The breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s resulted in the Kaliningrad Oblast - named for its principal city, the former Konigsberg (and also includes Sovetsk, nee Tilsit, the birthplace of Steppenwolf's John Kay) - becoming geographically cut off from the rest of Russia.

There are many interesting possibilities here - including, one would suppose, its becoming "The New Israel" if the Arabs do succeed in destroying the existing state of Israel (perhaps following some negotiated surrender by Western appeasers, a la Munich).

In any event, we may be hearing quite a bit about this forgotten slice of Baltic real estate as the 4T grinds on.

I hope they rename it Königsberg, and drop the Commie appellation. As far as I know, Kalinin never even visited it.

Also, in this same general neighborhood, the Russian port of St. Petersburg was effectively "landlocked" when the Soviet Union broke up, as ships can no longer get out from there into the Baltic (and thence to the Atlantic) through the Gulf of Finland without encroaching on either Finnish or Estonian territorial waters (when Estonia was still part of the U.S.S.R., this was not an issue).

Maybe it's time to bring back the Hanseatic League!

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Also, in this same general neighborhood, the Russian port of St. Petersburg was effectively "landlocked" when the Soviet Union broke up, as ships can no longer get out from there into the Baltic (and thence to the Atlantic) through the Gulf of Finland without encroaching on either Finnish or Estonian territorial waters (when Estonia was still part of the U.S.S.R., this was not an issue).

Not exactly. Territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles from a coastline. The Gulf of Finland at its narrowest point is still about 50 miles wide.

Keep in mind that the Sovs and the Imperial Russians before them couldn't get out of the Baltic without going through Danish waters, and Denmark is a NATO member!

I obviously don't like the idea of militarization in my neighborhood, though one can never discount it, as Putin must continue his dick-waving contest with the Americans ...

Originally Posted by Uzi

Not exactly. Territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles from a coastline. The Gulf of Finland at its narrowest point is still about 50 miles wide.

Tell that to Iceland - who back in the '70s tried to claim exclusive fishing rights within a 200-mile radius of its shores.

Keep in mind that the Sovs and the Imperial Russians before them couldn't get out of the Baltic without going through Danish waters, and Denmark is a NATO member!

I obviously don't like the idea of militarization in my neighborhood, though one can never discount it, as Putin must continue his dick-waving contest with the Americans ...

NATO - which if you think about it is as anachronistic as, well, the Hanseatic League ...

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

NATO - which if you think about it is as anachronistic as, well, the Hanseatic League ...

NATO is far more relevant than a lot of organizations. Until the Europeans can get themselves a territorial defense force, it's the next best thing. We work here, travel here, go from state to state, but who defends it? Who provides the security? Officially, NATO does. NATO has nukes. You touch NATO territory, you (supposedly) die. The deterrence factor. I would prefer a territorial defense force though. That way the organization that followed NATO could do NATO's job (providing security for Europe) without getting involved in, say, nation building in Afghanistan.

And the Hanseatic League ain't dead yet. There's a restaurant here in Tallinn called Olde Hansa. They serve medieval food. It's interesting, to say the least.

Originally Posted by Uzi

NATO is far more relevant than a lot of organizations. Until the Europeans can get themselves a territorial defense force, it's the next best thing. We work here, travel here, go from state to state, but who defends it? Who provides the security? Officially, NATO does. NATO has nukes. You touch NATO territory, you (supposedly) die. The deterrence factor. I would prefer a territorial defense force though.

But as long as NATO is around to do the job for them, what reason do Europeans have for coming up with their own defense? They're certainly more than capable of doing it on their own, but why, when they get it for cheap from someone else?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

But as long as NATO is around to do the job for them, what reason do Europeans have for coming up with their own defense? They're certainly more than capable of doing it on their own, but why, when they get it for cheap from someone else?

I know. That's the whole essence of the question.

Originally Posted by Uzi

I know. That's the whole essence of the question.

The solution seems pretty straightforward. US out of NATO! (probably wouldn't be bad to re-name it, too)

Problem solved. I'll PM you my bank information so you can wire me my reward.

Europe and the US no longer share a commonality of military interests, especially when it comes to fighting Islamic extremism - something Europe is some combination of unready, unable and unwilling to do.

America's new military alliance needs to feature countries like Israel, India, and Serbia - all of whom share our goal of combatting jihadism (you can probably add others, such as Armenia, the Philippines, and any of several countries in Africa; and when the time is right, Russia and/or China will come around).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

...

America's new military alliance needs to feature countries like Israel, India, and Serbia - all of whom share our goal of combatting jihadism (you can probably add others, such as Armenia, the Philippines, and any of several countries in Africa; and when the time is right, Russia and/or China will come around).

We defintely need to try to work an alliance with India. Russia would be on my dream team, but so far I see no signs of Russia having an interest in an alliance. An alliance with China would be most intriguing, but there doesn't seem be be any interest in this from either side.

I remember reading in a book that it would be better for the countries that are right next to Russia not join NATO--or Russia will feel hemmed in.

Originally Posted by Adina

I remember reading in a book that it would be better for the countries that are right next to Russia not join NATO--or Russia will feel hemmed in.

And not only will Russia feel hemmed in (because Russia was told point blank it'll never be allowed to join NATO) Russia will turn off your gas (happened when I was in Wien--they turned off the Ukranian pipelines for Ukraine considering to join the EU). Another possibility is that the Nasci youth group will purposely crash your internet servers (Estonia), surround your embassy in Russia & protest (Estonia, Ukraine...), etc. Afterall, the Nascis are only out there to defend Russia & other countries from fascist influence.

Such things are common in Russia, from what I hear and read.

~Chas'88

Actually, I don't see NATO accepting any core Eastern European countries. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Croatia ... all those that were basically Western European to begin with ... yes. BTW, where does Hungary fit in this division? I'd say, European, hence a possible NATO member.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Actually, I don't see NATO accepting any core Eastern European countries. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Croatia ... all those that were basically Western European to begin with ... yes. BTW, where does Hungary fit in this division? I'd say, European, hence a possible NATO member.

It's part of the EU, but just hasn't switched over the euro yet. Last time I checked about 300 of their florients = 1 euro & 270 florients = 1 dollar. That was as of last May, when I was in Budapest.

What we call Eastern Europe, likes to see themselves as Central Europe, since after all, Eastern Europe is where the eastern border of Europe is: the Urals. It's like no one wants to count Russia as part of Europe.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

It's like no one wants to count Russia as part of Europe.

Least of all, Russians. They've been the buffer between Europe and China for more than a thousand years -- Maria Fyodorovna was one of a fairly long line of Russian leaders to speak and read fluent French, German, and Mandarin Chinese. As a buffer, they're neither one nor the other; though they have elements of both.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Least of all, Russians. They've been the buffer between Europe and China for more than a thousand years -- Maria Fyodorovna was one of a fairly long line of Russian leaders to speak and read fluent French, German, and Mandarin Chinese. As a buffer, they're neither one nor the other; though they have elements of both.

Russia has always fancied itself as the "Generation Jones" of Eurasia - one geographical foot in Europe and one in Asia, yet distinct from either.

This may have something to do with why Russia's international dialing code is "7" - instead of either the "3" or "4" of Europe, or the "8" of (East) Asia.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s resulted in the Kaliningrad Oblast - named for its principal city, the former Konigsberg (and also includes Sovetsk, nee Tilsit, the birthplace of Steppenwolf's John Kay) - becoming geographically cut off from the rest of Russia.

There are many interesting possibilities here - including, one would suppose, its becoming "The New Israel" if the Arabs do succeed in destroying the existing state of Israel (perhaps following some negotiated surrender by Western appeasers, a la Munich).

In any event, we may be hearing quite a bit about this forgotten slice of Baltic real estate as the 4T grinds on.

Laughable. Israel would never be destroyed, it simply has too much of an overwhelming military superiority plus American aid. If an Arab army does somehow get past the border expect a few cities of their respective home countries to disappear in a bright flash of light.

As for Kongisberg, if my bet comes true and World War 3 between America, rest of NATO, and India against Russia and China happens and the latter (almost certainly) is defeated Konigsberg may become an EU protectorate or part of Poland.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

Laughable. Israel would never be destroyed, it simply has too much of an overwhelming military superiority plus American aid. If an Arab army does somehow get past the border expect a few cities of their respective home countries to disappear in a bright flash of light.

As for Kongisberg, if my bet comes true and World War 3 between America, rest of NATO, and India against Russia and China happens and the latter (almost certainly) is defeated Konigsberg may become an EU protectorate or part of Poland.

But in war, as in football, statistics are for losers. It doesn't matter to the Arabs if 70 million of them have to die to drive the 7 million Jews out of Palestine.

Also, there are many scenarios under which the American aid rug could be pulled out from under Israel virtually overnight: Not only might left-wing appeasers do it, but there's no love for Jews among the paleoconservative teabagger types. And if that rug does get pulled, Israel is gonzo in like 24 hours.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But in war, as in football, statistics are for losers. It doesn't matter to the Arabs if 70 million of them have to die to drive the 7 million Jews out of Palestine.

Also, there are many scenarios under which the American aid rug could be pulled out from under Israel virtually overnight: Not only might left-wing appeasers do it, but there's no love for Jews among the paleoconservative teabagger types. And if that rug does get pulled, Israel is gonzo in like 24 hours.

You do realize that Israel /= Judaism?

That Jews lived in Palestine for many many hundreds of years alongside muslims (and christians) prior to the founding of the State of Israel?

That, while they have called for the end to the one-religion State of Israel, no palestinian organizaion (an no supporter of such) has ever called for an end to Judaism or to Jewish people?

Because from your ravings, it looks a whole lot like you don't...

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But in war, as in football, statistics are for losers. It doesn't matter to the Arabs if 70 million of them have to die to drive the 7 million Jews out of Palestine.

Also, there are many scenarios under which the American aid rug could be pulled out from under Israel virtually overnight: Not only might left-wing appeasers do it, but there's no love for Jews among the paleoconservative teabagger types. And if that rug does get pulled, Israel is gonzo in like 24 hours.

Pat Buchanan and his isolationist paleoconservatives are a dying breed plus those left-wingers opposed to Israel are in the extreme left. Most politically mainstream folks are pro-Israel.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

Pat Buchanan and his isolationist paleoconservatives are a dying breed plus those left-wingers opposed to Israel are in the extreme left. Most politically mainstream folks are pro-Israel.

Are you implying that the teabaggers are neoconservative?

Look at how little - if any - of their rage is focused on the "war on terror": How many signs have you seen at Tea Party rallies that read "Keep Gitmo Open" or "No Civilian Trials For Terrorists"? Yet there are placards trumpeting the "Fair Tax" and similar Social Darwinist nonsense at every one of their shindigs.

Indeed, this is just like Sherlock Holmes' famous "dog that didn't bark."

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Are you implying that the teabaggers are neoconservative?

Look at how little - if any - of their rage is focused on the "war on terror": How many signs have you seen at Tea Party rallies that read "Keep Gitmo Open" or "No Civilian Trials For Terrorists"? Yet there are placards trumpeting the "Fair Tax" and similar Social Darwinist nonsense at every one of their shindigs.

Indeed, this is just like Sherlock Holmes' famous "dog that didn't bark."

The teabaggers are mainly directed against the economic policies of President Obama. The most outspoken leaders of the teabaggers such as Beck, Levin, or Hanity are foreign policy hawks.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Europe and the US no longer share a commonality of military interests, especially when it comes to fighting Islamic extremism - something Europe is some combination of unready, unable and unwilling to do.

Europe is unwilling to fight Islamic extremism because basically, such a threat to Europe (or the United States) does not exist, nor did it exist. There is simply no reason for any of us to be in Afghanistan, for example. What Europe is willing to do, and in fact has to sooner or later if it does not wish to extinguish itself, is to stop and eventually turn around the politically imposed torrent of immigration from Africa and the Mideast, an immigration that of late has been partly fueled by US military interventions.
Problem is the political class and the monolithic mass media of Europe do not admit to this reality, since these entities have been groomed by post WWII anti-racism or have since decades been blackmailed into acquiescence through a culture of "antisemitism" labeling threats, not least courtesy by such organisations as the ADL or JDL etc. With freedom of speech thus obliterated in a most un-European fashion, what is needed to break the gridlock is revolution.

America's new military alliance needs to feature countries like Israel, India, and Serbia - all of whom share our goal of combatting jihadism (you can probably add others, such as Armenia, the Philippines, and any of several countries in Africa; and when the time is right, Russia and/or China will come around).

I'm sorry, but if you continue being friends with Israel after all it (or at least its dual citizen goons in the US) has done to you, be prepared to witness ever more countries in the world cease taking the United States seriously.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Europe is unwilling to fight Islamic extremism because basically, such a threat to Europe (or the United States) does not exist, nor did it exist.

I agree to some extent that what the US is fighting is mostly a phantom enemy based off of exaggerations of the remnant of the failed Islamicist movement that failed to take hold of Libya, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East in the 1990s & 2000s. They're a dying movement who having failed in trying to change their homelands have turned to being "pirates" against the US. In otherwords what the US is fighting are rogue elements of society that are fringes and aren't really that much of a threat if you see them for what they are. However if you believe the fantasized myth that the Neoconservatives would have you believe... they threaten to destroy all we hold sacred.

Problem is the political class and the monolithic mass media of Europe do not admit to this reality, since these entities have been groomed by post WWII anti-racism or have since decades been blackmailed into acquiescence through a culture of "antisemitism" labeling threats, not least courtesy by such organisations as the ADL or JDL etc. With freedom of speech thus obliterated in a most un-European fashion, what is needed to break the gridlock is revolution.

Glad to see some European feedback.

I'm sorry, but if you continue being friends with Israel after all it (or at least its dual citizen goons in the US) has done to you, be prepared to witness ever more countries in the world cease taking the United States seriously.

I think the Neoconservatives are more to "blame" in terms of the US but then again the Neoconservatives have in the past made friends & allies with Israel & the Religious Right...

~Chas'88