticism" doesn't even apply to most Russian-origin media outside of their readership base.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Araungzeb

  On 6/15/2015 at 1:26 PM, Araungzeb said:

Growing up in the Bush-era uber-hawkish US I've always more or less taken Article V of the NATO treaty for granted. When I first moved to Latvia in late 2013, I mostly dismissed people's fears a few months later that NATO would leave the Baltics high and dry if Russia ever decided to try pulling what it did in Crimea and has been doing in Eastern Ukraine. I more or less dismissed it as a perfectly rational fear based on decades of Soviet occupation but unrealistic due to Article V's very clear language. However, I was somewhat surprised to read an article a few days ago that featured a poll showing a majority of citizens in many NATO countries not supporting military action if there was a repeat of events in Ukraine in a NATO country, particularly Italy, France, and Germany. The article was here...

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/11/8764887/russia-nato-chart

 

...and the chart looks like this:

 

 

Now I feel like I was once again a naive American, and was interested in Considering that the majority of users here seem to be from one NATO country or another, I was curious to ask those of you who are: if push came to shove, would you honestly be in support of military action to defend the Baltics, and in which situations/to what extent?

My also naive view would be that they wouldn't go to defend a 'fellow' NATO country by arms, simply to not perpetuate war.

Then thinking more deeply, the victors always benefit immensely and get to write a history book about it all, plus the 'fellow' NATO countries, one or two at least, might always be supplying arms for someone else.

It's a big, organised mess for sure.

 

 

Sent from a stolen mobile device

If Russia were to invade the Baltics, I'm sure Putin would not openly declare a war on the Baltics but would instead disguise everything to make it look like a civil war within the Baltics. I really hope the Article V would still hold in such a situation. But I think it is quite likely that the NATO countries would spend months arguing about whether there is Russian invasion going on or if it's just a civil war. And by the time they are done with arguing, the Baltic states don't exist anymore, so there is no country to defend with Article V.

  On 6/16/2015 at 9:26 PM, Araungzeb said:

 

  On 6/16/2015 at 6:02 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

your response was much more thoughtful than what i said. I've heard that people in Baltic states are opposed to both US state funded and Russian state funded media, almost like competing narratives, is that true? I guess this would really only apply to eastern european non Nato members though

 

People in general tend to be very cynical regarding all news sources and their true intentions/agendas in part due to the sheer amount of outright lies and nonsense that the Soviet press churned out for years and years, but most non-ethnic Russians here consider Kremlin-funded media a complete joke. The level of media skepticism here is much higher than it tends to be in the United States (thank goodness), but "skepticism" doesn't even apply to most Russian-origin media outside of their readership base.

 

interesting, i know a lot about the reach of Russian state funded media. The branch out here was directed at undermining the image of the United States and even though it only had one channel it pissed off our officials here so badly that the US congress voted to increase the US branch of state funded media (worldwide) 1/3rd more (to a total of 700+ million dollars).

 

I'm curious if you recognize this http://www.rferl.org/content/release-russian-language-tv-program-expands-to-latvia/26778315.html orthe term 'Radio Free' RFE / RFL or VOA

 

apparently this is our US state funded media channel being broadcast in Russian on Latvian television, are people there also skeptical of this? I'm assuming if its a known channel its included in the blanket skepticism people talk about. Its possible i misunderstood your meaning above and you actually meant that people are less skeptical of russian state funded media, sorry if i am confused

 

i guess what surprises me is that I didn't realize the US would even need to spend money to put out US state funded media content in a country like Latvia that is already in NATO.

Edited June 17, 2015 by John Ehrlichman

  On 6/17/2015 at 1:40 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

apparently this is our US state funded media channel being broadcast in Russian on Latvian television, are people there also skeptical of this? I'm assuming if its a known channel its included in the blanket skepticism people talk about. Its possible i misunderstood your meaning above and you actually meant that people are less skeptical of russian state funded media, sorry if i am confused

 

i guess what surprises me is that I didn't realize the US would even need to spend money to put out US state funded media content in a country like Latvia that is already in NATO.

 

 

Nope, you didn't misunderstand me at all, people are definitely MOST skeptical of Russian state-funded media (to the point that the word "skeptical" doesn't really apply anymore). And VOA/Radio Free Europe was set up in the early Cold War (1949 if I remember correctly) when there was a legitimate need for western news sources behind the Iron Curtain, as far as I understand it was generally respected (McCarthyists went after it for being to "soft on communism" despite the organization getting direct funding from the CIA) and well-listened to despite communist governments attempting to jam the signal at various times. Although it's still a significant force in the Middle East, funding cuts after the Cold War have rendered it almost a non-factor in the current "propaganda war" if you want to call it that, and I'm not aware of it having any significant audience in Russia (though someone might know more about this?). At least in Latvia, I would be surprised if most people even knew it existed, as almost everyone I know gets their news from either BBC World, CNN International, and domestic sources. Then again maybe everyone's secretly watching/listening to this and I just haven't been observant enough to notice.

 

Also, never under-estimate the United States' willingness and ability to spend money on stuff.

thanks for clarifying that, but have you heard of that specific TV channel i linked to above? I probably didn't emphasize it enough that it's a specific branch of Radio Free Europe broadcasting TV in Latvia in Russian. during the cold war of course there is an understood 'legitimacy' to the idea of US state funded media to break through the iron curtain, but i think the US knew that by making the content of these channels obvious propaganda they would lose credibility. Now after the cold war is over these channels focus in on real local/regional corruption in various countries they are broadcast in. So im curious why if Latvia is already in NATO the US would need to spend money broadcasting there, is there still a potential that Latvia could eventually bow out of NATO and therefore its NATO commitments? IF so could you help explain that, because i don't see how that's possible.

Edited June 17, 2015 by John Ehrlichman

  On 6/17/2015 at 6:38 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

thanks for clarifying that, but have you heard of that specific TV channel i linked to above? I probably didn't emphasize it enough that it's a specific branch of Radio Free Europe broadcasting TV in Latvia in Russian. during the cold war of course there is an understood 'legitimacy' to the idea of US state funded media to break through the iron curtain, but i think the US knew that by making the content of these channels obvious propaganda they would lose credibility. Now after the cold war is over these channels focus in on real local/regional corruption in various countries they are broadcast in. So im curious why if Latvia is already in NATO the US would need to spend money broadcasting there, is there still a potential that Latvia could eventually bow out of NATO and therefore its NATO commitments? IF so could you help explain that, because i don't see how that's possible.

Sorry, I realize now that I didn't really answer your specific question. I remember reading the articles about it back in October when it was announced and in January when it was launched. A little bit of background: the idea isn't to create an actual TV channel per-se, more of a programming block ala Adult Swim within Cartoon Network as the required funding for a 24/7 channel with questionable viewership numbers would be a hard idea to swallow for US Congress. As it stands though, "Настоящее время" (Russian for "Current Time") is just a 30-minute daily broadcast with a "week in review" edition on Saturday and a Sunday show along the lines of the American "Meet the Press" or "Face the Nation" programs (no idea what the British or other equivalents are, again ignorant American speaking) which is obviously laughable compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars Russia invest in "RT" alone. Congress' sentiment goes along the lines of "at least it's something," but there's increasingly serious talk of creating an American-funded RT-style Russian language channel even though there's little chance Russia would ever approve it for domestic broadcast.

 

Now to FINALLY answer your original question: Like I said earlier, media options for Russophones in Latvia are extremely limited and a wide majority of them are either outright funded by or significantly influenced by the Kremlin. It's a terrifying situation for the west (especially the Latvian government) that the same segment of the population that would be targeted for a Baltic repeat of events in Ukraine are getting most of their news from the exact people who would be responsible for creating such a situation. The Latvian government's clumsy policies so far (not recognizing Russian as an official language with the same status of Latvian, not bothering to significantly develop or fund Russian-language channels, temporarily banning Russian state-funded media) are mostly understandable and generally supported by the ethnic Latvian voting majority, but have only played into Kremlin propaganda's heavily exaggerated claims of ethnic discrimination. Настоящее время is an attempt to finally address this situation, but as the very few ethnically Russian friends I have are generally apathetic about these issues and I haven't been able to find any ratings or polling data, I have no idea to what extent (if any at all) it's made an impact.